Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 09-02-2002, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark_Chid:
It is not circumcision per se that is wrong, it is INFANT circumcision. The deliberate, irreversible mutilation of a healthy child for no good reason. It is child abuse and there is NO excuse for it, not even religion. You are taking away your child's right to choose for himself and thats plain WRONG.

You have a very strong opinion, so I'll tell you what: if you're cute and willing to be the mother to my son, I won't argue with you about it any more.

Rick

Ted Hoffman · 09-07-2002, 04:50 AM

Rbochnermd,
A total of 6821 (Ugandan) men aged 15-59 years were surveyed and venous blood samples were tested for HIV-1 and syphilis. Age at circumcision was dichotomized into men who were circumcised before or at age 12 years (prepubertal) and men circumcised after age 12 years (postpubertal). Postpubertal circumcised men were also subdivided into those reporting circumcision at ages 13-20 years and > or = 21 years. RESULTS: HIV-1 prevalence was 14.1% in uncircumcised men, compared with 16.2% for men circumcised at age > or = 21 years, 10.0% for men circumcised at age 13-20 years, and 6.9% in men circumcised at age < or = 12 years. On bivariate analysis, lower prevalence of HIV-1 associated with prepubertal circumcision was observed in all age, education, ethnic and religious groups...CONCLUSIONS: Prepubertal circumcision is associated with reduced HIV risk, whereas circumcision after age 20 years is not significantly protective against HIV-1 infection...

You can replace the word "circumcised" with "baptized" and "circumcision" with "baptism" above and we will still make the same wrong conclusions from the research.

As someone (one of last of the sane) argued earlier "correlation does not prove causation"

The fact is, having sex with a HIV infected person without having protection very likely results in HIV infection whether or not one is circumcised. Period.

So that research above is absolute hokum.

It is very misleading (I would use the word "absolute crap") to use a similar research to argue that circumcision is a way of protection from the HIV virus.

Mark_Chid has argued his point very trenchantly and I think he is 100% correct. Genital mutilation of infants in the name of protection from sexually transmitted virused is INSANE.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

One of the last sane · 09-07-2002, 06:06 AM

Quote:

It is not circumcision per se that is wrong, it is INFANT circumcision

Quote:

Unfortunately, whatever benefits circumcision offers is diminished if the procedure is delayed until adulthood

Seems to be there is a long gap between being an infant and being an adult. Years, in fact.

Dr Rick · 09-07-2002, 08:16 AM

*sigh*

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
You can replace the word "circumcised" with "baptized" and "circumcision" with "baptism" above and we will still make the same wrong conclusions from the research.

There is no evidence that Baptism protects against HIV aquisition:

"On bivariate analysis, lower prevalence of HIV-1 associated with prepubertal circumcision was observed in all age, education, ethnic and religious groups".

What this means is that careful statistical analysis in this, as in other studies has shown that circumcision protects against HIV aquisition independently of religious status or other potentially confounding variables.

Statisticians, doctors, and epidiemiologists aren't all that stupid; the possibility that something other than circumcision was responsible for the observed differences has been considered. The studies were performed and analyzed in such a way as to preclude confoundment from other variables.

Quote:

As someone (one of last of the sane) argued earlier "correlation does not prove causation"

One would be just as wrong making the same argument against the relationships between obesity and heart disease and tobacco and lung cancer. In these cases, as with circumcision and HIV aquisition, the obervations have been shown to be more than mere coincidence.

Quote:

The fact is, having sex with a HIV infected person without having protection very likely results in HIV infection whether or not one is circumcised. Period.

The risk of HIV aquisition from an HIV+ partner is more likely if the male is intact.

Rick

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Ted Hoffman · 09-07-2002, 08:53 AM

*sigh, oh sigh*
Rbochnermd

There is no evidence that Baptism protects against HIV aquisition

There is no evidence that circumcision protects against HIV aquisition.

Statisticians, doctors, and epidiemiologists aren't all that stupid; the possibility that something other than circumcision was responsible for the observed differences has been considered. The studies were performed and analyzed in such a way as to preclude confoundment from other variables.

Then why hasnt circumcision been proposed as a preventitive measure against HIV infection by these said Statisticians, doctors, and epidiemiologists?

Maybe the research was not wholly conclusive?

One would be just as wrong making the same argument against the relationships between obesity and heart disease and tobacco and lung cancer. In these cases, as with circumcision and HIV aquisition, the obervations have been shown to be more than mere coincidence.

False analogy there are clear explanations how obesity increases one's chances of heart disease.
Is there a clear explanation about how the presence of the foreskin makes one prone to HIV infection when one does not have sex with HIV infected women?

Males who have sex with HIV onfected women (and men) expose themselves to HIV infection, foreskin or no foreskin.

Can those statistics tell us "hey six people had sex with HIV-infected women and all the ones that were circumcised did not get the virus but the rest of them who were uncircumcised got it" if they could, then we would have a case.

At the moment, we dont.

The risk of HIV aquisition from an HIV+ partner is more likely if the male is intact.

So you say Rick, so you say. Repeating it sixteen times wont make it true remember?
If you can get a clear research supported by scientific explanations (not just statistical analysis), then we will have something to consider.
You still don't, thats why you find yourself forced to resort to argumentum ad nauseum.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Jesse · 09-07-2002, 09:12 AM

Intensity:
False analogy there are clear explanations how obesity increases one's chances of heart disease.
Is there a clear explanation about how the presence of the foreskin makes one prone to HIV infection when one does not have sex with HIV infected women?

Males who have sex with HIV onfected women (and men) expose themselves to HIV infection, foreskin or no foreskin.

Actually I believe the chances of a man getting HIV from an infected woman are pretty low, at least for a single sexual encounter...I don't know the actual numbers though. Presumably the "clear explanation" for why this risk would be higher in uncircumcised males is just that the glans is a mucus membrane which is easier for the virus to get through, while on circumcised males it has become keratinized.

Ted Hoffman · 09-07-2002, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesse:
Intensity:
Actually I believe the chances of a man getting HIV from an infected woman are pretty low, at least for a single sexual encounter...I don't know the actual numbers though. Presumably the "clear explanation" for why this risk would be higher in uncircumcised males is just that the glans is a mucus membrane which is easier for the virus to get through, while on circumcised males it has become keratinized.

This is just an assumption. Diring sex, a lot of lubrication is applied and with the rogour of sex, any dead foreskin at the tip of the glans is washed off. That the glans is less sensitive (a function of the nerve-endings) does not necessarily mean the glans has a tougher skin. Dead cells dont constitute tough skin.

Dr Rick · 09-07-2002, 10:35 AM

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

Amen-Moses · 09-07-2002, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:
[QB]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a clear explanation about how the presence of the foreskin makes one prone to HIV infection when one does not have sex with HIV infected women?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, there are several, and they've posted on this and the older circumcision thread ad nauseum

.....

It's kinda' sad they way some people just post replies without understanding the data and subject matter.

Ouch!

Pot, Kettle, Black?

Amen-Moses

Hey, no fair, you edited the funny bit out whilst I was posting! Originally you said "without reading the thread"!

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]

Dr Rick · 09-07-2002, 10:47 AM

...Well, you caught me: I didn't read the question carefully and so responded as if it actually made some sense.

Damn, you're quick; thanks for catching my error so I could fix it before I leave for Denver.

Rick

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]

09-07-2002, 04:50 AM	#142
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Rbochnermd, A total of 6821 (Ugandan) men aged 15-59 years were surveyed and venous blood samples were tested for HIV-1 and syphilis. Age at circumcision was dichotomized into men who were circumcised before or at age 12 years (prepubertal) and men circumcised after age 12 years (postpubertal). Postpubertal circumcised men were also subdivided into those reporting circumcision at ages 13-20 years and > or = 21 years. RESULTS: HIV-1 prevalence was 14.1% in uncircumcised men, compared with 16.2% for men circumcised at age > or = 21 years, 10.0% for men circumcised at age 13-20 years, and 6.9% in men circumcised at age < or = 12 years. On bivariate analysis, lower prevalence of HIV-1 associated with prepubertal circumcision was observed in all age, education, ethnic and religious groups...CONCLUSIONS: Prepubertal circumcision is associated with reduced HIV risk, whereas circumcision after age 20 years is not significantly protective against HIV-1 infection... You can replace the word "circumcised" with "baptized" and "circumcision" with "baptism" above and we will still make the same wrong conclusions from the research. As someone (one of last of the sane) argued earlier "correlation does not prove causation" The fact is, having sex with a HIV infected person without having protection very likely results in HIV infection whether or not one is circumcised. Period. So that research above is absolute hokum. It is very misleading (I would use the word "absolute crap") to use a similar research to argue that circumcision is a way of protection from the HIV virus. Mark_Chid has argued his point very trenchantly and I think he is 100% correct. Genital mutilation of infants in the name of protection from sexually transmitted virused is INSANE. [ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

09-07-2002, 08:53 AM	#145
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	sigh, oh sigh Rbochnermd There is no evidence that Baptism protects against HIV aquisition There is no evidence that circumcision protects against HIV aquisition. Statisticians, doctors, and epidiemiologists aren't all that stupid; the possibility that something other than circumcision was responsible for the observed differences has been considered. The studies were performed and analyzed in such a way as to preclude confoundment from other variables. Then why hasnt circumcision been proposed as a preventitive measure against HIV infection by these said Statisticians, doctors, and epidiemiologists? Maybe the research was not wholly conclusive? One would be just as wrong making the same argument against the relationships between obesity and heart disease and tobacco and lung cancer. In these cases, as with circumcision and HIV aquisition, the obervations have been shown to be more than mere coincidence. False analogy there are clear explanations how obesity increases one's chances of heart disease. Is there a clear explanation about how the presence of the foreskin makes one prone to HIV infection when one does not have sex with HIV infected women? Males who have sex with HIV onfected women (and men) expose themselves to HIV infection, foreskin or no foreskin. Can those statistics tell us "hey six people had sex with HIV-infected women and all the ones that were circumcised did not get the virus but the rest of them who were uncircumcised got it" if they could, then we would have a case. At the moment, we dont. The risk of HIV aquisition from an HIV+ partner is more likely if the male is intact. So you say Rick, so you say. Repeating it sixteen times wont make it true remember? If you can get a clear research supported by scientific explanations (not just statistical analysis), then we will have something to consider. You still don't, thats why you find yourself forced to resort to argumentum ad nauseum. [ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

09-07-2002, 10:35 AM	#148
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

09-07-2002, 10:47 AM	#150
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	...Well, you caught me: I didn't read the question carefully and so responded as if it actually made some sense. Damn, you're quick; thanks for catching my error so I could fix it before I leave for Denver. Rick [ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-07-2002, 09:12 AM	#146
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	Intensity: False analogy there are clear explanations how obesity increases one's chances of heart disease. Is there a clear explanation about how the presence of the foreskin makes one prone to HIV infection when one does not have sex with HIV infected women? Males who have sex with HIV onfected women (and men) expose themselves to HIV infection, foreskin or no foreskin. Actually I believe the chances of a man getting HIV from an infected woman are pretty low, at least for a single sexual encounter...I don't know the actual numbers though. Presumably the "clear explanation" for why this risk would be higher in uncircumcised males is just that the glans is a mucus membrane which is easier for the virus to get through, while on circumcised males it has become keratinized.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.