Home
Debunking Cultural Myths
Share
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mailMade Popular Oct 1 2008
Kenya :
Something very interesting happened two weeks ago. It all started with Raila Odinga – a true man of the people and a true son of the soil (one who has proven beyond any shadow of doubt that he is ready to take the mantle of leadership come 2012 and...
Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
RSS 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/science/23hiv.html (and many other souces)
”Circumcision may provide even more protection against AIDS than was realized when two clinical trials in Africa were stopped two months ago because the results were so clear, according to studies being published today.”
also:
”A review of 13 surveys in different African communities published last year in the journal AIDS and Behavior found that 29 percent to 87 percent of uncircumcised men said they would be willing to be circumcised if it protected them against AIDS.”
Note this says MEN. The circumcisions of females is WRONG. There is NO medical basis for this, it is pure mutilation for reasons or superstition (which I am well aware is alive and very well across Africa).
”Circumcision may provide even more protection against AIDS than was realized when two clinical trials in Africa were stopped two months ago because the results were so clear, according to studies being published today.”
also:
”A review of 13 surveys in different African communities published last year in the journal AIDS and Behavior found that 29 percent to 87 percent of uncircumcised men said they would be willing to be circumcised if it protected them against AIDS.”
Note this says MEN. The circumcisions of females is WRONG. There is NO medical basis for this, it is pure mutilation for reasons or superstition (which I am well aware is alive and very well across Africa).
(Global Perspectives)
two clinical trials in Africa were stopped two months ago because the results were so clear
The stoppage of these studies and the interpretation of its data appear more of quackery than science. It is fraudulent to stop a study because evidence at that point is favorable to some predetermined outcome.
It is akin to starting Asafa Powell and Usain Bolt in a 100 meter dash and stopping the race at the 60 meter point because it ”is so clear” who has won!
29 percent to 87 percent of uncircumcised men said they would be willing to be circumcised if it protected them against AIDS
The 29-87 range is meaningless. 29% (minority) in one country and 87% (majority) in another? Meaning? Both the minority and the majority would be willing to be circumcised?
Does it also mean 71% in one place and 13% in another would not want protection against AIDS? Or does it mean (as is likely but not being said) that these are those who do not believe that circumcision provides protection against AIDS?
The circumcisions of females is WRONG. There is NO medical basis for this, it is pure mutilation for reasons or superstition (which I am well aware is alive and very well across Africa)
Why is the circumcision of females wrong while that of males is right? What is the medical basis for the circumcision of males?
The superstitions surrounding circumcision are not confined to Africa. But this, almost pathological, obsession of ascribing all manner of evil to the ”dark” continent has no end in sight. Even the World Health Organization has now joined in the insidious blame by announcing that the previously imminent worldwide AIDS pandemic catastrophe will in fact not happen... except in Africa!
Science or extreme prejudice?
(Local Perspectives)
you are very good at poking questionable holes in BBC and other reportage, how about providing some backup for your own unsupported position?
We can even go further back:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Science/2001/08/article8.shtml :
”In 1989, a joint Canadian-Kenyan medical research team at Kenyatta Medical School in Nairobi reported that during the previous year, the AIDS rate was higher among Luo migrants from Western Kenya than among the Kikuyu of Central Kenya. The uncircumcised Luo men were more likely to have syphilis or chancroids - a sexually transmitted disease characterized by soft sores in the private area. They also had an unexpected elevated risk of contracting HIV (Caldwell, p.41).”
So, male circumcision has been proven to reduce the risk of transmission of Aids, this is now evident.
Africa the Dark Continent? Not my words. Circumcision was certainly wrongly blanket practised in the West since the since before the last century and still is in some western countries. The reason that its prescription was wrong is because it was believed to discourage masturbation and also to aid penile cleanliness (when in fact the former worry was based on a British Victorian obsession with the darker side of sex, and only proper health education can do the latter). Try to do some research before you play the race card. I believe that the prejudice is solely yours.
We can even go further back:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Science/2001/08/article8.shtml :
”In 1989, a joint Canadian-Kenyan medical research team at Kenyatta Medical School in Nairobi reported that during the previous year, the AIDS rate was higher among Luo migrants from Western Kenya than among the Kikuyu of Central Kenya. The uncircumcised Luo men were more likely to have syphilis or chancroids - a sexually transmitted disease characterized by soft sores in the private area. They also had an unexpected elevated risk of contracting HIV (Caldwell, p.41).”
So, male circumcision has been proven to reduce the risk of transmission of Aids, this is now evident.
Africa the Dark Continent? Not my words. Circumcision was certainly wrongly blanket practised in the West since the since before the last century and still is in some western countries. The reason that its prescription was wrong is because it was believed to discourage masturbation and also to aid penile cleanliness (when in fact the former worry was based on a British Victorian obsession with the darker side of sex, and only proper health education can do the latter). Try to do some research before you play the race card. I believe that the prejudice is solely yours.
(Global Perspectives)
Here is a review of studies on the subject. It concludes that recommending circumcision as a measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded. It has some 79 links to various studies which I encourage you to follow up.
Also visit the British Medical Journal Site and read the responses to Szabo and Short whose paper seems to have informed the article on Islamonline that you quote.
I have read all the cross references I’m giving you above and more. I’m looking forward to see if you will also find these to be ”poking questionable holes”.
I have also read the study by Bailey, Achola and Agot that is now being touted in western Kenya as proof/evidence. The design of the study aside, it finds that amongst the people they observed and found to be infected, the number of circumcised was 60% less than the uncircumcised. Is it sensible to therefore infer that circumcision gives one 60% protection against HIV infection? Or that one’s risk of infection is reduced by 60%? Is this the proof/evidence?
Also visit the British Medical Journal Site and read the responses to Szabo and Short whose paper seems to have informed the article on Islamonline that you quote.
I have read all the cross references I’m giving you above and more. I’m looking forward to see if you will also find these to be ”poking questionable holes”.
I have also read the study by Bailey, Achola and Agot that is now being touted in western Kenya as proof/evidence. The design of the study aside, it finds that amongst the people they observed and found to be infected, the number of circumcised was 60% less than the uncircumcised. Is it sensible to therefore infer that circumcision gives one 60% protection against HIV infection? Or that one’s risk of infection is reduced by 60%? Is this the proof/evidence?
(Local Perspectives)
Thank you for providing a reference.
To use your own methodology I could quote several passages from the article.
”What consistently appears throughout all of these studies is the strong correlation between genital ulcer disease and HIV infection. There is also a correlation between genital ulcer disease and the foreskin in many of the studies. However, when multivariate analysis was performed on several of the studies, the foreskin as a factor was no longer significant12,13, suggesting that the genital ulcer disease rather than the foreskin facilitated the transmission of HIV.”
Multivariate statistics equates to strong massaging of relatively clear survey results to bear out a wish to disprove those survey results. If one throws in enough variables one can disprove almost anything. Strong correlations clearly existed. The paper you are quoting is littered with perhaps’es and if’s and suggesting’s, but I agree it does try to be balanced.
The author further on in the paper states that genital ulcers correlate strongly with the contracting of HIV, and genital ulcers are more prevalent in uncircumcised men (see below).
Moving on, grasping at straws: ’a selection bias may have resulted from a disproportionate number of circumcised men being lost to follow-up’. Well, maybe ’the strange case of the disappearing circumcised men’ (perhaps they went to look for their foreskins).
The author presents further health benefits to circumcision, can you overlook : ’In a study in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, of men diagnosed with tuberculosis, lack of circumcision was found to be a significant risk factor’?
I fail to understand the statement ’non-circumcised men were more likely to contract HIV if they were in the minority. However, if non-circumcised men were in the majority, the presence of the foreskin was not a risk factor. Minority groups are often at higher risk for disease because of economic disadvantages and increased exposure.’ Non-circumcised men can form a disadvantaged minority ’group’, whereas any minoroty of circumcised men cannot? Strange.
The report even admits when considering the lack of cohesion between results of the various surveys undertaken: ’This strongly suggests that other factors associated with the foreskin, rather than the foreskin itself, are responsible for the acquisition and spread of HIV.’ the author is admitting a ’strong suggestion’ that the foreskin is associated with the spreading of the HIV virus (even if not directly responsible).
In the section ’coherence’ the author states that circumcised men are more likely to visit the doctor with a genital discharge (early indicator) whereas uncircumcised men are more likely to present with genital ulceration. Genital ulceration increases the risk of HIV infection. Yet another vote for circumcision. He suggests that uncircumcised men form an underprivileged underclass, however I have understood that tribal/religious circumcision is prevalent still across Africa (http://www.africanvoices.co.za/culture/circumcision.htm). What has this to do with some richer/poorer explanation for an uncircumcised underclass?
’Recent studies, in which the raw numbers suggest circumcised men to be at greater risk for HIV infection have found that circumcised men have more sexual partners. When corrected for number of partners, the foreskin was found to increase the likelihood of HIV infection.’
I am afraid that I am going to leave this discussion unfinished (I am sure you are keen to reply) as I really don’t have time to delve deeper into this academically, but I am still hopeful that you might agree that circumcision has been proven to have clear health benefits for men (whether through ’directly’ reducing the risk of contracting HIV or not). Whether they are great enough to make a case for enforced circumcision I am not qualified to judge. By the way, I am not circumcised but do not engage in sexual practises which would leave me at risk of contracting HIV or any other STD, and have a strict health regimen. Not all men can say the same, on any Continent (I am certainly not ’anti-Africa’).
To use your own methodology I could quote several passages from the article.
”What consistently appears throughout all of these studies is the strong correlation between genital ulcer disease and HIV infection. There is also a correlation between genital ulcer disease and the foreskin in many of the studies. However, when multivariate analysis was performed on several of the studies, the foreskin as a factor was no longer significant12,13, suggesting that the genital ulcer disease rather than the foreskin facilitated the transmission of HIV.”
Multivariate statistics equates to strong massaging of relatively clear survey results to bear out a wish to disprove those survey results. If one throws in enough variables one can disprove almost anything. Strong correlations clearly existed. The paper you are quoting is littered with perhaps’es and if’s and suggesting’s, but I agree it does try to be balanced.
The author further on in the paper states that genital ulcers correlate strongly with the contracting of HIV, and genital ulcers are more prevalent in uncircumcised men (see below).
Moving on, grasping at straws: ’a selection bias may have resulted from a disproportionate number of circumcised men being lost to follow-up’. Well, maybe ’the strange case of the disappearing circumcised men’ (perhaps they went to look for their foreskins).
The author presents further health benefits to circumcision, can you overlook : ’In a study in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, of men diagnosed with tuberculosis, lack of circumcision was found to be a significant risk factor’?
I fail to understand the statement ’non-circumcised men were more likely to contract HIV if they were in the minority. However, if non-circumcised men were in the majority, the presence of the foreskin was not a risk factor. Minority groups are often at higher risk for disease because of economic disadvantages and increased exposure.’ Non-circumcised men can form a disadvantaged minority ’group’, whereas any minoroty of circumcised men cannot? Strange.
The report even admits when considering the lack of cohesion between results of the various surveys undertaken: ’This strongly suggests that other factors associated with the foreskin, rather than the foreskin itself, are responsible for the acquisition and spread of HIV.’ the author is admitting a ’strong suggestion’ that the foreskin is associated with the spreading of the HIV virus (even if not directly responsible).
In the section ’coherence’ the author states that circumcised men are more likely to visit the doctor with a genital discharge (early indicator) whereas uncircumcised men are more likely to present with genital ulceration. Genital ulceration increases the risk of HIV infection. Yet another vote for circumcision. He suggests that uncircumcised men form an underprivileged underclass, however I have understood that tribal/religious circumcision is prevalent still across Africa (http://www.africanvoices.co.za/culture/circumcision.htm). What has this to do with some richer/poorer explanation for an uncircumcised underclass?
’Recent studies, in which the raw numbers suggest circumcised men to be at greater risk for HIV infection have found that circumcised men have more sexual partners. When corrected for number of partners, the foreskin was found to increase the likelihood of HIV infection.’
I am afraid that I am going to leave this discussion unfinished (I am sure you are keen to reply) as I really don’t have time to delve deeper into this academically, but I am still hopeful that you might agree that circumcision has been proven to have clear health benefits for men (whether through ’directly’ reducing the risk of contracting HIV or not). Whether they are great enough to make a case for enforced circumcision I am not qualified to judge. By the way, I am not circumcised but do not engage in sexual practises which would leave me at risk of contracting HIV or any other STD, and have a strict health regimen. Not all men can say the same, on any Continent (I am certainly not ’anti-Africa’).
(Global Perspectives)
Add your Comment
Even as the writer conveniently refuses to debate the declaration, it is well known that no research has proved such a thing. It is deceitful to manipulate data, misinterpret it and misrepresent the same as scientific proof. To then hail the same as befitting a cultural revolution is clearly delusional.
Very sound sentiments these, but completely misplaced with regard to circumcision. Conveniently again, the writer has not (probably cannot) suggest how the practice is ”helpful to human progress and experience”. Or why the Luo, Raila’s people(!), need to be liberated from their foreskins.
What about, say, the many Asians or Europeans or Americans? Are they, because of their foreskin, less progressive with lesser experience?
I’m supremely mortified that anyone can suggest that
Quite silly I think.