Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by PJ on
“What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive”, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%, which is not statistically significant.” (Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med 2011; 19:316-34.) See: Denied, withheld, and uncollected evidence and unethical research cloud what really happened during three key trials of circumcision to protect men From the USAID report "LEVELS AND SPREAD OF HIV SEROPREVALENCE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS: EVIDENCE FROM NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS"- Findings from the 18 countries with data present a mixed picture of the association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence (Table 9.3) . . . In 10 of the countries—Cameroon, Guinea, Haiti, Lesotho, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe—HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men.” (page 109) See: The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 61% higher rate among females in the group where the men had been circumcised. See: Danish Study- Male circumcision leads to a bad sex life November 14, 2011 Circumcised men have more difficulties reaching orgasm, and their female partners experience more vaginal pains and an inferior sex life, a new study shows.