The researchers seem to be clear: “We strongly support universal circumcision of all HIV-men in SA, because it is known with certainty that circumcision biologically protects against HIV — based on three large well-conducted randomised controlled trials."
-
-
-
Well, the researchers are clear in what they believe; they aren’t clear in terms of critical thinking though; their position is super dogmatic. The RCTs did not test ‘biological’ protection & even if they had, clinical efficacy =/= real world effectiveness
-
Unless there's a biological, lab-tested proof that any part of the foreskin is more susceptible to HIV than all other parts of the penis, these studies can only be seen as affirming the local culture, which already had
#circumcision as a practice.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't the HIV epidemic in the US a "natural experiment" for that hypothesis?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If by claim, you mean “deliberate lie,” and by “wrong” you mean “despicably atrocious,” I’d say yes.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This article clearly shows that no matter the science the cutters plan to circumcise 2 million men and boys in So Africa. They believe 100% cutting prevents men from acquiring the Virus.
-
nobody believes that. goal is to diminish the virility of African men as a step to dealing with African population crisis.
-
Controlling population size is a worry as food and fresh water will be issues in coming decades.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.