(well, no one who actually understands the flaws of the RCTs upon which this hypothesis was based), the data collected did NOT support the hypothesis. #i2
-
-
Show this thread
-
In fact, "HIV prevalence was [16%] among those who reported an initiation-based circumcision, [24%] among those who did not report circumcision and highest [31%] among those who reported a hospital-based circumcision."
#i2Show this thread -
(Not that they fear asking such a question could have ANY effect on their funding from the
#Clintons@ClintonHealth, mind you
#sarcasm), they are at a loss to explain these results, & so must indulge in the sort of "spin" that would make Sarah Sanders dizzy.#i2Show this thread -
"Maybe w/all the VMMC ads, the men forgot whether they were circumcised!" And maybe our "trained, local fieldworkers" & all their translators forgot how to explain it to them if they were at all unsure! Yes, & maybe you didn't even try to properly control for factors like...
#i2Show this thread -
condom use - you know, that cheap, surgery-free measure that ACTUALLY PREVENTS HIV TRANSMISSION - or IV drug use, just like the RCTs from a decade ago which are riddled w/so many flaws that most MDs find them unconvincing but which you've fatuously assumed to be correct.
#i2Show this thread -
#i2 The common sense, Ockham's Razor explanation of this study's results is that#circumcision doesn't reduce HIV risk b/c the part of the penis removed - the foreskin - naturally plays a role in the male immune response & so THERE IS NO "biological efficacy of circumcision...Show this thread - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.