This study's authors "hypothesized that circumcised men would have lower HIV prevalence than uncircumcised men, and that lower HIV prevalence would be explained by those receiving hospital-based circumcisions." To the surprise of NO ONE...(cont'd) #i2https://twitter.com/intactamerica/status/1025380815587422209 …
-
-
(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
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.