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 …
-
Show this thread
-
(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.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow 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."
#i21 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
#i2 So to be REALLY safe from HIV, expect the study's authors to recommend men be circumcised in the bush w/out sterile instruments.#sarcasm. B/c the "protective circumcision effect" is sacred, received wisdom that the study's authors daren't ever question...1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow 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.#i21 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow 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...
#i21 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow 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.
#i21 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow 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...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
in preventing HIV acquisition." REAL scientists - unbeholden to #Clinton $$ & unbiased by a financial, cultural, psychological or other reason to justify circumcision at all costs - would read this study & at least have the guts to question its ridiculous, unsupported premise #i2
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.