Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2009-07-18 Uganda: Wawer-Gray discover HIV+ men 50% MORE likely to infect female partners after medical circumcision

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2009-07-18 Uganda: Wawer-Gray discover HIV+ men 50% MORE likely to infect female partners after medical circumcision

    Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised controlled trial.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19616720

    "FINDINGS:
    The trial was stopped early because of futility. 92 couples in the intervention group and 67 couples in the control group were included in the modified ITT analysis. 17 (18%) women in the intervention {circumcised partner} group and eight (12%) women in the control {intact partner} group acquired HIV during follow-up (p=0.36). Cumulative probabilities of female HIV infection at 24 months were 21.7% (95% CI 12.7-33.4) in the intervention group and 13.4% (6.7-25.8) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 0.62-3.57; p=0.368).

    INTERPRETATION:
    Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months; longer-term effects could not be assessed. Condom use after male circumcision is essential for HIV prevention."
    = = = = =
    Ron's comment: This very dishonest husband-wife team of circumcision justifiers halted their study rather than let it prove that cutting men makes them more likely to infect their female partners. The study was stopped due to "futility" which is odd since if the seeming findings were real, it would be earth-shattering news warranting PUTTING MASS CIRCUMCISION PROGRAMS ON HOLD while waiting for the result to confirmed or refuted by other teams. If real and true, this increased risk to female partners after circumcision utterly washes out the supposed benefits of cutting men to protect men from acquiring HIV ffrom females.

    HOW DARE Wawer and Gray fall silent about this result while continuing to tout their other study showing that voluntarily circumcised Ugandan men had reduced HIV acquisition risk?!?
    -Ron Low
    Service@TLCTugger.com
    847 414-1692 Chicago

  • #2
    I think you're misinterpreting the word "futility". As a specialized term I'm not familiar with it per se, but it would seem that this word is used within the context of a scientific study. As such, it would mean that the hypothesis was found to be false, right off the bat. So the study was stopped.

    This happens all the time in science (this is why foregen's pitch is so bogus). It's a good thing. They are basically throwing out the idea the circ protects males and females from HIV. As you can see, there are a number of combined factors which have to be reassessed. This implies reforming a hypothesis and charging back up the hill.

    Research can be suspect, and some of it has been, no doubt about it, lot of money-fed agendas out there, but I don't think that's what we are looking at here. If nothing else, they are publishing under the auspices of Johns Hopkins, and the NIH, (not to mention their own licenses and their vocal peers), and those groups would be ass kickin' and takin' names later if these researchers were trying to pull a fast one.

    We can all relax and breathe, in my opinion.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Reality View Post
      I think you're misinterpreting the word "futility". As a specialized term I'm not familiar with it per se, but it would seem that this word is used within the context of a scientific study. As such, it would mean that the hypothesis was found to be false, right off the bat.
      We all know what futility means. They wanted to show some value to mass circumcision, and when the study leaned the other way they wanted to squash it.

      The study was titled "its effect" not "can we find more proof that circumcision is divine" and so "its effect" should have been thoroughly quantified instead of them fleeing in the night before the results that were not in their foregone favor could reach statistical significance.
      -Ron Low
      Service@TLCTugger.com
      847 414-1692 Chicago

      Comment


      • #4
        "We all know what futility means". I don't think you do.

        Did they prove what you think they "wanted"? No, they didn't. So why ain't you happy? (And by the way, a hypothesis isn't what research "wants". It's essentially the opposite of that. It's a formal statement about what is being studied).

        Let's take a closer look at what we do know:

        1. We have no idea what is in their minds. Something we do have an idea about: their methods. They quit! Their methods did not allow them to go on with a false idea. THEY DID NOT SAY A SINGLE THING ABOUT CIRC HAVING DONE ANYTHING one way or the other. Who do you think will eventually prove a false argument to be false rather than true, in the scientific world? Intactivists? You don't know about some underlying agenda you haven't shared with us, do you?

        2. Are you trying to characterize them because they began this hypothesis? It's a scientific hypothesis, and as such it makes a formal statement, not a "want". How do you think any hypothesis will be proven to be false. By ignoring it? Science works in a formal way. It doesn't use emotion as "proof". But you know who does?

        3. We also know something about their character as scientists: They stopped the research and then published their findings; published their findings. How conspiratorial, how "fleeing", does that sound? If they were less than forthright they could've kept silent and thrown away the results if they weren't what they "wanted" and then do their "fleeing". Right?

        4. Their stated reason for stopping the study as that they found a bias. It wasn't their personal bias, it was a statistical bias. That's science, not emotion. And then they published. Publishing ain't "fleeing", it's taking an interim position as scientists. Publishing is public, out in the open, not fleeing. That makes their efforts honest. No? Then prove it, that's what Science does.

        5.. The fact that they weren't able to prove the hypothesis was noticed by the scientific community, after publishing. Trying to prove a hypothesis, and failing, begins a closer focus on a hypothesis; it's the indication that a respected professional method was used. It isn't an indication of an end to anything; no "fleeing"; it is an indication that the scientific method was used, from beginning to a commonly found result.

        6. "Personal attacks" happen in reply to my posts all the time on this forum. You never do anything about that. Attacks from small minds, rife on the internet, swimming around in the offal (even they would admit to that, in one instance).

        7. Hyperbole, used when an argument is colored more by emotion rather than the merits of fact, is always out in the open; just a matter of reading.

        8. "Debunking" is what the nature of forum discussion is all about when hyperbole is used, unless it's not a forum of course.

        9. Taking the time to delete an observation allows enough time to "debunk" that observation (something only I seem to do on this forum, which results in personal attacks) . Stepping back from discussion is anyone's right, but is that in the spirit of discussion (let alone clarity of truth)?



        {admin: personal attacks and mischaracterizations deleted rather than debunked due to time constraints.}
        Last edited by Reality; 08-06-2018, 03:14 PM.

        Comment

        Working...
        X