No announcement yet.

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

  • 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.

    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).

    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
    [email protected]
    847 414-1692 Chicago

  • #2
    Originally posted by Reality
    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
    [email protected]
    847 414-1692 Chicago