Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "" video.
-
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/109846/ (read the whole thing if you can): "Calls for population-wide implementation of male circumcision on the grounds that it prevents STIs are not supported by the findings of these analyses." [...] "Sexual partners are not found randomly but usually within one’s cultural or ethnic group. Since circumcision status has a strong association with religious, tribal, and cultural factors, men with a particular circumcision status will likely have sexual partners from within a group that has a predominance of men with the same circumcision status. The smaller the group, the more quickly the rise and the higher the peak prevalence for a particular STI [109]. Consequently, when circumcision rates are high, intact men would be more likely to be in a smaller ethnic, religious, or cultural group and thus have a higher peak prevalence of a disease." [...] "It is also clear that any positive impact of circumcision on STIs is not seen in general populations. Consequently, the prevention of STIs cannot be rationally interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and a policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent STIs is not supported by the evidence currently available in the medical literature."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3036761/ : "The data regarding the benefits of adult circumcision for the prevention of HPV are compelling. For other non-ulcerative STIs the benefits of circumcision appear minimal. In addition, it would appear that the current literature supports adult circumcision in the developing world for the prevention of ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. The implications for HIV acquisition are important since ulcerative STIs are a known risk factor for this. The data regarding the benefits of adult circumcision for the prevention of HPV are also compelling. For other non-ulcerative STDs, the benefits of circumcision appear minimal. Overall, the effectiveness of circumcision in the prevention of any STI should be assessed by taking all factors into account, including baseline prevalence of the disease in question, sexual behavior, use rates of condoms and sociodemographic group. Translating findings from adult studies, mainly performed in the developing world, into policies regarding neonatal circumcision in the developed world would be premature and inappropriate at this time."
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/circumcision-prevents-hiv-infection-medical-myth : "Recent evidence shows male circumcision to be of no value in preventing HIV transmission reception in both heterosexual and homosexual contacts.4,11 The medical evidence now indicates that the statement, "male circumcision prevents HIV infection" should be regarded as a medical myth."
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/vanhowe6/ : "What began as speculation has resulted a century later in 60-75% of American boys being circumcised with no clearly confirmed medical benefit. In the interim, no solid epidemiological evidence has been found to support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs or to justify a policy of involuntary mass circumcision as a public health measure. While the number of confounding factors and the inability to perform a random, double-blind, propective trial make assessing the role of circumcision in STD acquisition difficult, there is no clear evidence that circumcision prevents STDs. The only consistent trend is that uncircumcised males may be more susceptible to GUD, while circumcised men are more prone to urethritis. Currently, in developed nations, urethritis is more common than GUD [34]. In summary, the medical literature does not support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs."
Also a lot of the studies involve the DEVELOPING WORLD and the findings are hardly significant for developed countries, which creates other problems:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3255200/ : "One the major problems, according to Travis, is that the researchers didn’t determine the source of HIV infections acquired during the clinical trials, assuming all infections would be from heterosexual sex, though some of the infected men reported acquiring the virus during a period when they didn’t have sex or had sex using condoms."
"Travis also claims the clinical trials were rife with various types of bias, such as attrition bias (the number of participants who dropped out vastly outnumbered those who became infected), duration bias (the trials were not long enough to determine if the positive effect would plateau) and expectation bias. Some of the primary investigators had already called for mass circumcision, Travis writes, so it is no surprise that they got the results they expected to see. This expectation of positive results may also explain why all three trials were terminated early."
"Another form of bias in the research, writes Travis, is lead-time bias. The circumcised men were told not to have unprotected sex for 4–8 weeks, yet they were monitored immediately, as were the men in the uncircumcised group. The men in the control group were therefore exposed to infection for a longer period of time."
For fuck's sake if you're gonna tell the group of men who got snipped to NOT HAVE SEX and then track how many HIV infections the two groups get the circumcision group will have less because the uncut men will have an extra 1-2 month period of sexual contact
"In the chapter, Geisheker notes that mass circumcision could lead to problems in some settings. It could discourage the use of condoms, for example. Also, circumcised men are “likely to present themselves, especially to poor or illiterate village women, as rendered surgically immune to HIV.”"
8
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1