Education Library
MEDICAL EXCUSES: HIV 3 GARBAGE AFRICAN RTCs

Common Sense HIV fallacy In Africa By Dr. Dean Edell


Dr. Dean Edell discusses the misleading and unsound arguments in the current drive to circumcise Africa.


https://youtu.be/OlsUg0sdAtE

Studies Of AIDS Used To Justify MGM In Africa Used Mainly To Justify American MGM


“Numerous serious flaws in these RCTs included: inadequate equipoise, researcher and participant expectation bias, selection bias, inadequate blinding, problematic randomization, lead-time bias, attrition bias/participants lost to follow-up, early termination, and failure to control for non-sexual transmission of HIV, all of which most probably exaggerated treatment effects.”

http://m.pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/1/e175/reply


Scientist Denounces Flawed Studies Used By CDC To Promote Circumcision


Professor Gregory Boyle denounces the Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials on male circumcision and HIV transmission which are currently being used by the CDC to promote circumcision (genital cutting) of North American infants and children.
https://youtu.be/uxiclOtYsv8

 


What’s Wrong With The Sub-Saharan African Trials: “Sub-Saharan African Randomized Clinical Trials Into Male Circumcision And HIV Transmission: Methodological, Ethical And Legal Concerns” By Gregory J Boyle And George Hill

http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

from

https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/circumcision-decision/Content?oid=2986297

In a report released by Seattle-based organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision, researchers Gregory J. Boyle and George Hill detail a host of methodological problems with the commonly cited African randomized clinical trials, including “selection bias, inadequate blinding, problematic randomisation, trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects; and not investigating non-sexual transmission.” The trials’ oft-touted 60 percent reduction in HIV transmission is a relative risk, they write, impacted by unmeasured confounding variables (for instance, African Muslims’ low STD contraction rates could be due to Islam’s prohibition of premarital sex, not its espousal of circumcision). After controlling for associated variables like religiosity, promiscuity, drug use, etc., Boyle and Hill concluded the absolute decrease in transmission risk after circumcision is roughly 1.3 percent.

60% HIV Protection? What Does This REALLY Mean, And What Does The Circumcision Establishment NOT Want You To Know?


Brother K · Thursday, November 9, 2017

Exactly how disingenuous is the pro-circumcision claim that circumcision reduces the chances of getting HIV?

Since 2008, pro-circumcision advocates rely on the BS claim that circumcision reduces the chances of getting HIV by up to or more than 60%. This sounds terrific on its face, but it raises a question. An obvious one…

Compared to what?

Firstly, they inaccurately describe the protective value of circumcision as 60%. This is awful and it is false. If the RCTs that studied this are to believed (which you should not) you would see the 60% value is a relative comparative number between two already extremely small numbers. It compared only the difference in the numbers of infected men within the two sides of the study groups, not the actual risk of the average man within the study groups as a whole. There is a reason they didn’t do that, or want you to know that number. Comparing that number to the real world experience, (the absolute value) circumcision has a less than 1.3% protective value over a mere 2 year period. And, that protective value requires 8 weeks out of the 24 months to be spent in abstinence while the circumcision wound heals.

Surprisingly, if you were to JUST spend 8 weeks in abstinence WITHOUT circumcision the protective value would jump from 1.3% to 7.7%

Or, to compare it to the math used in the RCTs , an 8 week abstinance period once every 2 years will protect you 592% better than circumcision will over your lifetime of sexual activity.

Regular condom use will protect you 7384% better than circumcision.

As you can see compared to these numbers circumcision is a meaningless intervention. The pro circumcisers are promoting something with no real value at all.

What is worse, is the information given to men fails to tell them that condom use would protect them better than circumcision. That is where the pro circumcisers are failing them intentionally, and are intentionally putting their young lives at risk, all in the name of a worthless sexual body modification.

Condoms are 7384% better than circumcision. By not telling men this each and every time pro circumcisers are condemning young men to not just unnecessary surgery and misinformation, but to a risky lifestyle that could actually kill them.
…………..
Thanks to James Ketter for this insightful note, exposing the BIG LIE. It ain’t 60%, ladies & gentlemen, it’s a measly 1.3% a statistical blip.