![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
User:Jakew seems to be changing references with regards to the effect of circumcision on the transmission of AIDS. Circumcision seems to be a particular hobby-horse for him, from a look at his talk page. This is probably one area we should check into. -- Robert Merkel 02:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've made some changes to your text. Most are ok, but I've restored details of study types. The fact that Van Howe reviewed studies of different design is relevant, as is the distinction between meta-analyses and original studies. I have changed the wording slightly regarding bias. Since he claimed 'may', so do we. I trust you'll agree that this fairly represents his views. I have also commented out your remarks about unknown 'others' who have supported the study. Go ahead and restore it with a reference. - Jakew 14:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The offending tables were removed, so ignore my message below.
Wanyonyi
10:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have statistics on HIV Aids prevalence in non-circumcising AFRICAN countries? The table presented in this section, comparing circumcising and non-circumcising countries, is flawed for several reasons:
A comparison of countries such as, say, Kenya (circumcising) and Uganda (largely non-circumcising), or of tribal groups such as Bukusu (circumcising) and Zulu (non-circumcising) will usually indicate higher prevalence in non-circumcising groups. I believe the presentation of the statistics on this page is self-fulfilling, biased and therefore unreliable and unfit for publication in the current format.
See also:
etc Wanyonyi 10:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
DanP, I've reverted your changes, for the following reasons:
- Jakew 10:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
JakeW, here is what you've reverted to:
Preliminary results in a study on the prevention of HIV transmission via circumcision were released July 6, 2005 in the Wall Street Journal, and showed that male circumcision reduced the risk of HIV transmission from women to men by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine. According to the newspaper account, the study under way in Orange Farm township, South Africa, was stopped because the results were so favorable: it was deemed unethical to continue the trial after an early peek at data showed that the uncircumcised men were so much more likely to become infected. [3] Female-to-male sexual transmission is an uncommon route of HIV infection in the Western world, but somewhat more common in Africa.
Please try to combine your ideas with these instead of a full revert every time. DanP 11:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Interesting though this topic may be is is NOT a method of preventing AIDS - as the cited references make very clear. In fact, circumcism may be the cause of much AIDS in Africa as the cited references also make clear. At best this is controversial research. Sci guy 16:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Many studies have explored the suggestion that uncircumcised men may be more vulnerable to HIV infection due to a specific type of cell found in the foreskin tissue.
A review and meta-analysis investigating earlier studies of different design claims this reduced risk may have been repeatedly been reported with bias, and concluded that there is no scientific basis for circumcision as a prevention for HIV infection in humans (International Journal of STD & AIDS 1999) [5]. Some critics have claimed that that study inappropriately combines data from differing studies. [6] [7] Another review and meta-analysis reported a protective effect of circumcision among adult men in Africa. [8] A 2003 Cochrane review found a strong epidemiological association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV, but recommended waiting for the outcome of randomised controlled trials. [9]
Results of the first randomised controlled trial to investigate the issue were described in the Wall Street Journal [10] on the prevention of HIV transmission claimed that adult men circumcised during the study had a reduced the risk of contracting HIV. Limiting the analysis exclusively to the female-to-male pathway of infection, a reduction of 70 percent was reported. According to the newspaper account, the study in South Africa was stopped by the data and safety monitoring board for ethical concerns. Female-to-male sexual transmission is an uncommon route of HIV infection in the Western world, but is more common in Africa.
The researchers suggested that uncircumcised men may be more vulnerable to HIV infection due to a specific type of cell found in the foreskin tissue, a suggestion supported by other research. [11] Other researchers have suggested that these risks have more to do with hygiene practices, or with the presence of other sexually transmitted infections causing breaks in the skin. [12]
It has also been reported, however, that HIV infections may have been spread in Africa by ritual circumcision. [13]
Here it is, off my The Body newsletter:
http://www.thebody.com/kaiser/2005/jul27_05/circumcision_hiv.html
Thanks. WHO/UNAIDS statement here. - Jakew 17:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
User:Jakew seems to be changing references with regards to the effect of circumcision on the transmission of AIDS. Circumcision seems to be a particular hobby-horse for him, from a look at his talk page. This is probably one area we should check into. -- Robert Merkel 02:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've made some changes to your text. Most are ok, but I've restored details of study types. The fact that Van Howe reviewed studies of different design is relevant, as is the distinction between meta-analyses and original studies. I have changed the wording slightly regarding bias. Since he claimed 'may', so do we. I trust you'll agree that this fairly represents his views. I have also commented out your remarks about unknown 'others' who have supported the study. Go ahead and restore it with a reference. - Jakew 14:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The offending tables were removed, so ignore my message below.
Wanyonyi
10:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have statistics on HIV Aids prevalence in non-circumcising AFRICAN countries? The table presented in this section, comparing circumcising and non-circumcising countries, is flawed for several reasons:
A comparison of countries such as, say, Kenya (circumcising) and Uganda (largely non-circumcising), or of tribal groups such as Bukusu (circumcising) and Zulu (non-circumcising) will usually indicate higher prevalence in non-circumcising groups. I believe the presentation of the statistics on this page is self-fulfilling, biased and therefore unreliable and unfit for publication in the current format.
See also:
etc Wanyonyi 10:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
DanP, I've reverted your changes, for the following reasons:
- Jakew 10:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
JakeW, here is what you've reverted to:
Preliminary results in a study on the prevention of HIV transmission via circumcision were released July 6, 2005 in the Wall Street Journal, and showed that male circumcision reduced the risk of HIV transmission from women to men by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine. According to the newspaper account, the study under way in Orange Farm township, South Africa, was stopped because the results were so favorable: it was deemed unethical to continue the trial after an early peek at data showed that the uncircumcised men were so much more likely to become infected. [3] Female-to-male sexual transmission is an uncommon route of HIV infection in the Western world, but somewhat more common in Africa.
Please try to combine your ideas with these instead of a full revert every time. DanP 11:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Interesting though this topic may be is is NOT a method of preventing AIDS - as the cited references make very clear. In fact, circumcism may be the cause of much AIDS in Africa as the cited references also make clear. At best this is controversial research. Sci guy 16:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Many studies have explored the suggestion that uncircumcised men may be more vulnerable to HIV infection due to a specific type of cell found in the foreskin tissue.
A review and meta-analysis investigating earlier studies of different design claims this reduced risk may have been repeatedly been reported with bias, and concluded that there is no scientific basis for circumcision as a prevention for HIV infection in humans (International Journal of STD & AIDS 1999) [5]. Some critics have claimed that that study inappropriately combines data from differing studies. [6] [7] Another review and meta-analysis reported a protective effect of circumcision among adult men in Africa. [8] A 2003 Cochrane review found a strong epidemiological association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV, but recommended waiting for the outcome of randomised controlled trials. [9]
Results of the first randomised controlled trial to investigate the issue were described in the Wall Street Journal [10] on the prevention of HIV transmission claimed that adult men circumcised during the study had a reduced the risk of contracting HIV. Limiting the analysis exclusively to the female-to-male pathway of infection, a reduction of 70 percent was reported. According to the newspaper account, the study in South Africa was stopped by the data and safety monitoring board for ethical concerns. Female-to-male sexual transmission is an uncommon route of HIV infection in the Western world, but is more common in Africa.
The researchers suggested that uncircumcised men may be more vulnerable to HIV infection due to a specific type of cell found in the foreskin tissue, a suggestion supported by other research. [11] Other researchers have suggested that these risks have more to do with hygiene practices, or with the presence of other sexually transmitted infections causing breaks in the skin. [12]
It has also been reported, however, that HIV infections may have been spread in Africa by ritual circumcision. [13]
Here it is, off my The Body newsletter:
http://www.thebody.com/kaiser/2005/jul27_05/circumcision_hiv.html
Thanks. WHO/UNAIDS statement here. - Jakew 17:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)