Hamletintaiwan wrote:I really don't get what you are referring to here.My poor English grammar? Or your poor performance making sense of a poorly formulated sentence?
I'm referring to the fact that you questioned what you called 'all those supposedly scientific studies'. You're not competent to make such judgments.
I read the scientific study.
Once again I read the study.
Maybe you are right and I am not in the position to make the judgement about what is and what is not considered a scientific study.
Let me point out some of the flaws in these studies anyhow though.
One study was conducted in Lesotho. Correct me if I am wrong.
About 40% of the population live below the international poverty line of US $1.25 a day
I question how many men participating in this study had to run a mile to the next waterhole?
Different study I was referring to.
A total of 3,274 uncircumcised men, aged 18–24 y, were randomized to a control or an intervention group with follow-up visits at months 3, 12, and 21. Male circumcision was offered to the intervention group immediately after randomization
Now you might not spot the problem here but I call it a big flaw.
First of all, truly random does not exist and if you know a way so my pc can generate random, tell me right away since I am going to run to the patent office with it.
But this is not the biggest problem with it. The main problem is that circumcision was offered to them after 'randomization' therefore the intervention group was not random instead these people made a conscious decision to be circumcised.
Male circumcision was offered
How did they offer it? Referring to arguments I often hear from pro baby circumcision groups that it is so much more stressful, distress and painful at adulthood, these individuals needed some convincing.
Health benefit education? I conclude maybe jump to conclusion that these people were more considerate than the rest of the participants.
After circumcision, these men needed to take extra care of their penis. Could this necessity have spilled over throughout the rest of the study? Have these men looked more often and more carefully at their penis from then on, or at least for an extended period of time?
aged 18–24 y
While the non-circumcised men had all the chances getting infected with some other disease which are considered the gateway for HIV not the foreskin
, the circumcised men were out of the game for some time holding their butchered penises.
When controlling for behavioural factors, including sexual behaviour that increased slightly in the intervention group, condom use, and health-seeking behaviour, the protection was of 61% (95% CI: 34%–77%).
This is where it gets murky.
Who conducted the study? As you see in this thread this topic is highly emotionally charged. Therefore, who evaluated the results, pro- or contra circumcision personal? Maybe ET?
Last not least. I have no doubt that cleaning a circumcised penis is easier but since I have running water in my house and take a shower twice a day, this benefit does not account for much any-longer.
Also not the foreskin causes HIV infection. Sexual transmitted diseases and other infection open a gateway for the HIV viruses to enter the blood stream.
It also would help allot if the medical community called hepatitis B and HIV a blood transmitted disease (BTD) and not an STD.