Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
It was a few years ago, but the overall premise of their study was flawed and cutting it short once the STD rates in the circumcised group were catching up seems like pushing an agenda not science.
|
You know for a fact that they stopped the study because the STD rates in the circumcised group were catching up? Why would two other randomized trials come up with the same conclusion, namely that circumcision can have a negative effect on HIV transmission rates?
I have a more reasonable explanation. Pretty much all clinical trials require approval of Independent Review Boards in order to receive funding. IRBs are tasked with making sure that research subjects are treated ethically. They frequently require researchers to check the effectiveness of the treatments being tested (here the treatment is circumcision) throughout the data collection period. If there is sufficient evidence that the treatment either is or isn't working, and if the adverse effects associated with continuing the research in light of the effectiveness of the treatment are too severe, the research project is terminated. It's standard practice (as I understand it).
So what happened here is that the research showed that circumcision was so effective at reducing the prevalence of HIV in the treatment group that the IRB decided that it would be unethical to continue the study because it would unnecessarily expose the control group to increased risk of HIV.