Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
Using their numbers in between check-up #1 and #2 (when they 'stopped'), it was 5 vs 6 new cases out of ~1500 in each group. I would like to see them go back now 5 years later and see what the numbers are.
|
Me too, but that doesn't invalidate the statistically significant results that they did find.
Quote:
|
And the national trends don't show a drastic reduction in the speed of infection rates between countries that have similar sexual habits but different circumcision practices.
|
They don't? Where are you getting this information? Which countries did you compare?
Quote:
|
It seems to me that they already assumed the result would be positive in favor of circumcision at the start.
|
Or they offered people a free circumcision as part of recruitment for the study and thought it unethical to deny people who were placed in the control group the opportunity.
Quote:
|
It's probably 6 weeks of limited or no sexual activity. And for some reason they thought that they didn't need to start after this. Let alone look at the cost to perform all of the operations, follow-up care when a few of them had problems, and the risk of vaginal tears during sex, it doesn't seem like it is effective as condoms and changing the culture of sex.
|
According to this
Circumcisioncenter.com | The Circumcision Center it's four weeks. Why are you so pedantic when it comes to this study but so lackadaisical when it comes to finding supporting information for your own assumptions?
And no one is saying that circumcision is better than condoms at reducing HIV prevalence. You keep refuting that point as if it is a point anyone has made ever. I think the problem here isn't the study, and because of that I don't really feel like going through each little thing that happened in the study with you to refute your misconceptions- it isn't my project and it's clear your concerns are less with the study then that its results will be perceived as an excuse to not use condoms.