• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Call for higher circumcision rate

Studies disagree with you. STD transmission rate is reduced by 50% in circumcised males.

Just because one practice is more effective, the effectiveness of the other practice is not negated. Try logic.
Click to expand...


bogus studies used on African males where poverty, lack of education, lack of health care, poor hygeine and superstitions are large factors in spreading of STDs





I know you need to use ad homs such as "obsession with removing foreskins" to feel like you are making a point, but I assure you, it's not helping your argument. An attempt to vilify rather than rationally debate the points is noticed. Now if you please, keep it to the topic. Helpful debating hint: I am not the topic.

Now moving on, of the functions you listed, the majority were for protective purposes. Those same purposes are achieved by the wearing of clothing rendering the usefulness of the foreskin void. I also don't care about the size of the foreskin on an adult male. Size of the foreskin does not translate into usefulness.
Click to expand...

yes you do have a strong obsession with foreskin removal treating like it is a disease that must be removed from all males and is shocked and disgusted that there are people that defends to right of males to remain intact
 
Canadian-bloke said:
bogus studies used on African males where poverty, lack of education, lack of health care, poor hygeine and superstitions are large factors in spreading of STDs
Click to expand...

Well point to some specific methodology in the studies which makes them bogus, otherwise, you are just presenting opinion. Facts, please.



yes you do have a strong obsession with foreskin removal treating like it is a disease that must be removed from all males and is shocked and disgusted that there are people that defends to right of males to remain intact
Click to expand...

I'm neither shocked nor disgusted that you defend against circumcision. I don't really care what your motivations are as I am not discussing you, but the topic of circumcision.

Your presentation of me as obsessed belies a position which is long on emotional hysteria and short on facts. Otherwise, you would be discussing the thread topic and not me.

Would you like to return to the topic or would you like to make suppositions about my mental health that will subsequently find the report feature being used to curb the ad homs you toss out?
 
Well point to some specific methodology in the studies which makes them bogus, otherwise, you are just presenting opinion. Facts, please.
Click to expand...


Circumcision and HIV

Circumcision and HIV






I'm neither shocked nor disgusted that you defend against circumcision. I don't really care what your motivations are as I am not discussing you, but the topic of circumcision.

Your presentation of me as obsessed belies a position which is long on emotional hysteria and short on facts. Otherwise, you would be discussing the thread topic and not me.

Would you like to return to the topic or would you like to make suppositions about my mental health that will subsequently find the report feature being used to curb the ad homs you toss out?
Click to expand...



i am discussing the facts
 
Canadian-bloke said:
Circumcision and HIV

Circumcision and HIV
Click to expand...


A perusal of the one link that did work at "circumstitions.com" :)roll:no bias there), did not reveal any analysis of the methodology of the studies I quoted. What I saw were restatement of the study that attempted to mitigate it's findings with emotion and hysteria. Much like the counter arguments in this thread.

Now if I missed something, because admittedly I'm not going to read that entire website mining for a quote that backs you up in your argument, please point me to the specific sections which show why you think the methodology is faulty.


i am discussing the facts
Click to expand...

If we kep it that way from here on, there won't be any problems, now will there?
 
they are faulty because they use Africa where poverty, and lack of modern facilities, lack of education and superstitions and diseases like malaria contribute to the spread of STDs. poverty breeds diseases that's common sense
 
Canadian-bloke said:
they are faulty because they use Africa where poverty, and lack of modern facilities, lack of education and superstitions and diseases like malaria contribute to the spread of STDs. poverty breeds diseases that's common sense
Click to expand...

What specific methodology is faulty? And if all the subjects have the same controls and come from the same sample pool, the other issues don't matter, especially if the variable being questioned is the only variable between the control and the test group.

So tell me, what added variables were there between the control and the test groups. Specific methodology issues, please.
 
jallman said:
What specific methodology is faulty? And if all the subjects have the same controls and come from the same sample pool, the other issues don't matter, especially if the variable being questioned is the only variable between the control and the test group.

So tell me, what added variables were there between the control and the test groups. Specific methodology issues, please.
Click to expand...


i already pored the links which show the studies are flawed
 
Canadian-bloke said:
i already pored the links which show the studies are flawed
Click to expand...

No, you provided a link to an agenda driven page and it may have, somewhere in there, given an argument for the studies being flawed. However, I'm not mining the page for a blurb that may or may not make a point for you. That's up to you to show in support of your argument.

And nothing I saw on that page shows a problem with the methodology of the study. If you can point me to a specific section of the page which does, I will be happy to read it.
 
from one of the links

Some factors casting doubt on the findings:

1. A summary of the study includes this:

Inclusion criteria:
...
Consenting to avoid sexual contact (except with condom protection) during the 6 weeks following the medicalized circumcision
The experimental (circumcised) men, but not the control group (left intact), were told:

When you are circumcised you will be asked to have no sexual contact in the 6 weeks after surgery. To have sexual contact before your skin of your penis is completely healed, could lead to infection if your partner is infected with a sexually transmitted disease. It could also be painful and lead to bleeding. If you desire to have sexual contact in the 6 weeks after surgery, despite our recommendation, it is absolutely essential that your (sic) use a condom.
So:
1. The circumcised experimental group, but not the intact control group, got into the HABIT of using condoms
2. They learnt HOW to use condoms
3. They had to make sure they HAD condoms (which are in scandalously short supply in South Africa), and
4. last but not least, they were PROTECTED by condoms.
Click to expand...
 
Canadian-bloke said:
from one of the links
Click to expand...

That is complete and utter bull****.

A) There needs to be proof positive that condom use was not known before the circumcision.

AND

B) That condom use became the habit once the healing process was completed.

Also, there needs to be proof that condoms were made more available following the 6 weeks after the healing time passed for the circumcised men only and that protection by condoms was continued beyond the healing and the start of the study.

So no, this is all conjecture with no methodology issue involved. If anything, the six week healing period with condom protection maintained the control at the start of the study by eliminating infection due to the wounds.

Is there anything else?
 
Dr Petra Boynton I Blog I More concerns raised about the HIV/Circumcision research

January 7, 2007
More concerns raised about the HIV/Circumcision research

You may remember before Christmas there was a lot of media attention to new research from Africa that suggested men who had been circumcised had lower HIV rates than men who had not undergone this procedure. I had a few questions about the research - particularly why it was a halted trial that went straight to media rather than being published anywhere.

Other colleagues working in the area of HIV have raised more specific concerns about the HIV/Circumcision research and the issues it raises. In particular there are worries that a population that’s not particularly health literate may interpret the study as circumcision gives immunity from HIV, and also that this research doesn’t include the health of women.

One such colleague, David Gisselquist*, has provided some thoughtful analysis of this latest research. He has kindly allowed me to reproduce his views on the HIV/Circumcision trial here:

“Three prospective studies report that circumcision protects African men from sexual acquisition of HIV. What is going on is not so clear. If circumcision is so protective, then why do CIRCUMCISED men in 6 of 10 African countries have HIGHER HIV prevalence than uncircumcised men in Demographic and Health Surveys (see attached table)? If circumcision protects men from sexual acquistion of HIV (and that may be so), then data on HIV prevalence suggests that most HIV in men in Africa is coming from something else.

Table showing HIV prevalence and circumcision




hiv-10-africa.gif
 
Canadian-bloke said:
If circumcision is so protective, then why do CIRCUMCISED men in 6 of 10 African countries have HIGHER HIV prevalence than uncircumcised men in Demographic and Health Surveys (see attached table)?
Click to expand...

There are only 10 African countries now? Who knew!
 
Canadian-bloke said:
Dr Petra Boynton I Blog I More concerns raised about the HIV/Circumcision research

January 7, 2007
More concerns raised about the HIV/Circumcision research

You may remember before Christmas there was a lot of media attention to new research from Africa that suggested men who had been circumcised had lower HIV rates than men who had not undergone this procedure. I had a few questions about the research - particularly why it was a halted trial that went straight to media rather than being published anywhere.

Other colleagues working in the area of HIV have raised more specific concerns about the HIV/Circumcision research and the issues it raises. In particular there are worries that a population that’s not particularly health literate may interpret the study as circumcision gives immunity from HIV, and also that this research doesn’t include the health of women.

One such colleague, David Gisselquist*, has provided some thoughtful analysis of this latest research. He has kindly allowed me to reproduce his views on the HIV/Circumcision trial here:

“Three prospective studies report that circumcision protects African men from sexual acquisition of HIV. What is going on is not so clear. If circumcision is so protective, then why do CIRCUMCISED men in 6 of 10 African countries have HIGHER HIV prevalence than uncircumcised men in Demographic and Health Surveys (see attached table)? If circumcision protects men from sexual acquistion of HIV (and that may be so), then data on HIV prevalence suggests that most HIV in men in Africa is coming from something else.

Table showing HIV prevalence and circumcision




hiv-10-africa.gif
Click to expand...

This being a blog and not a legitimate reference, aside, the blog makes a deceptive statement even in its premise. The study was published in two journals. Only one journal refused to publish it and that was not for methodology reasons, it was for ethics questions about not disclosing HIV status to newly infected patients.

So right at the onset, the blog is suspect.

Secondly, the comparison also follows the same logical fallacy that you attempted.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

The blog's analysis attempts to argue causation where it can barely make a case for correlation. It fails to point out cultural issues when it draws attention to women having high rates of infection such as the "rape a virgin to cure AIDS" phenomenon seen in those countries. There is still no attack on the methodology of the study because it doesn't attack the core of what makes a study legitimate or not: whether there are proper controls and variables being studied.

It's all conjecture as to what the numbers mean outside the study but it does not negate the fact that statistically, circumcision shows a 65% (that's from your source so we'll go with that number from here on ;)) drop in HIV infection rate over a given period of time.
 
Canadian-bloke said:
it's typo explain why circumfetish america has the highest rates of STDs in the industrialized world
Click to expand...

I'm not answering any position that begins with hyperemotional hysteria like "circumfetish". That is not debate.

Further, I am not required to answer for that as you have failed to show any relevance in that issue. When you can make that position more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy without throwing hysterics into it, then I may be inclined to address it.

You basically just decided to make a subject change (back to a subject that scored no points for your argument to start with) because you were losing ground on the current subject within the discussion. Am I to see this as capitulation that you cannot show methodology issues with the studies, therefore the studies are valid? Well, I already knew this all along. Glad you are catching up. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
I'm not answering any position that begins with hyperemotional hysteria like "circumfetish". That is not debate.

Further, I am not required to answer for that as you have failed to show any relevance in that issue. When you can make that position more than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy without throwing hysterics into it, then I may be inclined to address it.
Click to expand...


The U.S is a circumfetish nation with an obsession with circumcision and you also have an obsession to remove men's foreskin. I already debunked the myths used to justify male genital mutilation. i am not going to repeat myself
 
Canadian-bloke said:
The U.S is a circumfetish nation with an obsession with circumcision and you also have an obsession to remove men's foreskin. I already debunked the myths used to justify male genital mutilation. i am not going to repeat myself
Click to expand...

So now you switch back to baseless ad homs?

And you have debunked nothing. Point for point, you have been shown to be wrong. You have impotently attacked the studies, exhibited futility in linking data that does not link, and defaulted to ad homs when your positions were not holding.

And repeating yourself isn't going to make a difference if you were flat out wrong the first time you voiced your position so not repeating yourself is probably your wisest course of action. :shrug:
 
jallman said:
So now you switch back to baseless ad homs?

And you have debunked nothing. Point for point, you have been shown to be wrong. You have impotently attacked the studies, exhibited futility in linking data that does not link, and defaulted to ad homs when your positions were not holding.

And repeating yourself isn't going to make a difference if you were flat out wrong the first time you voiced your position so not repeating yourself is probably your wisest course of action. :shrug:
Click to expand...



you cannot explain why intact europe and japan have the lowest STD/HIV rates in the world


you ignore the fact that Africa which these studies are based on is filled with poverty and diseases like malaria, superstitions, lack of health care and education on health and sexuality which are responsible for high STD/HIV rates
 
Canadian-bloke said:
you cannot explain why intact europe and japan have the lowest STD/HIV rates in the world
Click to expand...

I'm not required to until you show that circumcision has some sort of causational relationship. Until you do, it is irrelevant and that is the only response you will recieve.

you ignore the fact that Africa which these studies are based on is filled with poverty and diseases like malaria, superstitions, lack of health care and education on health and sexuality which are responsible for high STD/HIV rates
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the methodology of the study when the control group only has one variable's difference from the test group. All of those things may contribute to HIV rates but that in no way diminishes the utility of circumcision in reducing transmission rates.

You can keep repeating it from now till the day the server rusts, but it won't make your position any more correct than it was the first time you stated it.
 
Canadian-bloke said:
only people who support cutting unconsenting individuals will never understand
Click to expand...

We do alot of stuff to people without their consent.

Its childish to think that an infant is able to give consent to something anyways, and the lack of capability to give consent does not mean we should not continue to go with our plans.
 
jallman said:
Studies disagree with you. STD transmission rate is reduced by 50% in circumcised males.
Click to expand...

STD transmission rate is reduced to zero for people who do not have sex with infected males.

Here's an idea, make the treatment for STD's include castration.

Justify the pre-emptive mutilation of the penises of all new-born infants based on the POTENTIAL for any of them to spread a disease they have not yet contracted. Where does this fit in medical ethics? Answer: it is not ethical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom