- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
When they say circumcision cuts HIV by 50% in Uganda, what they don't tell you is that they'd have to circumcise 56 men to prevent one transmission per year. (In the US, with its lower HIV incidence, the number - other things being equal - would be 380!)
The circumcised men (but not the control group) had to abstain from sex after their operations. Cutting the experiment short makes the effectiveness seem higher. (The men could have themselves circumcised at any time, so there was no ethical reason they had to cut it short. What's ethically dubious is not telling them when they tested positive.)
Each new experiment has a lower effectiveness, as they correct for more confounders. Not so long ago they were claiming 8-fold reduction. When they've corrected for everything, what will be left?
More at http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
