Izawwlgood wrote:DSenette wrote:well, all of the language in any of the links that i've looked at are referencing infection rates, so i can only assume that they mean new infections by that.
I'm pretty sure the wikipedia entry you linked showed HIV cases per capita, not new HIV cases? It lists prevalence, not 'new cases'.DSenette wrote:"if the US circumcision rates were to be at the rate of european circumcision rates, you would see STI-X infection rates rise by 20%"(paraphrasing so i don't have to go look through links again, but it was in the NPR article i think). which sounds like a pretty solid statement that SHOULD mean that STI-X infection rates in europe are 20% higher than those in the US. is that the case?
They're looking at rates of new HIV infection, and saying that if America had less circumcision, the infection RATE (which is different from what you linked) would be higher.
could you point to something that i linked to on wikipedia again? i'm fairly certain you'll find that was someone else.
i havent' actually linked to anything with regards to statistics, or hell, any of these articles. i've mentioned my confusion with them, and asked questions.
to the actual pont that's being made there.
IF they're looking at new rates of HIV, and claiming that circumcision has the effect they're predicting, then shouldn't we actually see the difference in infection rates in europe?
i.e. if a doctor says "if the US circumcision rates were the same as that in europe, then HIV infection rates would increase by 20%". so unless i'm reading that wrong, then given that europe's circumcision rates are already at the rates of circumcision in europe, then their HIV infection rates SHOULD BE 20% higher than the US correct? IS that actually the case?
IF europe has a lower HIV prevalance than the US, AND a lower circumcision prevalance than america, what does that mean to the calculations?Izawwlgood wrote:DSenette wrote:i'm really asking the question, is that the case? i'm not a statistics wizard, and i really get gummed up with predictive analasys that try to illustrate the concept of "percentages of things that have never existed or would never exist".
I too am asking the question; what social factors (circumcision among them) account for America having a higher HIV prevalence than Europe?
which basically means if you're accounting for improper use, then you can't actually make an accurate prediction?Izawwlgood wrote:DSenette wrote:is there any difference in infection rates when you're comparing circumcised+condom vs. uncircumcised+condom?
Good question. My guess is that because condom use includes improper use (penetration before putting on the condom), that this stat will still be somewhat muddied.
which is not much in the current discussion?Izawwlgood wrote:DSenette wrote:i mean, if you could actually say that the tissue is in fact more "amenable" to viral infection (by a statistically important value) than ANY other part of the male genetalia, then it might be useful information.
Right, to be clear, I'm not saying 'because foreskin is used in tissue culture, it MUST mean that uncircumcised men are riddled with sexually transmitted viruses.
And, well, no one cultures shaft foreskin fibroblasts. So, take that for what it's worth.
transferability is a moot point. IF the only tissue that a specific type of cancer could be present in was never present in a human being for the cancer to develop, then you could in fact eliminate that form of cancer. you cannot have pancreatic cancer without a pancrease right? you can't have appendecitus without an appendix right? but even that's not the point of the analogy, the point of the analogy are about the profylactic application of circumcision. you would actually have a BETTER argument for profylactic mastectomies because you would reduce the chances of getting breast tissue cancer to 0%.Izawwlgood wrote:DSenette wrote:but, of course, we've got another analog to this concept. human breast tissue. it's the only thing that can get breast cancer right? wouldn't we be able to eliminate an entire type of cancer if we just removed the tissue before it got cancer?
A somewhat flawed analogy, insofar as breast cancer is not a transferable disease like STIs; cancer cannot be eliminated from the world, like, say, smallpox.
But to use the analogy; say we lived in region where breast cancer was ridiculously high, like hypothetically, 95 of 100 women were BRCA carriers. Breast cancer rates are so high, that it is not uncommon to perform mastectomies on infants (i'm not even sure this is possible?), removing all breast tissue early on. Your thoughts?
your hypothetical numbers are outside of the scale required here. get back to numbers analagous to the protection afforded by circumcision.
if a double mastectomy performed at infancy reduced the chances of an individual from possibly getting breast cancer (again, remember we're not even talking about probabilities here, these are possibilities. none of the metrics on circumcision are about probabilities of any one person contracting a disease. it's about possibilities and feasabilities) when they were an adult to the same scale as the projected reduction afforded by circumcision, should we then advocate for infant mastectomies?
to use your version, with 95-100% infection rates, IF 95 to 100% of men were infected with HIV (or the other STIs that are being mentioned) and circumcision reduced the transmission rate to 0%, then shit yes everyone should be circumcised
Izawwlgood wrote:DSenette wrote:i mean let's really actually get to the deal here. is anyone suggesting that circumcision is a better sollution to condom use, hygene education, sexual education, et al?
No, no one is saying that; Enuja said it quite clearly, that no matter how good sex education is, people are flawed and will engage in imperfect sexual practices. In such a circumstance, the added safety of circumcision may be a good thing.
Which again though, is quite besides the point.
not sure how it's beside any point, but whatever.
the proposed added safety isn't effective untill the child is sexually active, which is far away from when the child is an infant. which completely reduces the urgency of the procedure. there is no pressing medical need to force the procedure on an infant. the procedure can be done roughly the same on a child that's 10ish (or about to start puberty) as it can on an infant, with roughly the same consequences in either direction. with the same benefits with regards to STIs, assuming the child isn't sexually active already. so, why not wait till you can have a reasoned discussion with the child about it.
remember, i'm not arguing against circumcision. i'm arguing against INFANT circumcision. anyone who can make an informed opinion about the procedure should surely be allowed to get one