From the article, "The US researchers, from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, say not offering the procedure to men with HIV would stigmatise them."
OK, does anyone else see this as a pathetic attempt and pushing circumcision, NO MATTER WHAT???
"Belief is not required. Once you know this story
Can't think of anything polite to say.
So, AIDS does not stigmatize but being intact does??
"OK, does anyone else see this as a pathetic attempt and pushing circumcision, NO MATTER WHAT??? I literally read this and laughed..."
Agree, but isn't this what the supporters of this ignorance are always willing to do, saying ANYTHING just to push their superstitious fetish? Whether they are "(mostly American) medical experts" or the local resident troll at ivillage?
And yet, this is nothing compared to the ethics of the study in question. Did I misunderstood or they deliberately allowed HIV-positive men to have unprotected sex with women to see if circumcision made a difference?
'Did I misunderstood or they deliberately allowed HIV-positive men to have unprotected sex with women to see if circumcision made a difference?'
That is exactly what they appear to have done.
"...Just imagine what will happen when you have all those circumcised men in Africa who think they're immune to HIV. They'll likely take greater risk and eventually infect more women...."
Yes, this is the main ethical concern of pushing partial relief under the rosy veil of a solution.
Something similar happened in the USA in the gay community (probably the most knowledgeable non-medical lay
Another article on
video on effects of using circumcision versus using more
It appears that 'condom rejection' seems to be endemic and gives rise to all types of "serious studies" in the scientific community....
This appeared in the New York Times yesterday, concerning withdrawal as a contraceptive.
It seems like more people want to 'have their cake and eat it too'.