You see it all over twitter and the news, Circumcision reduces a man’s chance of getting HIV by 60% or more. But does anyone really research what that 60% entails? I know Circumstitions.com has a very detailed graph that shows what it means, but apparently that isn’t good enough for people who want to cling to the belief that slicing off a baby’s foreskin is more effective than telling him to use condoms when he’s older. Well, that along with the circumfetishists who want this unnecessary procedure to continue for their own perverted agenda.
Anyway, I started thinking about a way that I can say it simply that even a child could understand. I’m good with math, so I thought I’d give it a try. I’ll try to break this down as basic as possible.
Let’s say we have 10,000 men and half are cut and half are intact. So that’s 5,000 of each. The intact men are told to go out and have sex as much as they want. They aren’t given any condoms or education, only told to go about life as they normally would.
On the other hand the 5,000 men who opt for circumcision have 6 weeks of healing time, where they are told about safe sex and are given condoms and other educational material.
To keep this simple, let’s ignore the hundreds of men who acquired HIV and dropped out of the study. For simplicity let’s say they all stuck with it and 184 of those men caught HIV. That is 1.8% of the 10,000 men (or less than 2 men for every 100, which means that almost 98 of those 100 didn’t get HIV, regardless of their foreskin status). Of those 184 men, 59 were circumcised and 125 were intact. Remember though that the intact men didn’t have healing time from surgery nor were they told about safe sex.
Focusing on those 184 men who came down with HIV, 68% were intact (125 / 184). THAT is the much hyped 60% – 70% decrease, which falsely assumes that if those 125 men had been circumcised, none of them would have acquired HIV. Considering that 32% of the HIV+ men did in fact acquire HIV even with the circumcision, education and condoms, pretty much proves that at least 32% of those intact men (40 of them) would still have caught HIV had they been circumcised. So 99 (59 + 40) of all the men (1%) would STILL have acquired HIV. Now take that 1.25% of intact men who acquired HIV against the 1% of cut men who theoretically would have still acquired HIV, that’s only a fourth of one percent difference.
It pretty much boils down to the fact that 5,000 men lost their foreskins, and it didn’t even protect all of them from getting HIV. Even education and condoms didn’t protect them from it. Just imagine how fewer men would have acquired HIV had the intact men been instructed to use condoms and practice safe sex. Chances are that the cut men would have outnumbered the intact with infections.
To compound the inaccuracy of these studies, the circumcised men were catching up with the intact men, and that is when the “scientists” decided to cut the studies short. It can be assumed that the cut men grew tired of using condoms, since that is the only real protection against HIV other than abstinence. It was then they started acquiring HIV at the same rate as their intact counterparts.
One last thing I feel compelled to point out is that none of the African studies took into consideration that any of those men (cut or intact) were acquiring HIV through non-sexual transmission, and many of them were.
1.8% of all the men in the study acquired HIV (184 / 10000)
1.25% intact men acquired HIV of all the men (125 / 10000) or 2.5% of only the intact men (125 / 5000)
0.64% circumcised men acquired HIV of all the men (64 / 10000) or 1.3% of only the cut men (64 / 5000)
Actual difference between 1.25% and 0.64% equals 0.61% (1.25 – .64 = .61 which is less than 1%) reduction in the chances of acquiring HIV with circumcision, condoms and education. Even subtracting the 1.3% from 2.5% is just over 1%.
Basically 100 men would need to be circumcised to protect 1 man from POSSIBLY acquiring HIV, which could be prevented if that 1 man used a condom and/or maintained a monogamous relationship.
Is that really worth torturing newborn babies for?