To be fair, I was a little snarky in the previous post. I'm going to leave it there just because but this is the cleaner, nicer version. Where instead of "child soldier" I find other terms much less objectionable than "war orphaned, amputee, land mine victim, forced to gang bang half a Hutu in exchange for her life" see Maka, I can be less snarky.
---- Edited, relatively safe for public consumption version----
So I was asked to help read/edit a pape for some policy debaters. In the case is an argument for male circumcision as a form of preventative medicine for reducing the HIV/AIDS infection rates.
On first glance this would seem pretty stupid right? I mean seriously, getting a circumcision doesn't prevent the exchange of bodily fluids. Hell I'm circumcised and I've got a kid so I can prove do you that bodily fluids are quite easily exchanged. But yes, contrary to logical thinking, there is some medical validity to this claim. While there is some sucess at reducing new infections rates, I want to stress that trying to claim that male circumcision stops AIDS or can even play a major role in stopping the spread of AIDS is lame. So if you're reading this and you know who you are, take it out of the paper. Seriously guys, it's like trying to claim you can solve global warming by cranking up an air conditioner and leaving the door open. It's a stuipd idea, it's not a public health plan and you should be ashamed for writing while stoned, drunk, and/or tripping on LSD.
First off the positive: circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV (according to the studies), up to 60% less likely in fact. The negative side of that? They're not at all less likely to prevent infecting someone else. So if you happen to be getting raped by a Tutsi death squad all of whom are circumcised, great!
You're less likely to infect them but they're no less likely to infect you with AIDS.
The Lancet study showed a link bewteen circumcision and AIDS infection, it does not show that AIDS is prevented by circumcision, only that it can reduce my chances of contracting HIV/AIDS. So yes, good news, I can have 40% more risky without statistically getting infected. You know what else I can do that works even better? Wear a fucking condom. You know what works even better than that? Not have risky sex with skeezy looking African hookers in the alley behind the Botswanan hotel. Those are preventative measures. If wearing a condom is like buying insurance, getting circumcised is like living in New Orleans and just praying for it not to rain.
so the in short, stop acting like you're the one retard scientist trying to disprove global warming. While there may be some impact of male circumcision on reducing new AIDS infections, getting your dick cut is not the same as wearing a condom, stop trying to base an entire half page worth of material to crazy science that defies all logic and practical reasoning. If you want to put in one or two sentences about how a program for male circumcision could be an example of an easy to implement part of an overall public health program, fine go for it. Two sentences is about what the NY Times should have given to it and you're not the NY Times.
That said, here's a few links:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vincenzi/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/africa/28africa.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2230833,00.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment