Re: Scientists urge circumcison to help fight HIV

On Fri, 09 May 2008 12:24:20 -0700, Husky wrote:

> On May 9, 12:08 pm, Jake Waskett <chillies...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 08:58:06 -0700, Husky wrote:
>> > On May 9, 8:53 am, WindingHighway <windingwaytoohigh...@aol.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On May 9, 8:13ï¿½am, Jake Waskett
<chillies...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Fri, 09 May 2008 04:19:34 -0700, Husky wrote:
>> >> > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280846
>>
>> >> > One cohort study? Why not cite a higher standard of evidence,
such as an
>> >> > RCT?
>>
>> >> LOL  -- Jake, he doesnt even understand the difference between opinion
>> >> and evidence, let alone between a cohort study and an RCT!
>>
>> > Ad Hominem yet again.  Gee Sparky, PubMed.gov a service of the U.S.
>> > National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health
>> > thought it was worth reporting.
>>
>> Husky, PubMed is a database. It contains abstracts for almost every
>> study published in major journals for the past few decades. At the time of
>> writing, if you search PubMed for "circumcision", you will find 4,042
>> abstracts.
> Does that mean you don't accept the report?

Husky, it means that I don't understand why you're making such a big deal
out of the fact that you found the abstract at PubMed.

>> > Do you find the reports findings to be inaccurate or suspect in anyway?
>>
>> Personally, I think that when this study is considered in the proper
>> context (that is, when it is considered alongside other studies of
>> comparable or better methodology), it is no less valid than any of the
>> others. However, it is generally a mistake to cherry-pick studies with a
>> particular conclusion; instead one should try to look at the preponderance
>> of evidence.
>
> Agreed. BTW, I've never denied the benefit of circumcision, but it's
> tag lines such as in the article that I find misleading, at best. Do
> you agree with it?
> "Circumcision 'is the best weapon in fight against Aids' "  That's
> silly at best.

I think it depends on the context. What seems "best" often depends on the
context. For example, do we mean maximum effectiveness, regardless of
practicality (for example, total abstinence for the human race)? Or do we
mean the most practical?

>  A study such as the one cited required 31 years so it appears to be a
> one of a kind.

There aren't many birth cohort studies, true. WH cited a 25-year study,
but I can't think of any others.

> The study was begun before the Aids epidemic started and I believe
> that the researcher had no ulterior motives.  It was reported on a
> reputable cite and in all sincerity, believe it was informative

I'm sure that's true. Nevertheless, it's a cohort study, not a randomised
controlled trial, and we have to take that into account.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]