Of all the advances in medical science, for the year ending 2007, Times magazine announced a list of the TOP 10 MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS and topping the chart was – you guessed it, the title of this post.
Read the article below and see if there’s anything wrong or downright foolish in the way they got to their answer.
By Catherine Guthrie
#1. Circumcision Can Prevent HIV
In December 2006, the National Institutes of Health halted two clinical trials of male circumcision after an early review of the data showed that the procedure dramatically reduced transmission of HIV. Early this year, the details of those studies were published in the Lancet: In the two randomized trials, which included 7,780 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, and Kisumu, Kenya, researchers found that medically circumcised men were at least 51% less likely than uncircumcised men to acquire HIV during sex with women. The editors of the Lancet called the discovery “a new era for HIV prevention.” Scientists don’t know yet whether male circumcision can also provide protection for female partners — a new study on the hypothesis is forthcoming next year.
So they halted clinical trials after an early review based on adulterated stats. Big deal.
No data on circumcised women and their resistance to HIV. Sure. It’s always the guys.
So they found out medically circumcised men were 51% less likely than their uncircumcised counterparts to acquire HIV during sex with women. Alright.
Wait. Sex with women? What kind of women are we talking about? The ones with HIV or the ones WITHOUT HIV?
If this is a medical breakthrough, why don’t they have any data on circumcised men having sex with women who have HIV. It would really put the report to test and actually make it a breakthrough if they could replicate the result. Any kid who can read that report can tell that it only shows circumcised men are less likely to have sex with women with HIV. Cuz when you decide to make sweet love to someone who has the virus, you ARE going to get well acquainted with mister HIV unless you put on some form of protection which should dramatically reduce the risk.
To be honest here and speaking out of common sense, this is more of a report on SOCIAL LIFESTYLES and CULTURE than medical science. The stats could mean that circumcised men are richer and more likely to get it on with a virgin than some poor uncircumcised sap who has no other alternative than to do it with a used bag. Or it could mean anything else as well.
This is definitely worse than the David Beckham report by Sports Illustrated. Someone over at Time magazine needs to get fired for lazy/false reporting and by someone, I mean Catherine Gutherie.