AIDS and Africa
Dean
Okay, okay, I give up. I wasn't going to write about this story about how circumcision supposedly prevents HIV transmission in Africa because I get tired of all the crap I take whenever I write on either subject. But a whole bunch of people have sent me this story so I figure I have to say something.
This is nothing new. I find that tends to happen a lot with HIV--a story that isn't news suddenly gets reported again like it is. This stuff on circumcision supposedly reducing AIDS has been around forever. To give a fully informed response to this new study I'd have to see the original peer-reviewed research paper. The popular press frequently misreports on science, and rarely asks intelligent or probing questions of researchers. This is more true of HIV than any other subject I've seen. Offhand, though, there are several reasons to be skeptical.
Still, the results appear to be identical to this story from back in February on the same subject. Look closely at the numbers: this new study (which they didn't even bother completing) shows a 70% reduction in HIV transmission, while the earlier study said that uncircumcized men had a 1 in 80 chance of contracting HIV if they had sex with an HIV+ person while for circumcized men it was 1 in 200. That sounds a lot like a 70% reduction to me.
Now, one thing you should ask is why the termination of the study, when it's probably the case that many of the men will refuse circumcision? The fact that they terminated early is not evidence that the science was strong, it's evidence that they were anxious not to keep looking at the question for too long.
But what you really ought to be asking is just how wildly promiscuous African men must be if tens of millions of them are dying of AIDS. 1 in 80, just think about that: it means dozens of sexual contacts with someone who has HIV just to contract it. How on Earth could you have tens of millions infected unless these people copulate like jackrabbits? And how could they arrive at reliable numbers so quickly that they felt they could just go ahead and terminate the study early?
You also ought to be asking why heterosexual transmission is considered common in Africa whereas in America and Europe AIDS patients are overwhelmingly dominated by gay men and IV drug users. What's so special about these Africans, other than maybe the rather racist-sounding notion that they're wildly more promiscuous than white people?
While contemplating those questions, it might help to read the story of whistleblower Jonathan Fishbein, and visit his home page for more details on how he witnessed all sorts of obscene violations of good scientific practice on AIDS in Africa.
Then go read Symposium: The Radical Lies of AIDS. Disregard the lefty-bashing and simply read what these researchers have to say about the incredibly sloppy science that typifies AIDS in Africa--and the political climate that surrounds this disease, and the way anyone who questions the establishment is routinely smeared and slandered.
Then, go read this amazing interview with a Kenyan economist. It's not even about AIDS per se, but he talks a good bit about something I've said before: there is huge money thrown at Africa for AIDS. We give far more aid money for that purpose than we do for any other problem in Africa:
"AIDS is big business, maybe Africa's biggest business. There's nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical."Read the whole thing. Now, this does not mean that researchers working there are greedy mustache-twirling monsters or that there is any "conspiracy," but it wouldn't pass the due-disclosure requirements of any normal venture: if these people find what they're looking for they keep their jobs, whereas if they don't find what they're looking for they need to look for new jobs. The words "conflict of interest" need to be brought up more often in these situations.
Finally, on circumcision in general, please carefully read Dr. John Taylor's Ridged Band site, and note the copious research there on the negative effects of circumcision, which are substantial and have been documented in numerous peer-reviewed medical journals around the world. Treating this genital mutilation casually, like a "mere flap of skin," is both irresponsible and unscientific.
So. Will ripping away the prepuce of a bunch of African men lead to widespread reduction in AIDS in Africa? I'd have to look at their actual paper and see their methodology to have a firm opinion, but just based on what's been reported it looks shaky and sloppy. Until I've seen the actual paper, call me a continuing skeptic.
I was going to send it to you for the comedy rather than for your response. It just struck me as funny.
I thought the interview with Shikwati was interesting. While I'm skeptical that halting all aid would really help Africa, I do think that the best thing for Africa right now would be a free-trade agreement and slaying the US and European agricultural subsidies.
Can I just add one comment, though? Whether a cut or uncut guy has better/worse chances of getting HIV is really pretty secondary. So it gives you a 70% reduction in chances. You know what gives you a 100% reduction? Not sleeping or sharing needles with people who have HIV. And we've known this for a LONG time.
Whatever the cause of AIDS is, I say: Stop blaming President Reagan! He has endlessly been portrayed by his Communist and Leftist enemies as a cold-hearted monster cackling over the deaths of thousands of male homosexuals (men's men). That is a lie.
Circumcised penises are less sensitive, therefore leading to longer and rougher periods of intercourse, greatly increasing the chance of microlacerations and abrasion, increasing infection risk.
It's just as good a hypothesis as any of the others, and just as informed. I don't have any statistics backing me, though.
Just the other day, I heard THE most ridiculous case of junk science proselytizing EVER. An anti-smoking advocate was talking on the radio about worrysome trends of teen smoking. About three minutes into it, she implies that cigarette smoking can cause AIDS. I shit you not.
Apparently, smokers are 8 times more likely to use illegal drugs than non-smokers, and illegal drug users are known to contract AIDS. Forgetting that corellation does not equal causation, forgetting that 'illegal drugs' includes marijuana users, most importantly forgetting that you actually have to put an infected hypodermic needle into your veins. Forgetting all that, yes, smokers are at a higher risk to contract AIDS, so don't smoke or you'll die of AIDS.
I swear, soon they'll somehow manage to cook the books enough to imply that being in a smoky room gives you syphilis, maybe like this:
Opium dens are smoky rooms -> 19th century intellectuals frequented opium dens -> Nietzsche was a 19th century intellectual -> Nietzsche died from syphilis -> you might too.
I'm reminded of a recent Simpsons episode, where Marge commented that 'Anything's possible now that scientists have invented magic'. Seems like we're there already, except that the magic is statistical sleight of hand.
Bathing.