Stephen Moses: Difference between revisions
m adjusted REFjournal |
m using template BoyleGJ HillG 2011 |
||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
}}</ref>Of the three {{#tip-text:RCT|Randomized controlled trial}}s being used by the [[WHO]] to endorse circumcision as HIV prevention, Stephen Moses and [[Robert C. Bailey]] headed the {{#tip-text:RCT|Randomized controlled trial}} that was carried out in Kenya.<ref>Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. ''Lancet'' 2007;369:643-56. [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60312-2/abstract Abstract]</ref> Moses obviously brought his pre-existing bias in favor of male circumcision into the trial, so he did not start from a neutral position. | }}</ref>Of the three {{#tip-text:RCT|Randomized controlled trial}}s being used by the [[WHO]] to endorse circumcision as HIV prevention, Stephen Moses and [[Robert C. Bailey]] headed the {{#tip-text:RCT|Randomized controlled trial}} that was carried out in Kenya.<ref>Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. ''Lancet'' 2007;369:643-56. [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60312-2/abstract Abstract]</ref> Moses obviously brought his pre-existing bias in favor of male circumcision into the trial, so he did not start from a neutral position. | ||
Moses' research on circumcision protection from HIV infection is now completely discredited. Boyle & Hill (2011) reviewed the three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and found disabling methodological and statistical errors in all three. Although a 60 percent ''relative'' reduction in HIV was claimed, the ''absolute'' reduction was a statistically insignificant 1.3 percent.<ref name="boyle-hill2011">{{ | Moses' research on circumcision protection from HIV infection is now completely discredited. Boyle & Hill (2011) reviewed the three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and found disabling methodological and statistical errors in all three. Although a 60 percent ''relative'' reduction in HIV was claimed, the ''absolute'' reduction was a statistically insignificant 1.3 percent.<ref name="boyle-hill2011">{{BoyleGJ HillG 2011}}</ref> Garenne & Matthews (2019) report that circumcised men have as much HIV infection as intact men.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
}}</ref> Garenne & Matthews (2019) report that circumcised men have as much HIV infection as intact men.<ref>{{REFjournal | |||
|last=Garenne | |last=Garenne | ||
|init=M | |init=M | ||