Stephen Moses: Difference between revisions

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>{{RCT Bailey et al 2007}}</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">{{BoyleGJ HillG 2011}}</ref> Garenne & Matthews (2019) report that circumcised men have as much [[HIV]] infection as intact men.<ref>{{REFjournal

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> [[Michel Garenne|Garenne]] & Matthews (2019) report that circumcised men have as much [[HIV]] infection as intact men.<ref>{{REFjournal

|last=Garenne

|init=M

|author-link=

|author-link=Michel Garenne

|last2=Matthews

|init2=A

@@ 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>{{RCT Bailey et al 2007}}</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">{{BoyleGJ HillG 2011}}</ref> Garenne & Matthews (2019) report that circumcised men have as much [[HIV]] infection as intact men.<ref>{{REFjournal
+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> [[Michel Garenne|Garenne]] & Matthews (2019) report that circumcised men have as much [[HIV]] infection as intact men.<ref>{{REFjournal
   |last=Garenne
   |init=M
-  |author-link=
+  |author-link=Michel Garenne
   |last2=Matthews
   |init2=A