Circumcision and HIV: Difference between revisions

Line 374:

}}</ref>

Presenting this hypothesis presents a two-fold problem. First, it presents an irrelevant conclusion; the randomized control trials were measuring frequency in [[HIV]] transmission, not for frequency in penile bacterial ~~inflamation~~, and whether said ~~inflamation~~ facilitated sexually transmitted [[HIV]]. And secondly, circumcision advocates give themselves the new burden of proving the newly introduced hypothesis, that change in bacterial infection does indeed result in a significant reduction of [[HIV]] transmission. A new study is needed to measure [[HIV]] transmission in men who have been circumcised, intact men with constant penile ~~inflamations~~, and intact men who don't suffer constant penile inflammation. Unless the randomized controlled studies were limited to only intact men who suffered constant penile inflammation.

Presenting this hypothesis presents a two-fold problem. First, it presents an irrelevant conclusion; the randomized control trials were measuring frequency in [[HIV]] transmission, not for frequency in penile bacterial inflammation, and whether said inflammation facilitated sexually transmitted [[HIV]]. And secondly, circumcision advocates give themselves the new burden of proving the newly introduced hypothesis, that change in bacterial infection does indeed result in a significant reduction of [[HIV]] transmission. A new study is needed to measure [[HIV]] transmission in men who have been [[circumcised]], [[intact]] men with constant penile inflammations, and [[intact]] men who don't suffer constant penile inflammation. Unless the randomized controlled studies were limited to only [[intact]] men who suffered constant penile inflammation.

== The immunological function of the foreskin ==

@@ Line 374: / Line 374: @@
 }}</ref>
-Presenting this hypothesis presents a two-fold problem. First, it presents an irrelevant conclusion; the randomized control trials were measuring frequency in [[HIV]] transmission, not for frequency in penile bacterial inflamation, and whether said inflamation facilitated sexually transmitted [[HIV]]. And secondly, circumcision advocates give themselves the new burden of proving the newly introduced hypothesis, that change in bacterial infection does indeed result in a significant reduction of [[HIV]] transmission. A new study is needed to measure [[HIV]] transmission in men who have been circumcised, intact men with constant penile inflamations, and intact men who don't suffer constant penile inflammation. Unless the randomized controlled studies were limited to only intact men who suffered constant penile inflammation.
+Presenting this hypothesis presents a two-fold problem. First, it presents an irrelevant conclusion; the randomized control trials were measuring frequency in [[HIV]] transmission, not for frequency in penile bacterial inflammation, and whether said inflammation facilitated sexually transmitted [[HIV]]. And secondly, circumcision advocates give themselves the new burden of proving the newly introduced hypothesis, that change in bacterial infection does indeed result in a significant reduction of [[HIV]] transmission. A new study is needed to measure [[HIV]] transmission in men who have been [[circumcised]], [[intact]] men with constant penile inflammations, and [[intact]] men who don't suffer constant penile inflammation. Unless the randomized controlled studies were limited to only [[intact]] men who suffered constant penile inflammation.
 == The immunological function of the foreskin ==