16,654
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Medical prophylactical arguments: Wikify.
}}</ref> of the [[WHO]] which should have determined that [[circumcision]] should have a 60% protection against [[HIV]]/[[AIDS]]. This study is sharply criticized worldwide by experts.
*: A study by [[Bertran Auvert]] is used as a source, which supposedly wants to found an [[HIV]] infection risk reduced by up to 60%.
*: There are several comments: Firstly, the study design was already destroyed with the start of the trial. The [[circumcised]] control group was circumcised directly at the beginning of the study. This means that the [[intact]] control group had a 'contagion lead' of six weeks which were applied until the circumcision wounds have healed. Secondly, the entire study was carried out in the region with the highest [[HIV]] rate around the world. Thus the results are not that meaningful as if the study would have been carried out in areas with 'normal' infection rates. Orange Farm, the village in [[South Africa]], is well-known for the high rate of [[HIV]]. A third criticism is that the study of [[Bertran Auvert|Auvert]] comes up with mathematical legerdemain and was also canceled after two years, when the figures threatened to align themselves. Unfortunately, this study is also the basis on which the [[WHO]] performs worth millions [[circumcision]] campaigns with the [[Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]].
* '''"Circumcision supposedly protects against urinary tract infections ([[UTI]])."'''