22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "== Anonymous submission == ''There was just a major HIV conference in Boston. I was happy to see that most of the talks were not about circumcision. However, there was one..."
== Anonymous submission ==
''There was just a major HIV conference in Boston. I was happy to see that most of the talks were not about circumcision. However, there was one, by X. Kong from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (this place is an epicenter of the pro-circ fanatics). Check it out here, skipping to 1:45.''
''http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/servlet/tc?c=10164&cn=retro&s=20445&&dp=player.jsp&e=13709&mediaType=podiumVideo''
''She found that the circumcised men did use condoms less after circ, but since the intact men did too, so she claims this is not an effect of the MGM programs. But the study participants may not be representative of the general population. And she does not talk about the % of men who dropped out of the study. Be sure to check out the question and answers after her talk.''--Anonymous (March 7th 2011)
=== Here are my notes on the talk ===
:Rukai Uguanda, ~5,000 participants, 2003-2006
::Tim Hastro, FHI North Carolina
::Q. Did you have any information of the HIV status of the female partners of the men in your study? And, if you did or didn't know that, how do the men's reported sexual activity outside of that relationship relate to their hiv infection? If you don't know the status, it's hard to assess the risk. How valid is the reported behavior?
::A. 1) HIV partner info: we're still doing the testings, we'll be able to do the analysis later
::2) Very good point, we have the partner data, so we'll be able to do the analysis later.
::Chris Barter, Johns Hopkins
::Q. Condom use, post-trial, interruptions in condom supply in Uguanda during the post-trial period. Can you comment on that?
::A. We discuss this point, we don't have a shortage in Rakai. During the trial, we provided condoms for free, and could access it from the depots, it's cheap. After the trial, they had to make an effort to go and use and buy themselves, that's the explanation for the drop in usage.
::Institute Antwerp Belgium
::Q. What about male circumcision as a function of time: less than two years ago, vs. more than two years ago.
::A. We did not look at that.
::Stan, Vanderbilt
::Q. You had both people who had riskier behavior. Just because both groups became more riskier over time. Risk compensation issue is not resolved because risk went up.
::A. There was no evidence of risk compensation during the trial. The trial participants do not represent the general population.
::-[[User:Mazzera|Mazzera]] 15:06, 2 May 2011 (CDT)
== Do we need a Johns Hopkins page? ==
Why not just stick everything on the Rakai Project page?-[[User:Mazzera|Mazzera]] 15:10, 2 May 2011 (CDT)
:There is more on Johns Hopkins that isn't on here. As long as they're funding circumcision "study," Johns Hopkins is responsible.[[User:Orly21|Orly21]] 18:59, 2 May 2011 (CDT)
== Johns Hopkins affiliates ==
* http://blog.jhpiego.org/2011/07/17/start-hiv-prevention-early-with-early-infant-male-circumcision/
== Resources ==
* http://www.examiner.com/science-news-in-birmingham/the-majority-of-pediatric-studies-are-biased-per-johns-hopkins
== Funding ==
I think it is interesting what motivates Ronald Gray, Tobias et al.
If you look here http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/13/1479.full, you will see :
''Funding/Support: Dr Tobian is supported by grant 2011036 from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, National Institutes of Health grant 1K23AI093152-01A1, and the Johns Hopkins University Clinician Scientist Development Award. ''
I looked up Johns Hopkins University Clinician Scientist Development Award. Here is some more info:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/research/ora/handbook/csaawards.html
=== Allowable Expenditures ===
''Awards may be made for up to $80,000 per year for a maximum of two years to support up to 75% of the applicant's salary and benefits. Salary support from external awards will be subtracted from the 75% figure in determining the exact amount of the internal award. The CSA is not intended to supplement external support in order to enable the applicant to devote more than 75% effort to research''
''Funding beyond the first year is dependent on the continuation of the Program and a satisfactory progress report Expenditures are limited to salary and fringe benefits Awards to faculty with concurrent external support equal to/greater than $50,000/year (direct costs, irrespective of funding purpose or restrictions) will be limited to a maximum of $40,000 CSA support per year.''
=== Second Year Funding ===
''A second year of CSA funding is usually awarded at no more than the level of the first year, provided that the candidate has demonstrated sufficient progress, and has a continuing need for salary up to 75%. The awardee will automatically receive notification regarding the format of the renewal report at least one month before it is due''
''If a draft application was used to apply for the first year of CSA funding, an application for a research project or career development award must be submitted to a peer-review sponsor prior to applying for the second year's funding.''
Maybe some of this info can be added to the relevant articles so we know what really motivates these people - money!--[[User:Purewater|Purewater]] 04:40, 5 October 2011 (CDT)
:I think we need to expose all we can on these people. Money may be the real reason behind this after all, but we must also hunt for researcher bias. Is it "just the money?" Or could it also be that there is something that they're not sharing? Money is a big driver, don't get me wrong. But take [[Neil Pollock]] for example. He's got a double conflict of interest; circumcision means money to him, but it also means safeguarding a tradition that has been under attack since the times of Antiochus. Rumor has it that Gray and/or Wawer are both Jewish. If we can find proof of this, we'll know just why these "studies" are being carried out. If you can source it properly, by all means add it. It's important stuff people need to know.[[User:Orly21|Orly21]] 09:25, 5 October 2011 (CDT)
== New propaganda ==
I like how they are trying to get the press to follow up on their editorial in the Journal of the American Medical association.[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20115905-10391704.html Circumcision foes should cut it out, experts say. ''October 5'']
I hope Gray and Tobias read these pages. If they do my message to Gray and Tobias is: stop now. Give up. The more you go on , the more you will be despised once it is shown that circumcision is damaging to sexual and mental health.
You say there is no evidence for loss of sexual function. Those African trials are flawed and you know it. What about Sorrells? See [http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html Circumstitions:sexuality]. It is completely obvious that circumcision must have an effect on the functionality and sensitivity. Take masturbation. Without the foreskin, men find it harder to masturbate. There is no skin to move up and down. How can you justify altering the sexual behaviour and lessening the sexual pleasure and function of men without their consent?
Also, if circumcision was needed to prevent STI's in the USA, why does the USA have higher rates of STI's than European countries? Yes, there are confounding factors so you cannot prove that higher circumcision rates are the cause of higher STI rates, but it has been shown that you can have lower STI rates without circumcision. Increasing circumcision may actually increase STI's. It is disgraceful you are using your African trials to promote circumcision in the USA. It is bad science because the 2 cultures and countries are so totally different. A country like the USA is different to African countries. I recommend you read Robert Van Howes excellent article: [http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/viewArticle/jphia.2011.e4/html_9 How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections. Van Howe, Journal of Public Health in Africa 2011] --[[User:Purewater|Purewater]] 23:39, 6 October 2011 (CDT)
<!-- {{REF}} -->
[[Category:From IntactWiki]]
''There was just a major HIV conference in Boston. I was happy to see that most of the talks were not about circumcision. However, there was one, by X. Kong from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (this place is an epicenter of the pro-circ fanatics). Check it out here, skipping to 1:45.''
''http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/servlet/tc?c=10164&cn=retro&s=20445&&dp=player.jsp&e=13709&mediaType=podiumVideo''
''She found that the circumcised men did use condoms less after circ, but since the intact men did too, so she claims this is not an effect of the MGM programs. But the study participants may not be representative of the general population. And she does not talk about the % of men who dropped out of the study. Be sure to check out the question and answers after her talk.''--Anonymous (March 7th 2011)
=== Here are my notes on the talk ===
:Rukai Uguanda, ~5,000 participants, 2003-2006
::Tim Hastro, FHI North Carolina
::Q. Did you have any information of the HIV status of the female partners of the men in your study? And, if you did or didn't know that, how do the men's reported sexual activity outside of that relationship relate to their hiv infection? If you don't know the status, it's hard to assess the risk. How valid is the reported behavior?
::A. 1) HIV partner info: we're still doing the testings, we'll be able to do the analysis later
::2) Very good point, we have the partner data, so we'll be able to do the analysis later.
::Chris Barter, Johns Hopkins
::Q. Condom use, post-trial, interruptions in condom supply in Uguanda during the post-trial period. Can you comment on that?
::A. We discuss this point, we don't have a shortage in Rakai. During the trial, we provided condoms for free, and could access it from the depots, it's cheap. After the trial, they had to make an effort to go and use and buy themselves, that's the explanation for the drop in usage.
::Institute Antwerp Belgium
::Q. What about male circumcision as a function of time: less than two years ago, vs. more than two years ago.
::A. We did not look at that.
::Stan, Vanderbilt
::Q. You had both people who had riskier behavior. Just because both groups became more riskier over time. Risk compensation issue is not resolved because risk went up.
::A. There was no evidence of risk compensation during the trial. The trial participants do not represent the general population.
::-[[User:Mazzera|Mazzera]] 15:06, 2 May 2011 (CDT)
== Do we need a Johns Hopkins page? ==
Why not just stick everything on the Rakai Project page?-[[User:Mazzera|Mazzera]] 15:10, 2 May 2011 (CDT)
:There is more on Johns Hopkins that isn't on here. As long as they're funding circumcision "study," Johns Hopkins is responsible.[[User:Orly21|Orly21]] 18:59, 2 May 2011 (CDT)
== Johns Hopkins affiliates ==
* http://blog.jhpiego.org/2011/07/17/start-hiv-prevention-early-with-early-infant-male-circumcision/
== Resources ==
* http://www.examiner.com/science-news-in-birmingham/the-majority-of-pediatric-studies-are-biased-per-johns-hopkins
== Funding ==
I think it is interesting what motivates Ronald Gray, Tobias et al.
If you look here http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/13/1479.full, you will see :
''Funding/Support: Dr Tobian is supported by grant 2011036 from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, National Institutes of Health grant 1K23AI093152-01A1, and the Johns Hopkins University Clinician Scientist Development Award. ''
I looked up Johns Hopkins University Clinician Scientist Development Award. Here is some more info:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/research/ora/handbook/csaawards.html
=== Allowable Expenditures ===
''Awards may be made for up to $80,000 per year for a maximum of two years to support up to 75% of the applicant's salary and benefits. Salary support from external awards will be subtracted from the 75% figure in determining the exact amount of the internal award. The CSA is not intended to supplement external support in order to enable the applicant to devote more than 75% effort to research''
''Funding beyond the first year is dependent on the continuation of the Program and a satisfactory progress report Expenditures are limited to salary and fringe benefits Awards to faculty with concurrent external support equal to/greater than $50,000/year (direct costs, irrespective of funding purpose or restrictions) will be limited to a maximum of $40,000 CSA support per year.''
=== Second Year Funding ===
''A second year of CSA funding is usually awarded at no more than the level of the first year, provided that the candidate has demonstrated sufficient progress, and has a continuing need for salary up to 75%. The awardee will automatically receive notification regarding the format of the renewal report at least one month before it is due''
''If a draft application was used to apply for the first year of CSA funding, an application for a research project or career development award must be submitted to a peer-review sponsor prior to applying for the second year's funding.''
Maybe some of this info can be added to the relevant articles so we know what really motivates these people - money!--[[User:Purewater|Purewater]] 04:40, 5 October 2011 (CDT)
:I think we need to expose all we can on these people. Money may be the real reason behind this after all, but we must also hunt for researcher bias. Is it "just the money?" Or could it also be that there is something that they're not sharing? Money is a big driver, don't get me wrong. But take [[Neil Pollock]] for example. He's got a double conflict of interest; circumcision means money to him, but it also means safeguarding a tradition that has been under attack since the times of Antiochus. Rumor has it that Gray and/or Wawer are both Jewish. If we can find proof of this, we'll know just why these "studies" are being carried out. If you can source it properly, by all means add it. It's important stuff people need to know.[[User:Orly21|Orly21]] 09:25, 5 October 2011 (CDT)
== New propaganda ==
I like how they are trying to get the press to follow up on their editorial in the Journal of the American Medical association.[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20115905-10391704.html Circumcision foes should cut it out, experts say. ''October 5'']
I hope Gray and Tobias read these pages. If they do my message to Gray and Tobias is: stop now. Give up. The more you go on , the more you will be despised once it is shown that circumcision is damaging to sexual and mental health.
You say there is no evidence for loss of sexual function. Those African trials are flawed and you know it. What about Sorrells? See [http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html Circumstitions:sexuality]. It is completely obvious that circumcision must have an effect on the functionality and sensitivity. Take masturbation. Without the foreskin, men find it harder to masturbate. There is no skin to move up and down. How can you justify altering the sexual behaviour and lessening the sexual pleasure and function of men without their consent?
Also, if circumcision was needed to prevent STI's in the USA, why does the USA have higher rates of STI's than European countries? Yes, there are confounding factors so you cannot prove that higher circumcision rates are the cause of higher STI rates, but it has been shown that you can have lower STI rates without circumcision. Increasing circumcision may actually increase STI's. It is disgraceful you are using your African trials to promote circumcision in the USA. It is bad science because the 2 cultures and countries are so totally different. A country like the USA is different to African countries. I recommend you read Robert Van Howes excellent article: [http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/viewArticle/jphia.2011.e4/html_9 How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections. Van Howe, Journal of Public Health in Africa 2011] --[[User:Purewater|Purewater]] 23:39, 6 October 2011 (CDT)
<!-- {{REF}} -->
[[Category:From IntactWiki]]