I think the main point they missed is that religious folk, whether it's Muslims or Jews who get circumcised usually are less promiscous, thus have less chance of contracting AIDS. Not because they are circumcised, but because they practice restraint
You realize, of course, that zillions of baby boys are circumcised for reasons that have exactly NOTHING to do with religion and everything to do with health?
Of course, but that was not the point of the article or my point. My point is that circumcision can't be the sole reason for stoping AIDS, and the reason why it works for many circumcised folks is because many of them are somewhat religious and practice restraint. Also, the foreskin is actually full of white cells, which in reality would fight HIV much better than when without it
Yes, I did. Why don't you post what you think, don't just post the article. C'mon Ben, do I need to get IM involved?
I think that given some of the women I slept with in the 80s and early 90s, what would have to have been the worst day of my life might have saved my life.
I guess, congrats, and maybe you can help the other unfortunate lost souls and help them convert to Judaism
The article says the trials were rigorously controlled. While I haven't seen a detailed report, I'm damn near certain such controls would exclude a confound as obvious as this. There's very little chance the study would get past a funding review with that kind of design flaw.
It's a lot less painful to join team Israel if you're a woman. In case anyone jumps in here and metions some notable examples of actual outsourcing from the Bible, I am just kidding, this refers to a debate I had with ASF in another thread.
Back to the original topic, I give credit to God. It sounds like circumcision is a very good thing for preventing AIDS. But isn't a condom less painful and more effective?
And also FYI... Well, God did not say to do this - so it's not the same thing , however, I'm fairly certain, that, if you are a woman, you will most likely NOT get breast cancer if you elect to have both of your breasts lopped off at an early age.
I heard a discussion of this article on the radio coming home this evening. The host quoted another newspaper which also referenced a very strong connection between promiscuity and HIV. duh! I didn't see all that much devoted to that very obvious point in the SF Chron version. This reminds me a something a HS XC coach told me a while back. He had gone to Kenya to study their distance running techniques. During the 6 weeks he was there he was amazed at the amount of promiscuity, particularly among the men. He related a couple of conversation with locals who just said "it goes on all the time." Virtually no medical awareness at all. Just "Feels Good Go It." Sad.
If this is God's reason for having circumcision, then it means that people were getting painful surgery for thousands of years for nothing. Wouldn't it have been a greater miracle if the Bible said something like "Lo, and in the year of the dude claiming to be my son 1950, I command my special people to start cutting off the ends of their dicks to somewhat lessen the chance of getting a horrible disease I will unleash on the world"?
It's not just aids, rates of uterus cancer are much lower in societies which practice circumcision. I would think urine gets stuck in the foreskin which can cause infections. Not necessarily the worst day, but it’s my earliest clear memory. Man was I screaming. It doesn’t do much for me though. Not wanting kids, you still have to use the plastic. Can’t trust anyone.
I'm still trying to figure out why the intitial post lead with the religion angle, or brought it up at all. This is an extremely interesting study with very interesting implications. Why we can't just discuss the science, without being whopped upside the head with God talk mystifies me. Maybe Ben was just goofin'...