HIV Vaccine Volunteers Needed

[metta]

http://www.hopetakesaction.org/ContactDev/

 

[BearBoi]

I can’t believe a medical study of this nature is promoting the junk science “uncircumcised men are at an inherently higher risk” bullshit. The study which promoted that belief came out of West Africa, where the majority of men are intact and a large percentage of the population is HIV+.

Connecting circumcision rates to HIV infection in that setting would be akin to going to China to gauge Cancer rates and concluding that only Chinese people get Cancer.

Medical associations around the world have dissembled that study and it is largely ignored; except in places like America, where many medical groups are fearful of losing precious circumcision money. Aside from prostitution, what other job pays upwards of $200 for 5 minutes worth of work?

If this is the stupidity they are willing to put on a questionnaire for volunteers, I’d sure as heck not trust them to put something inside my body.

 

[Nomenclature]

I can’t believe a medical study of this nature is promoting the junk science “uncircumcised men are at an inherently higher risk” bullshit. The study which promoted that belief came out of West Africa, where the majority of men are intact and a large percentage of the population is HIV+.

Not to mention that the majority of people are infected by the virus either by having it ejaculated into their rectum, or by having it injected directly into their blood stream.

Circumcision does absolutely NOTHING to protect you from the two most common infectious routes!!

Furthermore, The standard US practice is to give the "high and tight" circumcision, which leaves visible non-pigmented skin and a scar line high up on the shaft. The virus sticks to the non-pigmented lining of the inner foreskin, so this really doesn't help as far as I understand; you would need a very low circumcision to see any possible "benefit" from it.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Hell no, I won't be trying that lab rat route. No way!

 

[Zabotugi]

What does being circumcised have to do with seeing if a vaccine works?

It seems that a lot of HIV research is highly biased toward circumcision and only take into account if the male is circumcised.

I wonder if this does work it will state something like: "Along with circumcision, the vaccine is ''X''effective.

Apparently much research seems to carry the message that '' if you are not circumcised then you need to get circumcised if you want to prevent this disease efficiently, no alternative, so we are doing research assuming you are cut''

Screw all the other 3/5 of the world's men that are not cut.

 

[freefall]

Don't know why they inserted "Only homosexuals and circumsised men can participate in the study".

For the circumsision and HIV infection, there are some epidemiologic studies which shows that HIV infections are more often found on uncircumsised people. However, the vice versa is not true; there are no relation between circumsision and HIV infection. Sadly, people only read the first part of it and abandon the later. Butchered, half-absorbed information are really dangerous --'

The article is available here from CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/PDF/circumcision.pdf

So even doctors and scientists can misinterpret information by selective reuptake

 

[hotatlboi]

Um, well, I guess all vaccine's need volunteers...but, uh, if it doesn't work, and they test the virus out on you...ooh boy.

EDIT: OK, I see now that they don't test out the virus on you.

But...how do they find out if the vaccines were effective or not?

It is usually a study where they give half of the volunteers the vaccine and the other half a placebo. Then they follow both groups for several years. If the vaccine group has a significantly lower rate of HIV infection over the long term and there are no other discernible common factors that would cause this, then they know it is effective. If both groups have the same rate of infection over the long term then it probably isn't.

 

[milboy]

Condoms are 99.9% effective. It's funny how they tell the newly circumcised African men that they still need to wear condoms. According to them (the WHO, UNAIDS, etc) circumcised men are 60% less likely to become infected with HIV from screwing an infected vagina. Why promote something that isn't 100% effective? If the WHO, CDC, UNAIDS tried promoting a condom with a 40% failure rate, they would be laughed out of business and credibility. So, promoting circumcision to reduce the "chances" (Russian roulette) of contracting HIV has a 40% failure rate. God people are dumb asses!! Leave our penises alone.