Stopping government funded circumcision in the USA through DOGE?

JL0101 · 2025-02-21T12:35:51+00:00

I just heard some news that DOGE is cleaning up now with all kinds of unnecessary funding and other wastes of money, also looking into Medicaid next and even...

Bonemail666

xevv Oh so you don’t actually know whether/which studies were nefariously excluded from the systematic review? It’s my responsibility to do the research proving your point?

I don’t think you appreciate how damaging it would be to the reputation of the scientists authoring a systematic review to willfully or even unintentionally exclude studies that meet their search criteria. It’s not like making an anonymous reddit post, where you can cherry pick any study that supports your priors, and pretend that an apples-to-oranges comparison of US to EU HIV rates is a randomized controlled trial.

xevv

Bonemail666 I skimmed through the list and it was missing the Cambridge study, the Ontario study, and the Danish study, which are the newest studies on my list. It was also missing a couple of other various studies like Chao’s 1994 study, Millet’s 2007 study, Gust’s 2010 study, etc.

There’s over 20 studies listed in the Reddit thread. I’m not going to pick through every single one of them, but you can’t claim that there’s no evidence that circumcision doesn’t prevent HIV with that number of studies.

Bonemail666

xevv The 60% reduction rate is from a review of studies of Southern African countries where HIV prevalence is ~20%. I’ve granted that the risk/benefit calculation will differ in places like the US and Canada, where prevalence is under 1%. Look at the systematic review– it’s all studies from Southern Africa.

xevv

Bonemail666 The Cambridge study looks into statistics from several southern African countries and shows there’s no significant difference in HIV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

[Login to see the link]

JL0101

cut-cocks-are-ugly

that’s absolutely right! even if the 1,3% would be actually right, which I doubt, cause the number is so low, that there is surely a margin of error and there is probably no difference at all - it would still mean the Chance to get AIDS is only 1,3% points higher and that 60% is - while it is mathematically correct to say it that way - completely manipulative and would people believe it actually gives you a 60% protection, while a condom would be 99% or whatever. that is so wrong on so many levels and probably causes more HIV than if those people would have just been left alone.

Also: If you let them cut your foreskin off, in the best scenario you maybe reduce a HIV risk by questionable 1,3% points - but at the same time you get a (probably even higher) percentage of very serious complications like losing your whole cock, making it completely useless or even death. and in 100% of the cases you do end up with a mutilated penis that doesn’t have all its previous functions anymore, that’s for sure.

Bonemail666

xevv ‘Convenient’ is one word for that study’s exclusion, but ‘logically inevitable’ would be more accurate- it was published 2 years after the systematic review I mentioned.

xevv

Bonemail666 There’s still an argument to be made that you can’t definitively say that circumcision prevents HIV. Results are mixed at best.

Bonemail666

True, epidemiology addresses complex, multifactorial phenomena that resist absolute certainty. We have to go with the highest quality, peer-reviewed evidence available, namely systematic reviews & meta-analyses and not reddit posts. That point is inarguable.

neezduts*24896

Bonemail666 Wrong again my g you’re not looking at what I said, those studies looked at the places where there were tandem programs and while this type of study is considered amongbthe highest types of evidence its not a high level of evidence itself as cherrypicking is a thing, I can show you similar types of evidence pertaining to how sex supposedly feels better with a condom, or how FGM works against HIV and STD’s, etc. It is among the highest types of evidence we can produce, doesn’t mean it is always of high quality. There are UN WHO declarations in their INTERNAL MEMOS and similarly circulated guidelines that circumcision is ineffectual on their own and needs to be paired with another procedure to have a y effect, but then is its the other procedure or circumcision that has the effect then? Plus the UN WHO had also put out a statement regarding how HIV rates and injuries have gone up in areas where the program was administered due to the lack of SUPPORTIVE measures like safe sex ed and testing, and antiviral ability. Do not fall for their traps when they are inconsistent in an of itself.

Bonemail666

neezduts*24896

Please do point me to the randomized controlled trial showing that FGM prevents HIV transmission.

You write: “The circumcision reducing incidences by 60% is total bullshit as those studies only looked at poor areas that received both circumcision and holistic sexual health aid such as std testing and condoms and genital hygiene awareness programs and kits and not the parts of africa that received only circumcision programs.”

It is true that participants in these RCT received holistic care. But both the circumcised participants and uncircumcised control groups received that holistic care, and the circumcised participants saw a 50-60% reduction. So this is not a confounding variable.

“This is further evidence by even theWHO themselves stating that circumcision is incapable of actually stopping std transmission on its own and needs to be sired with other programs to have any actual effect but then the question begs that how do we know that circumcision isn’t hijacking the efforts and EFFECTS of the paired health initiative in the first place.”

We know this because there were control groups where circumcision was the only variable.

“it doesn’t even help marginally tho as although we are more likely to tear our foreskin because we still have a foreskin, not only is that like saying you’re more likely to crack your teeth if you still have teeth,”

First, microtears are one factor among many that may explain why circumcision reduces HIV. Even without tearing the mucosal tissue in foreskin is a receptor for HIV. Second, much as I oppose RIC, the analogy to teeth is misleading, because teeth are an essential structure whereas foreskin is not – you can find men circumcised in adulthood who are glad they underwent the procedure. There is nothing unethical in a public health program that offers men voluntary circumcision as a part of holistic strategy to reduce HIV transmission.

neezduts*24896

Bonemail666 No because again those groups did not receive the same care amd treatment, the circumcised men were kept within the confines of medical camps and were given regular health checkups, and some even gave them daily, a study had even mentioned that they continously gave sex ed counselling to the circumcised patients regarding contraceptives, such repetitive support was not extended to them, furthermore the intact men were not confined to the camp and their sexual activity was not monitored. Furthermore with the argument regarding teeth, again this is disingenuous on your part, as not only are you deflecting from the main crux of the argument of correlation vs causation and simple biological wear and tear, but one must also consider the fact that again, the skin of a circumcised penis is the same of an intact one, the epithelial is the same, and the keratinised layer serves to increase friction, which combined with the taut nature of the skin of a circumcised penis, negates any structural benefit keratinisation can provide, furthermore, keratinisation occurs as a response to damage that has already occurred, so the keratinised skin starts off in a weaker position anyways. Overall the susceptibility of tears are the same for both, else a circumcised glans and shaft skin would not be so scarred and damaged, you would simply have an I tact glans with a shiny layer of keratin on top. The analogy is not misleading as its point is not regarding the inherent use of each organ it is regarding the blame of biological water and tear on a part of the body. But also the point regarding satisfaction of adult circumcision means nothing as in parts of Africa, you have circumcised women wholly advocating for the mutilation of their daughters as a sign of pride and contentment. You have also ignored the point about RCT’S for penile sensitivity and condom usage. Are you yielding that or are you cherry picking things you want to know?

Furthermore the teeth are not essential, else old people and people with weak or no would die from starvation as an epidemic historically, it’s use is to aid in the process of digestion, and food of different types can be eaten without teeth anyways, those that can’t will neccesite either further processing or the use of dentures or they can mash it with their gums and jaw bones, similarly with circumcision men struggle to mastuurbate using the inner foreskin and glans penis without the use of lubrication, else they have to use the outer foreskin to masurbate if it can move in the first place and during intercourse preparation is needed to ensure abrasionas are not developed, both teeth and foreskin are not essential to the process of eating or sex respectively, however they aid the process significantly, it’s just that handicaps for circumcision are normalised.

I will find the link to FGM and HIV and for an trial in which the women were fine if not happy with being mutilated as soon as I can I have some digging to do infact what’s funny was it was BJ Morris who highlighted that study in his internal email discussions. Lemme see if I can find it.

Here’s one which claims there is no actual affect on sexual function [Login to see the link]

And another one which is for the acceptance of female circumcision among women in circumcision societies, this study is just a more prospective glance using a study involving women especially mothers belonging to such a society
[Login to see the link]

Bonemail666

“the circumcised men were kept within the confines of medical camps and were given regular health checkups, and some even gave them daily,”

You lost me right out of the gate with this – there’s no possible way that the experimental arms of these RCTs were confined to medical camps. This would be an egregious violation of basic research ethics and a total confounder to the results. I’ll read the rest of your response after you provide a direct quote supporting this claim. I don’t know where you’re getting your information but it’s not reliable. This exchange has been an object lesson in Brandolini’s Law.

neezduts*24896

Bonemail666 The Summaries of the Kenyan Ugandan Studies and especially in the South African Study The circumcised group had specific instructions to abstain from sex and use condoms that the intact control group does not.
Experimenter and circumcision advocate Robert Bailey has admitted that “repeated study visits and intensive behavioural counselling” of the circumcised men were needed to reduce risk behaviours.
This is only in the summaries, if you pay for the whole study and look at the raw data they mention therapy and counselling regarding safe sex being given to the circumcised patients, however regarding the abstaining from safe sex after circumcision criteria is visible in the exclusion criteria of the summary of the south African study seen here
What’s funny is that this major study is now terminated as per DSMBB guidelines. But is was a major proponent for the HIV beliefs a decade ago.

Circumstitions gives a nice counter summary but for the full picture you’ll have to pay for the full study, the site i used to pirate the study data is now shut down so this is the best I can do.

[Login to see the link]

bjhjcfnm

Latest update from Intaction:

In New Hampshire, the HEC supported bill HB94 which will stop state funding for infant circumcision passed the Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee 10-8 on a party line vote.

All of the Republicans voted for it, except Rep. Linda McGrath. All of the Democrats voted against it, except Rep. Gary Woods.

The bill is set to move to the full House for a vote on March 6, 2025

Thank you to all of those that sent in public comments in support of HB94. Your assistance really helped! Our next goal is to pass the House.

Bonemail666

neezduts*24896 The full ANRS trial study is available here: [Login to see the link]

No mention that “the circumcised men were kept within the confines of medical camps and were given regular health checkups”
The instructions to abstain or use condoms was only for 6 weeks of a 21 month trial
Bailey’s point is that the circumcised men thought they had heightened protection, and therefore were less likely to use condoms; the counselling was to counteract that. One would expect this confounder to produce higher transmission rates in the circumcised group.
I don’t see any mention in ANRS of the circumcised group receiving more counselling; Robert Bailey was not involved in the study, from what I can tell.
“What’s funny is that this major study is now terminated as per DSMBB guidelines. But is was a major proponent for the HIV beliefs a decade ago.” <– I don’t know what you’re getting at with this.

neezduts*24896

Bonemail666 The counselling point is incorrect though as even if it is to counter a presumption regarding any additional perceived protection from circumcision, they still solved it through rigorous counselling aimed at instilling a sense for safe sexual conduct which the intact group never received, also there is no guarantee that the intact groups knowledge was much better , however the point was that even if the circumcised group started with non helpful presumptions they ended the counselling being far more prepared and drilled to handle HIV prevention than the Intact group which will have a massive impact. You’re focusing on the starting point while ignoring the end result.

Also as you said it yourself this source which is the ANRS still the polished publication doesn’t contain the guidelines followed by the team or the therapy goals. Bailey’s comments are from the guidelines given with the raw data from the study which is behind a pay wall. Amd the pirated sites shit down that’s why some of circumcstitions links don’t work.

In that data they have mentioned giving regular checkups to the cut group with a physician analysing the circumcision after the 6 weeks as well, they even mention the lower rate if healing issues in the ANRS version, this would not happen if tests weren’t done that aren’t given in the ANRS publication.

The dismissal of the study is as I said an irony given its obsolescence with time considering how it was used as definitive evidence in the past.

arronsanders

Those HIV studies were so flawed it’s obvious they were done to get the result they wanted.

Bonemail666

Where in the ANRS study does it even say that the circumcised group received more counselling?
Where is it said that the ANRS has been ‘dismissed’?

What do you mean I’m focused on the starting point?

I’m focused on the results of multiple systematic reviews which have found strong evidence that circumcision reduces HIV transmission 60%.

You have made claim after claim that turn out not to be false - read back through our thread and note all the points you made and then quietly dropped. I’m still waiting for that RCT you said existed showing FGM reduces HIV transmission. Or the evidence that, in one trial, the circumcised arm was kept within the confines of medical camps. Or evidence that in one of the RCTs, the circumcised arm received daily counselling. You notice a pattern here? You are spewing falsehood after falsehood, and putting the burden on me to disprove. And when your errors are pointed out, you just move along, making new spurious claims – never reflecting on the possibility that your confidence on this topic is unwarranted.

neezduts*24896

Bonemail666 That’s the point the ANRS publication is not raw data version it’s a polished ary which doesn’t contain all the points, for example can you say what was the content of the counselling given to the groups regarding safe sex practices, or the data regarding issues from circumcision, or what was the broad reasons given for the hundreds of people that left the study? It’s not false claims of the raw data contains it, even moreso when there are even pro circumstances people like Bailey amd articles such as the Trinidad newspaper article from 2007 which reference these things. Just because it’s not in the free version of the trial publication doesn’t mean it does not exist, even moreso if they’re drawing from datapoints not referenced from the stiff, the 60% difference is nonsense as they have manipulated the test group into a much safer position at the start of the study which gave them better outcomes. Daily counselling was given to those who attended regularly when they lived near the site, either for checkups, or consultations, or counselling. The hard points are referenced by everyone when the raw data was not locked behind a pay wall. Just because you’re burying your head inbthe free ANRS source doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

« Previous Page