Re:Adversarial childhood events are associated with Sudden I...
by bodas on Sunday July 29, 2018 @12:23PM
(#17638870)
Chopping the whole thing off would reduce the risk of HIV even further.
Re:Adversarial childhood events are associated with Sudden I...
by patagonia on Sunday July 29, 2018 @12:27PM
(#17638896)
I actually don’t understand why providing links to articles with scientific research spanning a decade that backs up a hygiene practice that reduces the costs of one our lifetimes worst global health epidemics would elicit such snarky sarcasm. I actually don’t
Re:Adversarial childhood events are associated with Sudden I...
by rootusrootus on Sunday July 29, 2018 @12:31PM
(#17638919)
Please be aware how much of that research sources back to a few studies in Africa. There are a few essential differences between the US and Africa beyond foreskin.
Re:Adversarial childhood events are associated with Sudden I...
by patagonia on Sunday July 29, 2018 @12:46PM
(#17639001)
How about a study published this month:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
Or one that considers multiple countries:
https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/7974070
Or a 2010 article about men in the United States:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
I’m literally finding this stuff by googling on my cell phone, so clearly you’ve not bothered to check yourself. Given the costs in dollars and lives I don’t understand the biases toward writing this off.
Re:Adversarial childhood events are associated with Sudden I...
by bodas on Sunday July 29, 2018 @07:49PM
(#17641088)
I apologise for the snark. However there are other much more effective forms of HIV prophylaxis, such as condoms. I find it hard to imagine that any adult would choose to circumcise themselves because they were worried about HIV.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127372/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-c...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594533/
Edit: for those down voting, please see child comment with additional studies that are also current and cover multiple populations. HN is generally opening to arguments backed by peer reviewed research, I don’t know why this topic would be any different. Also, DannyBee’s comment is interesting, regarding this article having been previously debunked