the HIV researchers put their biases over the studies, here are all the points of it -
i) Trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
ii) In One Study, circumcised men's infections rates were increasing faster than intact's cohort until the study was terminated early.
iii) Circumcised cohort could not copulate 4-6 weeks post-circumcision as the would healed: this was omitted from analysis and accentuates distortion from two prior flaws.
iv) Circumcised Experimental Group received more medical care, including proper condom use education.
v) Significantly more men were lost to the study than tested positive for the item being studied ( HIV )
vi) HIV was contracted via means other than sex.
vii) Circumcision offered no protection to women.
viii) Gross External Bias - Assuming cohort of sub-Saharan African men resemble North American babies
ix) Many researchers made no efforts to hide their religious and cultural beliefs.
x) The 60% is a statistical way to show it huge, in reality, its Relative Reduction Risk, Absolute Reduction Risk, the one which should be more accurately used to depict the data was just 1.5% risk of reduction and was gonna touch 0 if study wasn't eliminated early.
In a lot of Scientific studies, Foreskin has Anti-Microbial Properties ( Antibodies ) which help fight HIV and reduce the risk of other STDs, completely absent in circumcised men , detailed description - https://www.researchgate.net/publication...infections
Obviously Biased study ( Source : Eric Clopper - Sex and Circumcision, American Love Story Video )
All the lies of circumcision are cooked up so that the cutting cultures don't feel harmed by these. When circumcision actually has disadvantages fr.
i) Trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
ii) In One Study, circumcised men's infections rates were increasing faster than intact's cohort until the study was terminated early.
iii) Circumcised cohort could not copulate 4-6 weeks post-circumcision as the would healed: this was omitted from analysis and accentuates distortion from two prior flaws.
iv) Circumcised Experimental Group received more medical care, including proper condom use education.
v) Significantly more men were lost to the study than tested positive for the item being studied ( HIV )
vi) HIV was contracted via means other than sex.
vii) Circumcision offered no protection to women.
viii) Gross External Bias - Assuming cohort of sub-Saharan African men resemble North American babies
ix) Many researchers made no efforts to hide their religious and cultural beliefs.
x) The 60% is a statistical way to show it huge, in reality, its Relative Reduction Risk, Absolute Reduction Risk, the one which should be more accurately used to depict the data was just 1.5% risk of reduction and was gonna touch 0 if study wasn't eliminated early.
In a lot of Scientific studies, Foreskin has Anti-Microbial Properties ( Antibodies ) which help fight HIV and reduce the risk of other STDs, completely absent in circumcised men , detailed description - https://www.researchgate.net/publication...infections
Obviously Biased study ( Source : Eric Clopper - Sex and Circumcision, American Love Story Video )
All the lies of circumcision are cooked up so that the cutting cultures don't feel harmed by these. When circumcision actually has disadvantages fr.
This post was last modified: 07-26-2026, 05:53 PM by FishyFirefly.