Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostromo | Hacker News Reader

This article is FUD. If the article raised some questions about the (multiple) studies that show the effect, I would just shrug and let it go. But then to go on and say it "may increase it" is irresponsible. There is zero evidence for this -- and in fact a lot of evidence to the contrary. [1]

Yes, every study has limitations. The fact that you can't do a blind study or a placebo control with circumcision is just a fact of life -- people tend to know if they're circumcised or not. This does not refute the many studies' findings.

Can you imagine the outrage if the author published a paper questioning the effect of smoking on lung cancer, and then wondered if smoking actually reduces your chances for lung cancer? That's what this article is doing.

I'm glad that Gates is standing on the side of science here.

1. http://www.croiconference.org/sessions/impact-male-circumcis...

View on HN

> Can you imagine the outrage if the author published a paper questioning the effect of smoking on lung cancer, and then wondered if smoking actually reduces your chances for lung cancer? That's what this article is doing.

I don't think the evidence bases are exactly comparable (even acknowledging that the study you've linked to doesn't sound quite as appallingly constructed as the one described by the blog). And people argue about whether recommendations with thin justifications around stuff like diets have counterproductive side effects all the time, especially when the recommendations are pretty drastic.

The article is very old now, so that was a fair point... when it was published.

But in 2018 we have a lot of evidence that show the effect on transmission is real -- and we also have evidence that circumcised people do not engage in more risky behavior. [1]

So that's why I think this is similar to denying climate change or claiming vaccines cause autism. It could have a real impact on public health.

I suspect I'm getting downvoted because some people are passionately anti-circumcision. And that's fine! Nobody is going to make you get circumcised. But the science doesn't care about one's personal views regarding circumcision.

1. https://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/M...

> I suspect I'm getting downvoted because some people are passionately anti-circumcision. And that's fine! Nobody is going to make you get circumcised.

Yeah, the problem is that this "science" is inevitably used to justify performing an invasive, unnecessary procedure on babies because in 15+ years it will reduce his risk of acquiring HIV during unprotected sex with an HIV-positive woman from 4/10,000 to 2.4/10,000.

Maybe that's worthwhile in certain cultures experiencing pandemic levels of HIV, but in the USA it's borderline medical malpractice. There are only about 250,000 women in the entire country with HIV.

Actually - someone did make me get circumcised. I was forcibly circumcised as an infant

> But then to go on and say it "may increase it" is irresponsible.

I would say it's actually common sense when you consider how HIV is actually transmitted and account for the fact that conditions, where the procedures are happening, are very likely far from ideal.

The whole thing represents a pretty pointless complication and infection risk, not just from HIV but all kinds of other nasty things.

If there's nothing wrong, there's no reason to cut off pieces from people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com