July 6, 2005

APPARENTLY HE TAKES THESE COVENANTS PRETTY SERIOUSLY (via Jim Yates):

Circumcision may offer Africa AIDS hope: Procedure linked to much lower rate of new HIV infections (Sabin Russell, July 6, 2005, SF Chronicle)

French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.


Jewish plots for world domination used to at least be subtle enough that only a few could discern them, but this is obviously a bid to co-opt Africa.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 6, 2005 6:44 PM
Comments

They were tipped off.

Wonder if the study took social class into account. Strong correlation between that and the rate of circumcision.

Posted by: ghostcat at July 6, 2005 9:06 PM

Hold on a sec--the goal of an AIDS vaccine is "30 percent risk reduction"? That's it? Tell me again why those who fight programs stressing abstinence (100% risk reduction) aren't in effect advocating mass murder?

Posted by: b at July 6, 2005 10:17 PM

How are we going to tell a continent where a fair number of men believe shaking hands causes the member to fall off that they need to get circumcised?

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 6, 2005 10:30 PM

Tell them if they don't their member falls off--it's even true.

Posted by: oj at July 6, 2005 11:10 PM

Unfortunately, Islam also calls for circumcision.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 6, 2005 11:30 PM

My old French teacher insisted that he wasn't cut out to be a Jew.

Posted by: obc at July 6, 2005 11:46 PM

A 30% risk reduction would probably stop the spread of AIDS cold at least in the U.S. The epidemic remains quite close to its reverse tipping point here, so it's a reasonable target for a vaccine:


Nobody really knows what the tipping point for reducing AIDS may be. Donald Des Jarlais, an epidemiologist at Beth Israel Hospital, in Manhattan, estimates that halving new infections to twenty thousand a year would be ideal. Even cutting it to thirty thousand, he says, would probably be enough. The point is that it's not some completely unattainable number. "I think people think that to beat AIDS everybody has to either be sexually abstinent or use a clean needle or a condom all the time," Des Jarlais said. "But you don't really need to completely eliminate risk. If over time you can just cut the number of people capable of transmitting the virus, then our present behavior-change programs could potentially eradicate the disease in this country."


Malcom Gladwell, "The Tipping Point" : New Yorker , June 3 1996.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 7, 2005 12:22 AM

It's not a risk now except to the disordered.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 12:24 AM

Who are also part of your care.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 7, 2005 1:47 AM

Can anyone explain how testing for AIDS works? I've often thought if you could test for it the way you can for pregnancy, you could avoid a lot of transmission.

Posted by: RC at July 7, 2005 4:54 AM

joe:

You've stopped caring if you look for safer ways for them to degrade themselves.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 7:04 AM

RC:

People who test positive would have to then behave responsibly and unselfishly, which they've demonstrated themselves incapale of by getting the disease in the first place.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 7:07 AM

OJ:

One of the funnier send-off lines. Conspiracies, indeed!

Posted by: Arnold Williams at July 7, 2005 8:11 AM

People who test positive would have to then behave responsibly and unselfishly

In some instances they do; for example a pregnant woman who takes her AZT faithfully so as not to infect her baby. Also, read Gladwell's article carefully. The purpose of that 30% risk reduction from a vaccine is epidemiological, it's not to guarantee safe fun for this or that indvividual if that's what's bothering you. AIDS might, emphasis on might, still be tippable in this country if not in Africa. It could conceivably be gotten rid of, or the prevalence and incidence so reduced, that not even the disordered are at much risk from it here. You're saying that shouldn't be done?

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 7, 2005 8:39 AM

joe:

yes

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 9:04 AM

joe: That article is 9 years old. Since then things have changed so much that Andrew Sullivan has stated that there is no reason not to get infected since life can still be so great. In other words, behavior-change programs among the highest at-risk group have failed catastrophically.

Posted by: b at July 7, 2005 1:23 PM

b: one thing that has not changed much since '96 is the incidence for the U.S. as a whole. It's still estimated at about 40,000 new cases per year. That's the only number that matters as far as your chance of getting the epidemic to tip back. I'm well aware that high-risk groups are doing more high-risk behavior as treatment gets more palatable.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 7, 2005 2:22 PM

joe:

It's not an epidemic.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 2:27 PM

Neither is Hansen's disease, but I'd like to see that eradicated too.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 7, 2005 2:30 PM

Pretty much has been.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 2:35 PM

Then so should AIDS be.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 7, 2005 2:43 PM

"Can anyone explain how testing for AIDS works? I've often thought if you could test for it the way you can for pregnancy, you could avoid a lot of transmission."

I am not a Doctor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last Night.

My understanding is that AIDS is caused by a virus called the Human Immunodeficency Virus or HIV. There is a period of time between infection with HIV and the manifestation of AIDS.

The Diagnostic AIDS tests work by detecting the antibodies expressed in an AIDS patient. However, there may be a substantial time lag between the intial HIV infection and the stage when AIDS antibodies appear in the blood stream. During that time period, the infected person is capable of transmitting HIV.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 7, 2005 3:45 PM

joe:

One affected the innocent.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 4:57 PM

Ryan White, you putz.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 7, 2005 6:01 PM

There are no Ryan Whites anymore.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 6:20 PM

Ugh. Latrelle Hawkins, then.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 7, 2005 6:39 PM

The blood supply is reasonably clean. You get it via sex with gay men or intravenous drugs.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 6:58 PM

Or by being unlucky in your choice of parents.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 7, 2005 7:25 PM

Joe:

Considering OJ would very much like to murder all homosexuals, it is very unlikely he would favor any sort of action that would eliminate HIV.

After all, that would go against the Bible.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 8, 2005 6:35 AM

Don't need to murder them. Their behavior is sufficiently self-destructive.

Posted by: oj at July 8, 2005 9:31 AM

He would like no such thing, Jeff. If I honestly believed he was that bloodthirsty I wouldn't visit here, and I certainly wouldn't comment here. oj is a public presentation, a conceit; mostly sincere, partly for style which draws an audience. Long practice in that conceit allows him to bang out post after post, and to serve and volley in comments. However it also gives him the ability to open his mouth wide enough to get his other foot in, which he does regularly and has done here.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 8, 2005 2:39 PM

Joe:

I don't happen to have the link at hand, but he is on record as favoring burning homosexuals to death.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 8, 2005 5:02 PM
« NOTHING COSTS MORE THAN IT USED TO: | Main | DON'T LET THEM DO TO US WHAT THEY DID TO FRANCE (via Luciferous): »