calibro saidAfter reading these posts, I'm disappointed in what people believe passes a science and logical skepticism. It's quite obvious that many people react adversely to this simply because it talks about foreskin, and all those foreskin fans throw their pitchforks in the air as soon as someone talks about something that casts it in a negative light. Secondly, all these tangents about embedded genome markers, false science (dendritic cells are immune cells, but not the helper t-cells HIV attacks; they simply attach to dendritic cells, pass through the lymph nodes, and then find the t-cells), or controls in an experiment all are acting strawman arguments. Regardless of outside factors, the simple science explains foreskin naturally is more susceptible to tears for which HIV enters the body, hence why people who do have it have higher raters of HIV infection versus those who are circumsized, both categories reflecting no condom use. It's depressing hearing people with no grasp on the math and science involved to speak out against it as if their words are correct... Regardless of your personal opinion s on foreskin and the methods that can be controlled in this study, neither discounts the actual results (at least nothing from the arguments I have heard proposed here)
I have a degree in Physics and well acquainted with math and scientific studies both biological and physical science.
I am not up on any foreskin studies so enlighten me as to what simple science studies determine that the ability of foreskin to tear easier then other skin? I would like to see the multiple verifiable studies and their protocols and their math.
I am curious do these studies go back to 78 and look at the men that contracted HIV and died as AIDS victims to see if they were skewed population of intact men?
When I ask questions and for information on HIV i am only asking about the US. I do not discuss Africa as that is a pit that holds very little creditable scientific information. Way to much of it is extrapolation.
For me this is not the place to talk science or "now we know" about anything just by listing one study. That is not how science works. It may be interesting discussion but hardly definitive facts.
I have one more question since you are a man of science and math. You seem to be capable of determining which studies have the correct conclusions that were verified by other studies. Which means if a group of equally capable scientists did the same simple science studies you speak of, then they would reach the same conclusions.
My question to you: You gave us a description of how HIV once passing the skin barrier enters the T-cell. What does HIV do to the T-Cell?