Keep up Sapien. Keep up, you to JT. I know it's hard. I didn't use the basis of anything in this thread to base my conclusions as YOU did here which refer back to an internet poll.
Only he invited you to look at the poll and consider the results rather than assuming that his results were typical. He didn't draw any conclusions.
My conclusions are based on a REAL study:
...of how to lie using statistics, but go on.
And you claim Sorrels was biased in his study? There is a demonstrable bias in this study on a few points, and it is SO OBVIOUSLY GLARING that it casts the entire study, and the intentions of those running it into doubt. Let me provide a link to the actual study, rather than a news story about the study, so you can actually follow along. The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention, Rakai, Uganda - Kigozi - 2007 - BJU International - Wiley Online Library
First off, it was stated by you and others that Sorrells had a bias because many of the groups funding his study are those who oppose infant circumcision. While you claim this automatically invalidates the entire study, you fail to point out where this bias could actually get in the way of an objective measurement. Such a bias could make a serious impact on some sort of subjective test, for instance a survey, which happens to be the only thing the study you have presented is based on. Actually, let's take a look at the Introduction: "The efficacy of male circumcision for prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in men has been proven in three randomized trials conducted in sub-Saharan Africa [911], and the WHO now recommends the procedure as a component of HIV prevention programmes [12]. However,
there is a need to ensure that the procedure is acceptable, and acceptability might be affected by the perceived or actual effects of surgery on sexual function and satisfaction." Right there, the study has already stated a bias which will influence their results. The study is
trying to prove that circumcision is acceptable. In addition, they reference their bibliography by saying sources [9-11]. Any of the names on source 11 look familiar? They should; every single one of them is in the credits for this study. So for starters, they're a group of scientists that are trying to provide a study which is actively trying to promote the acceptability of THEIR OWN WORK. Yeah, that's not biased at all, is it?
Next off, the question that they used to determine if sexual satisfaction was affected was:
Over the past 6 months, how would you generally rate your satisfaction with sexual
intercourse? Do you feel; (PROMPTED)
Very satisfied 1
Satisfied 2
Dissatisfied 3
Very dissatisfied 5
Followed by the follow up:
If dissatisfied (coded 3 or 5 above) what was the nature of your dissatisfaction?
Yes No
Level of sexual desire 1 2
Getting erections 1 2
Maintain erection longer 1 2
Problem of insertion 1 2
Prolonged interval between 1 2
orgasms
Difficult in ejaculation 1 2
Pain on intercourse 1 2
Spouse complaints about my 1 2
sexual performance
Other (specify) 1 2
Specify __________________________.
So for starters, level of sexual sensitivity is
not even considered as a base reason for not enjoying sex. Considering THREE of the sources in their own bibliography (Fink et al, Masood et al, and Sorrells et al) deal specifically with penile sensitivity, and they mention sensitivity in the
first sentence of the intro as one of the reasons prompting the study in the first place, not mentioning this is an egregious error. In fact, sensitivity isn't touched upon anywhere in the study. Apparently, the people running the study do not feel the two are related. Second, what exactly did those men answer as their reasons? Where is that information?
Next, look at how their numbers are reported. Go to table 2. Considering the baseline for any subject in an experiment is to not have a particular abnormality, it makes sense to report the existence of an abnormality, rather than its nonexistence. The abnormalities are supposed to be the focus of the study, but they report nonexistence of such in their numbers instead, showing a bias for which numbers they want people to consider. While that can be kinda nitpicky and taken either way, look at the grouping they place the men in for sexual satisfaction: Sexual satisfaction rated as satisfied or very satisfied is
one group, and they measure the change in this
one group over the course of the study. This is deliberately obfuscating the answers the men gave. Let's say they had 2000 men who originally were all "Very Satisfied" with sex, then the researchers circumcised them and they dropped to merely being "satisfied". This would register in the study as
no change. This is a blatant manipulation of numbers to show the results you want.
Continue looking at Table 2. Look at the number of subjects tested before and after circumcision as time goes on. First, why are there unexplained variances in the number of people polled between questions? Second, why are there about 4500 people at the beginning of the study and about 1500 at the end of it? Forget what the subject of the study is, how can you witness two-thirds of your subjects go missing and still claim that your study has kept its integrity over the course of that time? Or is this an idication of something else? The men obviously would make their own choice about whether or not to come back, but could this choice be influenced? What would happen if some of the men who, say, were experiencing sexual dissatisfaction were told that they didn't need to come back, and that the study was over? This is purely speculation, but there's a lot that can be done over two years. What assurance do we have that the biased staff didn't influence the results by contaminating the subjects?
Another study by the same people, and has the same reason to bias as the study above. Why exactly do they keep doing these studies in Uganda? Perhaps the answer can be found in another of the studies that is in the bibliography of the first one:
Coercive sex in rural Uganda: prevalence and assoc... [Soc Sci Med. 2004] - PubMed result By the way, this is another study by Godfrey Kigozi, the first name in their credits, so he has no reason at all not to know the implications. This is a study on the subject of coercive sex in relationship, known in the industrialized world as being raped by your boyfriend. It says: "Coercive sex was also strongly related to perceptions of the male partner's HIV risk, with women who perceived their partner to be at highest risk experiencing almost three times the risk of coercive sex relative to low risk partnerships."
So we have a study done by people who are trying to prove circumcision helps prevent HIV. They are telling women that circumcised men are less at risk for HIV. This causes women to not be as apprehensive about having sex with circumcised men. Hence, they consent to the sex. Afterwards, they publish another study saying they enjoy sex with circumcised men as much or more than their uncircumcised counterparts. What can this study honestly be taken as evidence of? That women don't enjoy being raped?
Is this garbage seriously the evidence that you have encouraged others to base their opinions on? If the people running your studies are not actively attempting to further an agenda of their own by manufacturing science, they are the most inept scientists on the face of the Earth. I wonder how it is that they can continue getting grants in the same way that I wonder how people still ask Uwe Boll to make their movies.
WTF?? I'll give the executive summary to the above bit of illogic.
