There's no doubt about it, male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV
infection, definitely, and there's a slew of evidence to back that
claim up!

However, as HIV doesn't exist, it's difficult to see how clever
HIVAIDS boffins came to that conclusion.

Belief in HIV has invaded every corner of science, which highlights
how little scientists, and everyone else, know. A lot of people are
going to have to do an enormous amount of backpedalling and
apologising one day.

<http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/15/content_11191034.htm>:

----- Begin Quote -----

Male circumcision definitely reduces the risk of HIV infection,
researchers at the South African Cochrane Centre announced on
Wednesday.

The center had previously held that there was not enough evidence to
recommend circumcision as an intervention.

"Research on the effectiveness of male circumcision for preventing HIV
in heterosexual men is conclusive," said lead researcher Nandi
Siegfried, co-director of the center, which is located at the South
African Medical Research Council.

"No further trials are required to establish that HIV infection rates
are reduced in heterosexual men for at least the first two years after
circumcision."

She said policy makers could now consider using circumcision as an
additional tool in HIV prevention programs.

The Cochrane Collaboration is a highly-respected international network
of researchers that seeks to improve healthcare decision-making
through systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions
such as circumcision.

Siegfried said three recent African trials supported the conclusion
that circumcision reduced HIV risk.

"After including new data from these trials in their review, Cochrane
researchers have changed their previous conclusions that there was
insufficient evidence to recommend circumcision as an intervention to
prevent HIV infection in heterosexual men."

Previous studies had investigated the association between circumcision
and HIV, but until now, Cochrane researchers had been unable to
strongly recommend circumcision because of the lack of high quality
evidence.

Siegfried said circumcision might help to protect against HIV by
removing cells in the foreskin to which the virus was specifically
attracted. These Langerhans cells had receptors that enabled the virus
to enter them.

The new clinical trials included in the review took place in South
Africa, Uganda and Kenya between 2002 and 2006, and included a total
of 11,054 men.

The results show that circumcision in heterosexual men reduced their
risk of acquiring HIV by an average 54 percent over a two year period,
compared with uncircumcised men.

Further research was needed to establish whether male circumcision
offered any benefit to women partners of those circumcised men, or to
homosexual men.

She warned that policy makers also needed to think about the culture
and environment in which circumcision was carried out.

----- End Quote -----
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
5,206 days and counting...

On Apr 15, 4:52�pm, Martin <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote:

True.


Only if you are a scientific illiterate, conspiracy theorist, and want
to rationalize your callous practice of unsafe sex even when you know
you have tested HIV-positive, Martin.

No, it highlights how little you know. Scientists go by the
evidence.


Not a lot of people, just a few like you, although many of you will
die of the disease whose existence you denied, and which you continued
to spread to others.


Fantastic news!

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:59:51 -0700 (PDT), windinghighway
<windinghighway@aol.com> wrote:
I thought you'd like that one.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
5,206 days and counting...

On Apr 15, 6:12�pm, Martin <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote:
It is very encouraging to see the statement, especially in the
context, which is South Africa -- the country that provides a unique
case study for your claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV and that AIDS
drugs merely cause disease rather than cure it. Thabo Mbeki, South
Africa's president until recently, propagated exactly that
argument. As a result, safe sex education in South Africa was
minimal -- after all. the president said AIDS couldnt be spread by
sex. And AIDS drugs were almost impossible to get, especially AZT
for pregant women. The president disapproved.

From the start of the epidemic until quite recently, government policy
was AIDS denial, just like Martin's. So what happened?

In 1990 the HIV rate among pregant women was less than 1 percent
in 1993 it was over 4 percent
In 2001 it was over 29 percent
In 2005 it was over 30 percent.

In 1990 about 7500 -120,000 people in South Africa were living with
HIV.

In 2009 there are 5.7 million people in South Arica living with
HIV.

One in five South Africans is infected. Almost half the deaths in
South Arica. and nearly three quarters of those among people aged
15-49, are caused by AIDS. There are almost 1000 AIDS deaths every
day.

So there is the fruit of your denial.

And of course the fact that most South Africans are not circumcised
has fueled the epidemic further, as it has among nearly all the
uncircumcised peoples of that continent.


http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:13:06 -0700 (PDT), windinghighway
<windinghighway@aol.com> wrote:
In Usenet article <g2re435853e0g81sllgb8b91h54avmpo4d@4ax.com>, see
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/articles/?article=g2re435853e0g81sllgb8b91h54avmpo4d@4ax.co m>,
I compared South Africa's mortality rate with that of England and
Wales:

----- Begin Quote -----

<http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022006.pdf>:
Population of South Africa (mid-2006): 47,390,900.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa>: Estimated
deaths in South Africa in 2006: 599,000.

<http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=6>: Population of
England and Wales (mid-2005): 53,390,300.

<http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Dh2_32/DH2_No32_2005.pdf>:
Deaths in England and Wales in 2005: 512,692.

Approximately 1.3% of South Africans died in 2006 and approximately 1%
of the population of England and Wales died in 2005. Given the facts
that the UK is wealthier than South Africa and has a universal free
health care system it's not surprising it has a lower death rate, if
only slightly.

According to the United Nations 320,000 people died from HIV/AIDS in
South Africa in 2006:
<http://data.unaids.org/pub/GlobalReport/2006/2006_GR_ANN1R-T_en.pdf>.
The number of deaths attributed to HIV/AIDS in the whole of the UK
(not only England and Wales) during 2005 was 177, which is virtually
insignificant.

So, if we discount the number of HIV/AIDS deaths in South Africa the
country has an approximate 0.6% death rate - almost half that of
England and Wales.

Hmmm, I'm finding it a bit difficult to believe that if it wasn't for
HIV/AIDS someone in England and Wales would be almost twice as likely
to die each year than someone in South Africa.

----- End Quote -----

In Usenet article <345.1209926686.20080504@hiv-poz.co.uk>, see
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/articles/?article=345.1209926686.20080504@hiv-poz.co.uk>,
I highlighted that between 2001 and 2007 the population of South
Africa increased by over three million people. Not really the sign of
a country ravaged by killer HIV.

And in Usenet article <801.1227914158.20081128@hiv-poz.co.uk>, see
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/articles/?article=801.1227914158.20081128@hiv-poz.co.uk>,
I drew attention to a story published by the BBC (see
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7688268.stm>) which indicates
that only 5% of South Africa's population "have managed to test for
HIV" antibodies, which is just shy of half the number of people you
claim are living with HIV in the country.

It's not the first time people of your mentality have been caught
fiddling the figures. In 2007 we learned that India lost half of its
HIVers overnight after the country's number crunchers put new
batteries in to their calculator. And, incidentally, as with South
Africa, India's inflated HIV estimates were based on antenatal
figures.

I've already discussed this in Usenet article
<622.1220537086.20080904@hiv-poz.co.uk>, see
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/articles/index.php?article=622.1220537086.20080904@hiv-poz.co.uk>,
where I demonstrated there's no correlation between circumcision and
HIV.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
5,207 days and counting...

Once again Martin illustrates his lack of understanding of what
constitutes evidence and what does not.

On Apr 16, 9:18�am, Martin <mar...@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote:

You are totally clueless about empidemiology and demographics. The
comparative death rates of South Africa and England and Wales (or
anywhere else) tell us nothing about the AIDS rate in South Africa or
the AIDS death rate in South Africa

Again, you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
Developing countries usually have a huge excess of births over deaths,
which is why their populations are increasing so rapidly. South
Africas population growth followed that pattern until the epidemic.
It actually declined last year. Apart from anything else, South
Africa has over 5 million illegal immigrants, including three million
from Zimbabwe -- more than enough to account for the population
increase that so excites you. As in neighboring African countries
with predominantly uncircumcised populations, South Africas growth
rate has stalled and its average life expectancy has plunged. THAT is
the remarkable demographic anomaly, and it is caused by AIDS.


What a moron! The BBC report says 5 percent have been tested -- not
that 5 percent have tested positive! Here is the exact wording in the
report:

"HIV testing is widely available ...but only 5% have managed to test
for HIV," she said. "Most people only get a test when they are about
to die."

As usual, Martin is either too dumb to understand the evidence he
cites, or so dishonest that he twists its meaning.

Again, as is typical, he uses his sources very selectively. He is
happy to misuse one part of the BBC report, but he ignores other parts
that contradict everything he is saying. Here are some bits he left
out:

"Approximately 350,000 people die of Aids-related diseases in the
country every year."
"The United Nations estimates that there are currently six million
people living with HIV in South Africa."
"South Africa is the epicentre of the global HIV epidemic"

Notice also that Martin, as usual, denies that HIV even exists when
the statistics dont suit him, but is happy use or misuse these
statistics when he mistakenly thinks they do suit him!

YOU?? Demonstrate something??? ROFLMAO!!! Martin, you too stupid
and dishonest for that.

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:29:48 -0700 (PDT), windinghighway
<windinghighway@aol.com> wrote:

South Africa is held up as a beacon for the HIVAIDS faith. South
Africa is the HIVAIDS capital of the world. In the crooked world of
HIVAIDS belief, South African is 'ground zero.'

I was simply pointing out that, even with HIVAIDS, South Africa's
mortality rate isn't higher than might be expected.

And throughout the, so called, HIVAIDS epidemic.

Do illegal immigrants put themselves forward to be included in
official statistics?

The growth of South Africa's population hasn't stalled. According to
the CIA's World Factbook its population is expected to grow by 0.28%
during 2009.

I have never denied that AIDS, or more accurately Immune Deficiency,
exists, however from a personal viewpoint even that is beginning to
look unlikely.

You've missed the point I made, which is that only 5% of South
Africa's population has been tested for HIV (antibodies), however from
that small sample it's estimated that 20% of the population has the
killer virus.

The world of HIV has a long history of talking up HIVAIDS and
over-estimating the, so-called, epidemic.

The definition of AIDS is woolly at best.

So, six million people in South Africa are estimated to have HIV
immunity. That sounds like a good thing to me.

However, before you throw these exaggerated numbers and statistics
around you might want to look at what happened to India's HIV figures.

I firmly believe HIV doesn't exist. I quote the silly statistics to
highlight the lie that hides behind them.

I'm a stupid person who's lived with a positive HIV diagnosis for over
fourteen years, yet I remain fit and healthy and HIV asymptomatic.

I don't accept that I'm dishonest about HIV. Like others, I have
looked at the supporting evidence for HIV and find it lacking. If I
was to say HIV exists and HIV causes AIDS I would be saying something
I did not believe was true.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
5,216 days and counting...

On Apr 15, 4:59*pm, windinghighway <windinghigh...@aol.com> wrote:
Reduces the risk for whom? For monogamous people who have sex with an
HIV negative partner? For people who have sex wearing condom?

"Martin" <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk> wrote in message