General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Studies showing "benefits of circumcision" highly flawed [View all]Bonobo
(29,257 posts)What does the frequently cited 60% relative reduction in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.
Did or did not the author derive the "decrease in HOV infection was only 1.31%" claim by subtracting 1.18% from 2.49%?
The answer is yes he did.
Now, please tell me how that number represents the correct way to determine the actual decrease in HIV infections? Maybe I am missing something and you can educate me. This would be a great learning opportunity for me.
But it seems to me that the only way to get the decrease would be to take percentage difference between 64 and 137 cases (adjusting slightly for the fact that there were more control patients)
Looking forward to your answer.