So Confused

[thegr81]

Okay, I was reading the BBC NEws website today and came across a story about AIDs in India. I have an uncle with HIV and I have done research on AIDs/HIV in school so I try and read articles and updates I find in the news. This was a basic story about how India has overtaken South Africa as the largest HIV/AIDs infected population in the world. It

Comments

[theodonias]

What the Great One said

"So Confused
Okay, I was reading the BBC NEws website today and came across a story about AIDs in India. I have an uncle with HIV and I have done research on AIDs/HIV in school so I try and read articles and updates I find in the news. This was a basic story about how India has overtaken South Africa as the largest HIV/AIDs infected population in the world. It is actually a really sad statistic that would not be necessary if the Indian government devoted more of their time to educating the populace and trying to reverse the social caste stigmata that comes from being infected, but that is a whole other rant.

Anyway, halfway down the article, they state that the Hindu population is more likely to contract AIDS then the Muslim population of India because the Muslims practice circumcision, and then the expert states that "[circumcision is] an acknowledged protective factor." Now, some one please explain this to me. How can circumcision, whether male or the inhumane female version practiced in some countries, be a protective factor against contracting a virus that is transmitted through sexual contact? Does a foreskin somehow increase the likelihood of infection, or, by removing it, do you suddenly have the ability to resist the disease more than most people? Don't people even bother to check facts before they write a story. This is just plain sloppy journalism, which is becoming increasing prevalent these days. All I had to do was Google circumcision + "protective factor" + AID's and I found an article refuting this claim . In addition, most of the articles directly following, and some support the idea of preventative circumcision, that it is at best a casual relationship that is most likely affected by other conditions that are not controlled for in a study. BAsically, the studies are based on a causal relationship that is false due to a lack of verifiable accountability of factors that could truly be causing the variation in infection rates.

I really hate sloppy journalism. And I know "the expert said it", but that does not excuse the journalist from doing even a basic amount of research before submitting his article. Sure this is small, but the daily news is full of these errors, omissions, glaring inaccuracies, and sometimes utterly fabricated stories.

-The Great One

Performing Journalism without a net, and still doing it better than the professionals."

What Rose heard:

"Blah, blah, I'm great... blah blah."