Question about std's..?

I am writing an argumentative essay for my college english class. I chose to write a paper supporting circumcision. One of the claims that many doctors make is that is lowers your chances of getting an STD, especially AIDS. Well in my research, I found it very difficult to prove that claim. Take Africa for example . Africa has the highest circumcision rate in the world, and we all know about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. America is the only developed nation in the world that practices routine circumcision, yet we have the highest AIDS rate of any developed nation in the world. While I still support circumcision, this claim seems completely bogus to me and it seems like someone was just digging out of the bottom of the barrel looking for more reasons to justify it.

nope already ok'd it with the teacher

You seem to need more research, and remember that all sources are not created equal. There are quite a few that have a bias and if you tap into them you'll get biased information. What you've said sounds contradictory: America practices routine circumcision but Africa has the highest circumcision rate in the world? Not likely. If Africa had a circumcision rate higher than "routine" they wouldn't have bothered investigating circumcision as an STD prevention measure. You're comparing a nation to a continent and that's seldom valid. There are so many nations on the African continent that you should do a nation-by-nation breakdown, which I'm sure was done by those researching this issue. If America has the highest AIDS rate among developed nations you need to know what criteria is used to define "developed". I've seen some statistical deceptions played using that inconsistency. That's minor though, since you made an invalid comparison right off the bat. You cannot compare circumcision rate vs. HIV infection rate between countries, or between developed countries and a developing continent, unless you've accounted for the cultural differences. You should be looking for two or more similar African cultures which have different circumcision rates and compare HIV infection rates. Even then, you need to account for cultural differences. This isn't a simple comparison to make given all the variables. Why not read the research done by those recommending this course of action?

You could also look for the research done years ago comparing HPV infection rates to the rate of circumcision.

I agree.

Well obviously Circumcision has nothing to do with the relationship of AIDS and STD's. I would think that. There are many more variables..

circumcision has nothing to do with aids....or lowering chancing of getting an std....don't know where you got that from...it does decrease the mans propensity towards bacterial infection as it is easier to clear the penis when the foreskin has been removed.....good luck with your paper but I'm afraid that you will have to choose a different argument....

Have you read why God said men were to be circumcised on the 8th day after they are born and why it is necessary? Check out the Bible.

Well it's possible that you can get sex if your partner has slept with another person before as you really have no idea how many other people the other person slept with. Other person meaning the person your partner slep with. Circumcision doesn't prevent STDS or AIDS unless you sleep with no one but your wife. Or husband if you happen to be a woman.

Circumcision is routine in Israel and the USA both and almost universally done to all infants.
America is not the only developed nation that routinely circumcises.
Africa does not have the highest circumcision rates..
Circumcision does reduce STD rates.
Circumcision does reduce pre-mature ejaculation...

Huh? The most recent scientific studies showing circumcision reduces AIDS by half and reduces some other STDS, too, have been all over in the news this past month.

FALSE. Africa does not have the highest rate of circumcision in the world. Only about 60% of African males are circumcised. Generally, in areas in Africa where circumcision is more common, HIV infection is lower, whereas in areas where circumcision is less common, HIV infection is higher.

FALSE. The United States does not have the highest AIDS rate in the developed world. In Europe, Spain has a rate of 0.7% vs. 0.6% for the United States. Note that the US rate is however very close to that of other developed countries: Italy and France, for instance have a rate of 0.5%.

The studies show that circumcision highly reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual contacts. However, in the United States the major reasons for HIV infection are male-male sex and drug use.
This is the main explanation of why the United States has this slightly higher rate.

In any case, what you need to consider when comparing the rates in the United States with that of European countries is the concept of "risk per exposure":

In the USA the overall estimated risk of HIV infection per heterosexual exposure, when HIV status is unknown, is less than 1 in 100,000.

In Europe this figure is higher than in the USA: 3 in 10,000. (And circumcision rate is much lower in Europe).

This means that someone in America has a chance of 1 in 100,000 of getting infected when having sex with a person whose HIV status is unknown. If the same happens in Europe, chances are 3 in 10,000, which is 30 times higher.
This implies that people in Europe are 30 times more at risk of getting HIV when having sex with someone whose status is unknown, even though HIV rates there are lower.

The sources of these statistics, in case you want to mention them in your essay, are as follows:

Caldwell JC, Caldwell P. The African AIDS epidemic. Sci Am. 1996; 274: 40-46.

Padian NS, Shoboski SC, Glass SO, Vittingoff E. Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Northern California. Am J Epidemiol. 1997; 146: 350-357.


PS: These are not links but references of published works, the former in Scientific American and the later in the American Journal of Epidemiology, on the dates mantioned. If you wish to read these works you'll probably have to visit a well-stocked academic library.
I have other hobbies too, but I enjoy writing on the topic, mainly because I'm really fed up with having to see so much misinformation and misleading data on this subject.

PS 2: You don't really need to prove any 'claim', as this has already been proved by the studies. If fact, it cannot be considered a claim once it has been proved. I'd advice you to first make a presentation of the studies, then talk about how they were carried out Finally, prove, if you wish, why the claims - yeah, claims this time! - that these studies are wrong because of the US-Europe AIDS rates are not supportable.

You're going to have a tough job in making this argument, since almost all of the evidence is against you (see the CDC's factsheet at 1).

Secondly, the type of analysis you're using - comparison of aggregate statistics from different populations - is known as an ecological analysis. It's generally recognised as one of the weaker methodologies, with a number of inherent problems (see 2). There are much stronger methodologies, the strongest being the 3 randomised controlled trials that have now completed.

One major problem with this approach is confounding. That is to say, there are multiple risk factors for HIV, especially at the population level. Drug abuse, condom use, use of prostitutes, and the time since HIV first appeared in a population can all affect the HIV prevalence. How can you tell that you're comparing apples with apples and not, say, giraffes? Take a look at sources 3-5 and you'll see that US women report lower usage of condoms than in other developed countries; clearly this is not a valid comparison.