Like my married-at-15 grandmother says: "people were older then."

rubber sure is.

I don't know. Brian Williams recently gave a very detailed recounting of his time with the Russian military. His account of Sasha's capture was particularly moving.

And the Oscar for best cinematography goes to Vita Beylina for "Branch through a screen window, with something happening behind it."

You'll be sorry when society collapses and you need a sturdy marble column.

The WHO only recommends male circumcision in the case of an HIV epidemic; that's rather different than a general recommendation. People have accused the CDC / AMA of cultural bias (i.e. in a country with a 58% rate, and where stuff like insurance coverage may come into play), and that the American Peadiatric…

How dumb do you have to be to rev an engine so much that the car catches fire? Schools need to do a better job of teaching critical thinking skills instead of googling skills.......people like this amaze me

Yup. This job is very appealing to this smelly misanthrope.

They keep sending off for Sea Monkeys.

Even if you accept the medical benefits arguments - and quite a large number of professional medical bodies across the world don't - those arguments aren't strong enough to justify such an operation being performed at a neo-natal stage, because the risk factors are not severe enough to justify the removal of informed…

I knew a woman who worked seasonally in Antarctica and she loved it. I would do it if I was single and childless. It's only 5 months!

There are exactly zero babies out there having unprotected sex with partners with HIV. Why not let them make up their own minds when they're grown up?

There is still no reason why someone with a penis can't make that choice for themselves. It shouldn't be routine practice on an infant.

You still aren't answering my question: what was the initial risk of infection? Is it 80%? 5% 25%?

Without knowing initial risk factors the reduction DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE IT IS RELATIVE TO THE INITIAL RISK. Please, look up the difference between relative and absolute risk and maybe we can have a useful discussion.

You keep quoting this 60% reduction without supporting it or noting what TYPE of measure it is. If you have a 10% risk of something and reduce that to 5% you can claim it's a 50% reduction.

A relative risk reduction measure, out of context, means absolutely nothing as we don't know what the initial risk was.

Your chances of getting HIV as a male doing the penetrating (heterosexual, or homosexual "top") is exceedingly low. The increase in risk from having a foreskin comes from the potential for the frenulum to tear creating an open wound through which to contract the virus. The chance is still extremely low however...

Ive seen headlines which touted a "50% drop in transmission rates" but actually indicated a change from a 2% transmission rate to a 1% transmission rate for males having unprotected sex with HIV positive partners. So yes, 1% is 50% of 2%, but it isn't that much, and it is still not in the same neighborhood as putting…

You don't know my life.