CROI 2008: “Surprising” research results at AIDS conference

Despite the disappointment that male circumcision seemed to offer no protection to female partners of HIV-infected men, [Maria] Wawer stressed that the procedure will probably still benefit women because if fewer men are infected, they are less likely to pass that infection on to their partners. “We are sure there will be a population benefit,” she said.

What does it mean when a researcher who finds an intervention is not effective still claims she is “sure there will be a population benefit”? Seriously, is there any clearer indication that these people started with a belief and will go to any lengths to “fix the evidence around the proposition?” Where have we heard and seen that happen before? Hint: It involved a certain country invading another.

Link: Surprising research results at AIDS conference.

This entry was posted in Medicine and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to CROI 2008: “Surprising” research results at AIDS conference

  1. Joe in CA says:

    And, of course, beliefs are stronger than the evidence stacked against them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s