2 Articles state Male Circumcision Ineffective in HIV Battle

Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by B_quietguy, May 6, 2008.

  1. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    I don't know if somebody posted a link to this article recently, but just in case somebody hasn't yet, I'd like to mention this article which states "promoting male circumcision in Africa is risky and dangerous and could lead to more HIV infections".

    Since we've seen quite a few debates on LPSG about circumcision, I hope this article provides for a more informed debate. Especially since much of the debate mentioned studies claiming that circumcision reduced HIV infection rates.

    The article at this website ( Male Circumcision Ineffective in HIV Battle According to New Future HIV Therapy Report ) mentions a paper published in the May issue of Future HIV Therapy.


    Some highlights from the article:
    • Previous studies claiming circumcision reduced HIV infection rates were seriously flawed both in methodology and in not getting enough evidence to back up their claims.
    • Circumcision as practiced in Africa is risky and dangerous.
    • It could lead to more HIV infections because many African males believe they will no longer need to wear condoms.
    • It creates a false sense of immunity and leads to more risk-taking behaviors.
    • Men were paid to be circumcised and received free condoms. (If they get free condoms, then no wonder they were less likely to get infected.)
    • The studies were halted after too short a time to measure effectiveness of circumcision at reducing infection rates.
    • Promoting circumcision will drain money away from more effective prevention strategies.
    • Badly done circumcisions cause tens of thousands of infections and other surgical complications, further straining an already overwhelmed healthcare system.
    The article also makes a statement about the ethics of infantile circumcision.

    "The paper also cautions against neonatal circumcision for HIV prevention, stating it is unethical to circumcise an infant for a possible benefit 15–20 years later, if at all, to reduce the risk of contracting an adult-acquired disease for which there are far more effective prevention strategies available."

    And then goes on to say that HIV infection rates are actually higher in nations with higher rates of circumcision. (Side note from me: Just because we see a positive correlation between circumcision rates and HIV infection rates does mean there is a causal link. It's quite possible the lower rates in Europe are due to better sex education for teens, or more widespread use of condoms, or something else.)

    "Many sources of data contradict the claim that circumcision protects against HIV. The United States has one of the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection in the developed world. European nations, which rarely practice circumcision, have very low rates of HIV."



    A similar article in the March 2008 issue of Journal of Pediatrics. That article states "circumcision does not appear to shield men from types of sexually transmitted diseases."

    You can read the 2nd article here:

    ICGI - Genital Integrity Blog Archive Circumcision does not shield men from STD
     
  2. D_CountdeGrandePinja

    D_CountdeGrandePinja Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    42
    Keep it clean and you'll be OK - Go Natural!!!!
     
  3. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,307
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,172
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    The only thing that circumcision sort of prevents is PENILE CANCER
     
  4. Big Swinging Dick

    Big Swinging Dick New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2008
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow. The anti-circ freaks never give up do they?

    Another one to add to my ignore list.
     
  5. SteveHd

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,849
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Daytona
    "Sort of" is an understatement. Penile cancer is off-topic but here's some incidence info:
    ... for various years between 1966 and 1972, the annual rate of new cases of penile cancer was 0.8 for the United States (which circumcises), and 0.5 for Finland, 0.9 for Denmark and 1.1 for both Norway and Sweden (all of which do not). None of these differences is statistically significant. Further, within the same time frame, both France and the United States had the same rate, 0.3, of deaths due to penile cancer.

    Hyman AB; Brownstein MH. Tyson's "Glands," Archives of Dermatology, vol. 99, no. 1
     
  6. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    IndiustrialSize, I agree with you that removing penile cancer is the only medical purpose for circumcision. Perhaps there are others I have not heard of, but until then, I remain opposed to circumcising children. Full grown men can get snipped as part of body-modification because they know the risks and complications.

    According to the Wikipedia article you mentioned, the cancer starts on the glans and foreskin and spreads from there. I can see a doctor using circumcision to remove cancerous cells on the penis but after it spreads beyond the glans, the most commonly used option is penectomy.
     
  7. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    My sentiments exactly!
     
  8. B_The Greek Dude

    B_The Greek Dude New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    1
    Penile cancer is extremely rare, to the point of not even being an issue. Since most people in America are of German/Irish descent, you should be more concerned with your higher genetic predisposition to colon cancer instead.


    Besides, there're those "natural cures they don't want you to know about." anyways. ;)
     
  9. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    It's your choice to ignore people, but I never do. Even when I disagree with somebody, I don't ignore them. If they are right and I am wrong, I might learn something. If they are wrong and I am right, I might learn why they hold the opinions they do.
     
  10. B_The Greek Dude

    B_The Greek Dude New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    1
    Getting this done specifically in the hopes of preventing HIV is probably the worst reason you can choose to have it done, either to yourself or your child.
     
  11. B_Marius567

    B_Marius567 New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    my brother has hiv and had a circumcision as a baby :mad:
     
  12. B_The Greek Dude

    B_The Greek Dude New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry to hear that. The truth is that most people contract the virus by coming into contact with infected blood, or by receiving unprotected anal sex. These primary routes of infection have absolutely nothing to do with the foreskin.
     
  13. B_The Greek Dude

    B_The Greek Dude New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ah, what the hell. . .here's another study:

    -------------------------

    (all emphasis is mine)

    Southern Voice Atlanta - Data split on role of circumcision in reducing HIV infection rates

    ------------

    So, there you have it. It reduces the transmission from vaginal sex by more than 50%, but offers NO protection at all for anal sex. Gay men don't have vaginas, so therefore this means that circumcision will be completely ineffective in preventing the spread of the virus amongst the gay community. As said before: the second largest means of contracting the virus is blood-to-blood contact, usually through communal use of heroine. Circumcision offers absolutely no protection against this, regardless of your orientation.
     
  14. Plebh

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    392
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Manchester, England
    Verified:
    Photo
    I'm sorry to hear that but nobody ever said at the start that it was 100% effective, they said it would reduce your chances and that condoms should still be used
     
  15. rabudo

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    330
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    892
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    Verified:
    Photo
    At last!! Thanks!!

    Since when does the foreskin affect to something like HIV contraction?? God, talk about disinformation... at least I see I'm not the only one who knows what HIV is!
     
  16. B_retracted

    B_retracted New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does that have to do with anything? He's probably right handed as well.

    Did your brother wear a condom during sex or is he like most douchebags who have sex with random people and went without because "it only happens to other people"?
     
  17. SteveHd

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,849
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Daytona
    retracted, that was quite harsh. Are you purposely trying to be insensitive?
     
  18. B_retracted

    B_retracted New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, honey. I'll leave that job to you.
     
  19. B_The Greek Dude

    B_The Greek Dude New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    1
    I posted the study, and i'll say it again:

    Circumcision has no affect on contraction of the virus from anal sex. It reduces the likelihood of contracting it through vaginal sex by 60%, but it still doesn't eliminate the possibility. Oral sex is usually considered safe, because the amylase enzymes in your saliva dissolves the lipid layer of the virus, rendering it unable to infect any cell in your body. If a guy was to cum directly into your throat, there would be a higher risk of contracting the disease. However, your stomach acid would kill most of the virus. Once the virus gets into your liver or colon, that's it: you're infected and no medication will be able to save you.
     
  20. Guy-jin

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,835
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Here's me not caring. Still.

    So tired of these circumcision threads all the time. We get it.

    Were people getting circumcised in droves to prevent AIDS or something? That wasn't my impression.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted