2 Articles state Male Circumcision Ineffective in HIV Battle

B_quietguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Posts
1,226
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
183
Location
Bay Area, California
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
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
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The only thing that circumcision sort of prevents is PENILE CANCER
"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
 

B_quietguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Posts
1,226
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
183
Location
Bay Area, California
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
The only thing that circumcision sort of prevents is PENILE CANCER

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.
 

B_The Greek Dude

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Posts
591
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
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. ;)
 

B_quietguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Posts
1,226
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
183
Location
Bay Area, California
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Wow. The anti-circ freaks never give up do they?

Another one to add to my ignore list.

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.
 

B_The Greek Dude

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Posts
591
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Ah, what the hell. . .here's another study:

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

(all emphasis is mine)

Whether or not circumcision status plays a role in the spread or prevention of STDs is an ongoing topic debated by scientists, with several recent studies coming to dramatically conflicting conclusions. Two separate studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention appear to show that circumcision profoundly reduces the risk for heterosexual men in Africa to contract HIV, while having “absolutely no effect” on whether gay and bisexual men in the U.S. contract the disease.
“It’s an important, proven new HIV-prevention intervention,” Kilmarx said of circumcision, which was recognized in 2007 by the World Health Organization and UNAIDS as an effective way to reduce heterosexually transmitted HIV infections.
In April 2007, a CDC consulting panel on circumcision recommended that HIV-prevention messages needed to indicate that “studies demonstrated only partial efficacy, and only for female-to-male transmission,” Kilmarx said.

“For men who had sex with men, the consultants felt that there was insufficient data to recommend male circumcision, and that men should be informed that this procedure had not shown to be protective for HIV transmission during male-male sex,” Kilmarx said.
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.
 
D

deleted257218

Guest
my brother has hiv and had a circumcision as a baby :mad:

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
 
D

deleted12830

Guest
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.

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!
 

B_retracted

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Posts
192
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
103
my brother has hiv and had a circumcision as a baby :mad:

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"?
 

B_The Greek Dude

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Posts
591
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
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!

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.