Circumcision reduces HIV risk?

[baseball99]

Foreskins do not contain blood nor semen. Smegma is NOT, repeat, NOT a substance that can transmit the HIV virus.

Who said anything about transmitting the virus to another person? First off, almost any body fluid contains some level of HIV if someone is infected, whether or not there is a level that is considered an infective dose, is another question. Smegma contains epithelial cells which support growth of bacteria naturally.....the bacteria attract all sorts of white blood cells, some of which are very easily infected with HIV. If you have increased number of cells in an area that have the potential to be infected with HIV, if infected will increase risk.

 

[baseball99]

Nobody has. It hasn't yet been published in a peer reviewed journal. The people promoting circumcision did it a month ago with the Sexually Transmitted Disease study: then when it's published, and the replies show how circumcision is not the greatest thing since sliced bread, they publish a halfarsed retraction (admitting in that case that it would take more than 20 circumcised men to prevent one minor STD) which gets no traction at all. But by then the meme "circumcision protects against X" is out of the bottle and away we go again.

Some have been able to look at the study.....i know several actually

 

[baseball99]

I'm open to correction but my understanding was that HIV is made of, and replicates using RNA, not DNA, and that the genome comprises only DNA except when it's replicating.

youre correct. HIV is a retrovirus which means the genetic components are basically RNA. The theory is tho that parts of the DNA that it produces once inside your body can work its way into DNA of a cell, then make the RNA to form a virus so the RNA can form more DNA to replicate.....thats a crash course on a ridiculously complex topic that to be honest I havent studied for a while

 

[Mr._dB]

Foreskins do not contain blood nor semen.

A foreskin is living human skin tissue, of course it contains blood. I can see blood vessels in mine.

 

[Snozzle]

Who said anything about transmitting the virus to another person? First off, almost any body fluid contains some level of HIV if someone is infected, whether or not there is a level that is considered an infective dose, is another question. Smegma contains epithelial cells which support growth of bacteria naturally.....the bacteria attract all sorts of white blood cells, some of which are very easily infected with HIV. If you have increased number of cells in an area that have the potential to be infected with HIV, if infected will increase risk.

This what Wikipedia calls OR, Original Research, and they won't let you publish it there. "The bacteria" of smegma "attract ... white blood cells" from where - through the walls of the inner foreskin and glans? This is just nonsense that baseball makes up as he goes along.

 

[Snozzle]

Some have been able to look at the study.....i know several actually

Obviously I didn't mean "nobody at all": the people who wrote it, and anyone they care to show it to - but that's not how science works. They're supposed to publish it where it can be seen and criticised.

 

[baseball99]

This what Wikipedia calls OR, Original Research, and they won't let you publish it there. "The bacteria" of smegma "attract ... white blood cells" from where - through the walls of the inner foreskin and glans? This is just nonsense that baseball makes up as he goes along.

Ya know what, youre not even worth the time arguing with. Why would it be so surprising that WBC's could be present under the foreskin in the smegma? Are WBC's not present in "sterile" cerebrospinal fluid if someone has bacterial meningitis? How about in the inner ear with an ear infection? Before you comment, try looking things up so you dont make yourself look stupid when accusing people of making things up.

AIDS. 2006 Jul 13;20(11):1491-5.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...a/landingpage.htm?an=00002030-200607130-00003 Links
Potential HIV-1 target cells in the human penis.

• McCoombe SG,
• Short RV.

Department of Zoology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. s-mccoombe@northwestern.edu
OBJECTIVES: To study the distribution of HIV-1 receptors and degree of keratinization in the human penis. DESIGN: Formalin-fixed penises were obtained from nine uncircumcised cadavers. Foreskins were obtained from 21 healthy adult men undergoing elective circumcision for social reasons. Uncircumcised penises were obtained within 24 h of death from eight men. All tissues were stained for keratin and HIV-1 receptors. METHODS: Penises from nine formalin fixed cadavers aged 64-80 years were obtained from the Department of Anatomy, University of Melbourne. Foreskins were obtained from 21 men aged 18-64 years following circumcision performed at either the Freemason's or Mercy Private Hospitals, Melbourne, Australia. Fresh penile necropsy specimens from eight uncircumcised men aged 23-63 years were obtained from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Melbourne. The degree of keratinization was scored, and the distribution of HIV-1 susceptible cells was mapped in the glans penis, penile urethra, urethral meatus, frenulum and foreskin. RESULTS: Cells with HIV-1 receptors were present in all penile epithelia, but Langerhans' cells were most superficial in the inner foreskin and frenulum. The inner foreskin had a significantly thinner keratin layer (1.8 +/- 0.1 units), than the outer foreskin (3.3 +/- 0.1), or glans penis (3.3 +/- 0.2), P < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Superficial Langerhans' cells on the inner aspect of the foreskin and frenulum are poorly protected by keratin and thus could play an important role in primary male infection. These findings provide a possible anatomical explanation for the epidemiologically observed protective effect of male circumcision.

And since you like wikipedia so much
Langerhans' cells are immature dendritic cells containing large granules called Birbeck granules. On infection of an area of skin, the local Langerhans' cells will take up and process microbialantigens before travelling to the T-cell areas in the cortex of the draining lymph node and maturing to become fully-functional antigen-presenting cells.
Generally, dendritic cells in tissue (such as Langerhans' cells) are active in the capture, uptake and processing of antigens. Once dendritic cells arrive in secondary lymphoid tissue however, they lose these properties while gaining the capacity to interact with naive T-cells.
In the rare disease Langerhans' cell histiocytosis (LCH), an excess of these cells is produced, which can cause damage to skin, bone and other organs.
Langerhans' cells are derived from the cellular differentiation of monocytes with the marker "Gr-1" (also known as "Ly-6c/G"). The differentiation requires stimulation by colony stimulating factor-1 (PMID 16444257).
The inner surface of the foreskin, especially the downpart, contains Langerhans' cells with HIV receptors; these cells are likely to be the primary point of viral entry

So, it is quite obvious that a bacterial infection under the foreskin, presence of bacteria or even a minor microtear in foreskin would make these cells more prevalent in the region. I hope that whole post was "made up" enough for you. Ok, good

 

[baseball99]

Obviously I didn't mean "nobody at all": the people who wrote it, and anyone they care to show it to - but that's not how science works. They're supposed to publish it where it can be seen and criticised.

It takes time for studies to come out in the literature. Kinda like how you may see a new car model on tv before you actually get to test drive it

 

[cofrader]

Why the insist on doing random studies.
With that idea they can relate any independent events just because the numbers are similar.
Was any real test performed to prove that? (i hope not) so, they are just random numbers.

I think that the infections would be more related to the socioeconomical situation of the groups that are circuncised or not. (money or knowledge to buy a condom).
Other factor can be the religion of those groups, education, access to drugs.

Like Lisa says: This rock protects to from any Lion.
Homer says: And it works?
Lisa says: Do you see any Lions?
Homer says: Please, i want to buy your rock...

 

[SteveHd]

Isn't it strange that some of the highest rates of HIV are in the US where the male population is largely circumcised? I wonder why their theeory hasn't worked in the US? Europe, on the other hand, has a much, much, lower rate of HIV infevtion WITH a majority uncircumcised population.

Which suggests that behavior and other factors play a larger role than intact-verses-cut state. It's remarkable how the "researchers" overlook that.

I keep waiting for statisticians somewhere to step forward and point out that their statistical sample is not valid to draw the conclusion that the world's males should be routinely mutilated because of a mistake in the conclusion.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

These findings provide a possible anatomical explanation for the epidemiologically observed protective effect of male circumcision.

Provide a possible explanation for a "protective" effect that is not yet proven. A lot of other factors are known to be protective. If amputation is the best that medicine can offer, then we don't need medicine for this. People have been cutting off their foreskins for a lot of reasons for millenia. Circumcision is not medical science. It's not science at all.

The study brings to mind the Tuskegee, Alabama syphilis surveys of 1932, 1938, 1948, and 1952. Guys are brought in once a year, given rides to free medical examinations, hot meals, no treatment, autopsies and burial assistance when they died.

Hey guys, sign up for a free circumcision for social reasons so we can poke around in your amputated tissue to say it's not keratinized like a cut guy's dick is. Fucking duh. Tuskegee was more scientific than this.

 

[baseball99]

Provide a possible explanation for a "protective" effect that is not yet proven. A lot of other factors are known to be protective. If amputation is the best that medicine can offer, then we don't need medicine for this. People have been cutting off their foreskins for a lot of reasons for millenia. Circumcision is not medical science. It's not science at all.

The study brings to mind the Tuskegee, Alabama syphilis surveys of 1932, 1938, 1948, and 1952. Guys are brought in once a year, given rides to free medical examinations, hot meals, no treatment, autopsies and burial assistance when they died.

Hey guys, sign up for a free circumcision for social reasons so we can poke around in your amputated tissue to say it's not keratinized like a cut guy's dick is. Fucking duh. Tuskegee was more scientific than this.

You didnt even understand what you read. For example, aspirin plays a possible role of decreaseing the amount of damage during a heart attack. Aspirin or anticoagulants may play a possible role preventing further damage during a stroke. Why are these condlusions labled "possible" and not "definites".....well for one if someone has a traumatic rupture of the aorta giving them aspirin would certainly not help the heart attack.....if someone is bleeding into the brain, giving them anticoagulants could very well kill them (which is why CT scans are so highly effective in determining if somene can receive the anticoagulants). However, in other instances delivering the anticoagulants can save the persons life. Therefore, anticoagulants can provide possible protection against impending or forming heart attack or stroke.

And anyways, "fucking duh" Tuskegee was extremely scientific, fascinating, and showed a progression of a disease from intital infection all the way to aortic dilatation, mental status changes and neuropathy. It was highly scientific, the problem was it was immoral and has set the stage to prevent anything like that from happening again.

Your arguments are weak and you dont make any sense. Ya know opening your eyes and reading things without bias might actually make your arguments logical

 

[monsternmypant]

Sex education messages for young men need to make it clear that “this does not mean that you have an absolute protection,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, an AIDS researcher and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Circumcision should be used with other prevention methods, he said, and it does nothing to prevent spread by anal sex or drug injection, ways in which the virus commonly spreads in the United States

Douwd,
I'm glad that you get it! People yammering over this study being another ploy in an evil plot to circumcise the world neglect the realities of battling HIV transmission and caring for the infected in Africa, not the relatively affluent Western world. The foremost of these realities are that condoms are atill a luxury item in much of Africa, and that "traditional medicine" is the greatest source of healing and preventative care.

-D.

 

[baseball99]

Douwd,
I'm glad that you get it! People yammering over this study being another ploy in an evil plot to circumcise the world neglect the realities of battling HIV transmission and caring for the infected in Africa, not the relatively affluent Western world. The foremost of these realities are that condoms are atill a luxury item in much of Africa, and that "traditional medicine" is the greatest source of healing and preventative care.

-D.

Agreed, there is a serious "with us or against us" mentality on this site and those of us who try and explain parts of the study people ask about or explain some of the science are chastised. Its not worth arguing about 99% of the time

 

[B_dxjnorto]

The foremost of these realities are that condoms are still a luxury item in much of Africa.

Oh yeah, condoms are a luxury, but we can bring in Bertran Auvert and other white western doctors who are not circumcised and circumcise the entire male population.

Like Tuskegee, these studies have no clear purpose.

See if you don't find parallels: THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT

 

[baseball99]

Oh yeah, condoms are a luxury, but we can bring in Bertran Auvert and other white western doctors who are not circumcised and circumcise the entire male population.

Like Tuskegee, these studies have no clear purpose.

See if you don't find parallels: THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT

I've already said.....Tuskegee had a very clear purpose.....it just wasnt ethical. You're confusing purpose with ethics....blah blah blah

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Leave it to you to champion Tuskegee baseball. Go to the thread on racism.

 

[baseball99]

Leave it to you to champion Tuskegee baseball. Go to the thread on racism.

You seriously are not that thick? I mean what the fuck dude.....My comment has nothing to do with racism. I said the study had a clear fucking purpose, that results were seen and virtually everything known about syphilis has come from that study. I also said it wasnt fucking ethical. Pull your fuckin head out of your ass because its so far up there you arent even reading what i wrote. I did not champion it.....almost everything we know about starvation, hypothermia and ketone formation comes from Nazi experiments.....those studies also, extremely unethical, have provided amazing amounts of information. You are such a fucking tool, you lose all credibility when you twist and warp things to that extent

 

[SteveHd]

... Tuskegee was extremely scientific, fascinating, and showed a progression of a disease ...

Is that to say, "It was good science"?

 

[SteveHd]

... almost everything we know about starvation, hypothermia and ketone formation comes from Nazi experiments.....those studies also, extremely unethical, have provided amazing amounts of information.

So, the ends justify the means?