Study Links Male Circumcision To Woman's HIV Risk

[Pappy]

I thought this was an interesting read.


Study Links Male Circumcision To Woman's HIV Risk

BALTIMORE - Current research of hundreds of couples indicates male circumcision may reduce a woman's risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Johns Hopkins researchers have reviewed medical files of 300 couples in Uganda. They found a lesser risk of HIV-negative women, who had sex with HIV-positive circumcised men, were infected with the virus.
According to the research, 299 women contracted HIV from uncircumcised partners and 44 women became infected by circumcised men. The researchers said they also found reduced rates of trichomonas, a sexually-transmitted disease, and bacterial vaginosis, but not for other common STDs.
The researchers in Africa are working on studies to monitor the spread of HIV infections. Meanwhile, Dr. Ronald Gray and Dr. Steven Reynolds, both of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, are studying the effects of circumcision and potential prevention of HIV.
According to researchers, the cells of the foreskin's inner lining binds to HIV more easily and can contain more of the virus than the outer layer of the foreskin.
The doctors warn, however, that the removal of foreskin might simply reduce the degree of exposure to HIV for the sexual partner, not remove the risk entirely.
Researchers said more studies are necessary to draw conclusive recommendations about circumcision and determine whether benefits apply.
"Early indications are dramatic and, if proven, one case of HIV disease could be prevented through circumcising anywhere from 15 to 60 males," said Dr. Thomas Quinn, a Hopkins professor of infectious diseases

 

[RideRocket]

So would this be a non-religious reason for circumcision?

 

[D_alex8]

There have been so many surveys with relatively small sample groups done over the years, concluding variously that either cut or uncut cocks increased HIV risk ... that ultimately I don't think it makes a hell of a lot of difference either way, and people just need to play safe until it's making-babies* time.

* For the purposes of this argument, gay men having anal sex will also be classed as 'baby-making' :tongue:

 

[JamesPM]

There was another important part in the article:

"Specifically, male circumcision reduced by 30 percent the likelihood that the female partner would become infected with the virus that causes AIDS"

This is a far less significant result than the 299 to 44 numbers suggest. It's still good from the epidemiology point of view but for the individual it just means you catch HIV in, say, 12 months rather than 8.

The article thinks that using (?) circumcision can reduce the spread of HIV by slightly lengthening the time it takes to become infected. It's not about the individual at all. The circumcised male still happily infects his partner.

---
James

 

[Dr Rock]

there's also the question about how if circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection, why are all those african nations the ones with the highest rates of infection on the planet to begin with?

as alex8 points out, we see a re-hash of this "study" every few months from somewhere, and it fails to address any of the factors that we already KNOW affect HIV infection.

 

[Chuck64]

* For the purposes of this argument, gay men having anal sex will also be classed as 'baby-making' :tongue:

I want to have your babies...

I've heard some really horrific stories about people in Africa trying to free themselves from the demon (AIDS) by passing it to a child. I don't remember the source, but it was certainly word-of-mouth or TV or radio... Not something I read.

 

[B_big dirigible]

I've heard some really horrific stories about people in Africa trying to free themselves from the demon (AIDS) by passing it to a child. I don't remember the source, but it was certainly word-of-mouth or TV or radio... Not something I read.

I've read it. It googles well. The only cure is to rape a virgin. I've seen it cited as a local myth in Nigeria. It's also apparently prevalent in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, and others - obviously a popular delusion.

 

[windtalkerways]

BD is correct...it is online and people are
arrested over there for this unconscionable
practise.

Wasn't there also a study out a few years
back saying women who are married to
circumcised males have less incidents of
cervical cancer?

 

[allmale]

I'm sure there may be some truth to this theory, but 98% of all deaths from friends that I knew of were circumsized so this theory doesn't hold much substance in my view.
Also, the inner foreskin contains antibodies much like the inner eyelid does, and there is no mention of sexual practices.
Back to square one.

 

[Fat Tanuki]

These studies are so narrow. What about hygene? It's Africa...not exactly the land of plumbing and hot water. I need to see the contol group of men who wash their fucking dicks every day.

 

[windtalkerways]

Allmale-I'd never heard of the
antibodies thing-that's really
interesting.

 

[rawbone8]

I remember in the 80's a reporter wrote about a hypothesis that small lesions related to stds like chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea were more likely to facilitate transmission of hiv, and that as a co-factor it increased the likelihood of transmission. These stds were commonly passed through exposure to a mucous membrane (vaginal or foreskin) and which would also be the site of the lesions (when applicable to the stds that are associated with sores or lesions).

I wonder how many of these foreskin associated to hiv transmission relationships are also men who have histories with stds other than hiv?

 

[windtalkerways]

Makes sense, RB...if these people aren't
practising safe sex and contracting HIV,
the chances of them encountering these
other STDs must be fairly high, also.

 

[rawbone8]

I agree Windtalkerways.

I think point of the article I was referring to was that the partners with foreskin afforded a greater area as a host site for small std lesions on mucous membranes that would act as epidermal breaks for the virus to pass. They were not saying that circumcised men were at no risk, just that someone with the clap had a higher risk of acquiring hiv, and those with foreskin more vulnerable area for lesions. The same article posed that anal surfaces and membranes offered even more vulnerability due to stretching causing microscopic tears, and likewise std lesions.

I never saw a follow-up to the article. So I have no idea how much credibility it deserves.

 

[windtalkerways]

It definitely sounds feasible, Rawbone.
Certain skin surfaces are more prone
to lesions due to the fragile nature of
the tissue...and can more easily foster
and transfer infections, unbeknownst
to their host.

 

[JamesPM]

I think point of the article I was referring to was that the partners with foreskin afforded a greater area as a host site for small std lesions on mucous membranes that would act as epidermal breaks for the virus to pass.

The HIV (don't know about the other STDs mentioned) is found at higher concentrations in sore / inflamed tissue so the more delicate and easily damaged surface in the uncircumcised could be contributing.

It may also be that uncircumcised men simply have more sex. It's a pain (and also fun) to try and get a handle on what this type of study is showing - way too many variables and, more often than should happen, bad study design.
---
James

 

[D_Elijah_MorganWood]

Surveys can be made to show pretty much whatever the surveyor would like. I believe previous posters explained how.

 

[B_IanTheTall]

researchers have reviewed medical files of 300 couples in Uganda. They found a lesser risk of HIV-negative women, who had sex with HIV-positive circumcised men, were infected with the virus.
According to the research, 299 women contracted HIV from uncircumcised partners and 44 women became infected by circumcised men

300 couples = 300 women and 300 men
299 women are infected by intact men
44 women are infected by cut men

hmmmmm that means that either 343 of the 300 women were infected, or at least 43 women were infected twice

this word problem is much easier to solve than a train leaving chicago at 255 mph...

is smell an anti sex campaign propagated by unthinking, under educated right wing zealots

 

[JamesPM]

300 couples = 300 women and 300 men
299 women are infected by intact men
44 women are infected by cut men

hmmmmm that means that either 343 of the 300 women were infected, or at least 43 women were infected twice

That confused me. Started to wonder if some of the women were playing in both camps and that alone explained the difference. Turned out Pappy or his source missed out a "more than":

"A statistical review of the past medical files of more than 300 couples in Uganda"

There's a report by the people that did the review at:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html

---
James

 

[perthjames]

I've read, with interest, the debate about whether or not circumcised or uncircumsised men (and/or their partners) are a greater risk of contracting HIV.

Maybe I'm naive (or maybe I'm just being a smartarse), but it seems to me that if you're wearing a condom (or engaging in other safer sex practices), it doesn't matter if your circumcised or not.

I'd hate the thought that someone might think that because they're circumcised they can go for it, without risk.