Study Links Male Circumcision To Woman's HIV Risk

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Damn, you beat me to it.

 

[chico8]

It's hard to believe that in this day and age someone would give credence to a myth. That's like saying Zeus still lives on Mt. Olympus. Some people are so blinded by their religion they'll give credence to any shill that comes along. Sad.

 

[hottxboi16]

I agree, but Im just saying the topic of this board is ridiculous and useless.

Unfortunately, unless BOTH people have been locked in a room alone since the tests were taken, and they are the more expensive form of HIV test, there is STILL no guarantee. Unless you trust someone else in a monogamous relationship enough to risk your life (and loving and trusting someone that much IS a measure of how deep a relationship is), you should ALWAYS treat ANY sexual encounter as a risk of contracting some STD. THis is simple self preservation. It isn't about anything personal, but simple self protection. End of rant.

 

[hottxboi16]

The bible was written by man not God, I think it is a bit much to say God said this things based on what a man wrote thousands of years ago...and frankly, I dont think God made people the way they are so that they would be forced to mutate themselves later in life

There's even more to it. Here's an interesting blurb about WHEN circumcision should be performed, and why. I think you will also notice that in everything God recommends we do, He has more than just one reason for doing so. Suddenly now, we discover, "Well whatdoyaknow-- He was right, this time..."

In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name “vitamin K” for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has “peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination” (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time after that. But why did God specify day eight?
On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak. The chart below, patterned after one published by S.I. McMillen, M.D., in his book, None of These Diseases, portrays this in graphic form.


http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/prothrom.jpg
Dr. McMillen observed:

We should commend the many hundreds of workers who labored at great expense over a number of years to discover that the safest day to perform circumcision is the eighth. Yet, as we congratulate medical science for this recent finding, we can almost hear the leaves of the Bible rustling. They would like to remind us that four thousand years ago, when God initiated circumcision with Abraham....
Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K (1984, p. 93).
​

 

[Matthew]

Unfortunately, unless BOTH people have been locked in a room alone since the tests were taken, and they are the more expensive form of HIV test, there is STILL no guarantee. Unless you trust someone else in a monogamous relationship enough to risk your life (and loving and trusting someone that much IS a measure of how deep a relationship is), you should ALWAYS treat ANY sexual encounter as a risk of contracting some STD. THis is simple self preservation. It isn't about anything personal, but simple self protection. End of rant.

Also, and you may have been alluding to this David, the more common form of the HIV test that most people take (ELISA) is only accurate for infections that took place about 3 months or longer before the date of the test.

Just another reason why a test alone doesn't guarantee safety.

 

[davidjh7]

Also, and you may have been alluding to this David, the more common form of the HIV test that most people take (ELISA) is only accurate for infections that took place about 3 months or longer before the date of the test.

Just another reason why a test alone doesn't guarantee safety.

Yes, Matthew--that was exactly my point. the more common, cheaper test looks for levels of antibodies, and it can take up to three months for the antibody levels to reach measureable values. The more expensive test (which I can't remember the name of at the moment) uses genetic engineering, to grow the actual virus from a blood sample. It is pretty much 100% reliable, and it gives results within days, not months, but because it involves considerable work, it costs much much more (several hundred bucks, as I recall). Protect yourself, people. Even if you don;t like yourself well enough to protect yourself, at least be decent enough to protect others.

 

[solong]

... and if people believe that, it's really no wonder that they're still fucking stupid enough to slice bits off of newborn kids.

And if you're right, and there's really nothing to it, and it's all a big myth, then why has the most recent scientific evidence come out from Johns Hopkins University that there's a greater than 30% chance of contracting AIDS by having sex with an uncut penis?

You know, the same beneficial bacteria live on the circumsized as well as the uncircumsized because that's the part of the body in which it thrives, but when the skin as allowed to fold on itself and cover the head for many hours at a time, it will act as an incubator for germs and microphages which are not affected by the beneficial bacteria meant to keep it clean of ordinary diseases.

So you can toot "Myth" all you want but you're just whistling in the dark as you walk past the graveyard. We've seen it all before, and yet somehow, the truth lives on. That's because the more we know, the stronger it gets.

 

[Dr Rock]

sigh. i suppose i'd better respond for the sake of any impressionable young minds that might be reading, although wasting keystrokes on crucifixated loons is not my idea of a fun weekend.

And if you're right, and there's really nothing to it, and it's all a big myth, then why has the most recent scientific evidence come out from Johns Hopkins University that there's a greater than 30% chance of contracting AIDS by having sex with an uncut penis?

try again. last i checked, the average risk of contracting HIV from any given carrier was something less than 1% per sexual encounter.

You know, the same beneficial bacteria live on the circumsized as well as the uncircumsized because that's the part of the body in which it thrives

oops, wrong again. said bacteria do live on circumcized tissue, but in way, way smaller numbers. being, well, bacteria, they require moist, warm surroundings in which to thrive. the internal foreskin and glans membrane also contain specialized "quick response" immune cells for producing antibodies specifically against the types of harmful bacteria and fungi which can most readily infect those areas.

but when the skin as allowed to fold on itself and cover the head for many hours at a time, it will act as an incubator for germs and microphages which are not affected by the beneficial bacteria meant to keep it clean of ordinary diseases.

this is another long-debunked victorian-era myth (see above).

 

[Matthew]

Bottom line: If people are truly interested in protecting themselves from HIV, circumcision is not even a worthwhile part of the discussion. Instead, worry about
USING CONDOMS

 

[Dr Rock]

Bottom line:

hurhurhurhur, "bottom"

 

[simcha]

bump

 

[Principessa]

bump

Why did you bump an 18 month old thread?

 

[simcha]

njqt466, we just have to keep these threads alive for the folks who NEED these threads to exist here at LPSG. They MUST have something to talk about.

 

[deleted15807]

njqt466, we just have to keep these threads alive for the folks who NEED these threads to exist here at LPSG. They MUST have something to talk about.

Agreed :biggrin1:

 

[Dave NoCal]

Would that be the two of you? I mean, 18 months then two months ????
Dave

 

[Snozzle]

The study was misreported. They DIDN'T find statistical significance. When circumcision is being discussed/promoted, facts fly out the window.

 

[deleted15807]

The study was misreported. They DIDN'T find statistical significance. When circumcision is being discussed/promoted, facts fly out the window.

Anything promoting it clearly is not statistically significant while everything promoting not doing it IS significant. I understand how things work in LPSG land now. It took me awhile but Snoozle I get it!! Thanks!!!