Yet more evidence for Circumcision

[mandoman]

That's if you believe the studies made by Halperin, Gray, and company.
There are six widely ignored African studies which report higher instances of HIV infection among circumcised men, than among uncircumcised men. Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men.

 

[jmen8229]

mandoman...do you have a link to those studies? thanks

 

[mandoman]

no, this is as close as I could come...a scientific report from Britain referencing them.

hope this helps.

Concentrating Exclusively on Sexual Transmission of HIV is Misplaced

here's another. Search for Lesotho.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=76

 

[deleted15807]

Ahhh someone better run down to the CDC and light themselves on fire. The end is near.......


Debate on circumcision heightened as CDC evaluates surgery

....two evaluations, which are nearing completion, come in the wake of new research indicating that the procedure has more health benefits than previously thought, including reducing the risk for getting the AIDS virus and contracting other sexually transmitted diseases.
​

......

"The evidence has gotten much stronger with the results of these trials of the potential benefits of circumcision," said Ronald H. Gray, a professor of reproductive epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, who led two of the recent studies.

"Higher rates of circumcision would certainly prevent a substantial number of infections," Gray said. "The risks are extremely small and the benefits are substantial."


http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/img/ad_label_leftjust.gif

The academy's 11-member task force met outside Chicago last week to begin finalizing the new position, which will be released later in the year.
​

 

[mandoman]

Yeah, Rob Stein's article quoting Arleen Leibowitz is really scientific, and impartial.
Guess she forgot that Americans are mostly circumcised, and have some of the highest HIV infection rates in the world.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

In africa, HIV is transmitted via normal vaginal sex. Males catch it via their penis. The uncircumcised inner foreskin offers easy entry for HIV and hence higher infection rate.
In circumcised males, the inner foreskin's receptors are further from the surface (due to some keratinisation) and the virus can't enter easily.

So, is that the lead in for routine female circumcision? Can't have any of that real genital tissue around. Dangerous stuff.

 

[Christiaan]

Yeah, Rob Stein's article quoting Arleen Leibowitz is really scientific, and impartial.
Guess she forgot that Americans are mostly circumcised, and have some of the highest HIV infection rates in the world.

Uh huh and the highest incidence - percentage - of AIDS infections in the US, is in Washongton, DC.

 

[deleted15807]

Uh huh and the highest incidence - percentage - of AIDS infections in the US, is in Washongton, DC.

Meaningless

 

[ZOS23xy]

Of course, the evangelical prepuscies will cry out against the findings of real science...



Clean-Cut: Study Finds Circumcision Helps Prevent HIV and Other Infections: Scientific American

Science has been moving in cycles. Politics and opinions have moved reason into the "sacred cow" arena. How long before this will be invalid?


Charles Fort thought that science was not innocent of opinion.

 

[ZOS23xy]

Uh huh and the highest incidence - percentage - of AIDS infections in the US, is in Washongton, DC.

And coming from the Republican party, right?

 

[mandoman]

And coming from the Republican party, right?

Can you read his avatar? He's from the Netherlands. So much for the validity of your presumptions, eh?

 

[ZOS23xy]

Can you read his avatar? He's from the Netherlands. So much for the validity of your presumptions, eh?

Explain please.

Why living elsewhere would disqualify information as presented?

 

[Darkriff]

I wish I was uncircumcised I personally like the look of it. I've always heard that the benefits were for hygeine. Like it's hard to pull your shit back and clean under the head anyway. Oh well, not like I can do anything about it now but pout :'(

 

[SirConcis]

snow tires in Texas won't make a difference in accident rates because in Texas, accidents are not caused by snow/ice on roads. But snow tires in Buffalo make a huge difference because out there, there is a lot of snow.

Circumcision makes little/no difference in areas where sexual habits do not result in males catching HIV via penis and spreading it to many females afterwards. But it makes a difference in cultures where this happens. (and now, they even know that there is a period shortlty after infection where the odds of spreading are much higher, so if you have sex with multiple women during that period, you are far more likely to infect the females that come after the one that infected you.

Say that period is 3 months (can't rememberthe exact number). If you switch girlfriend every 6 months, by the time you get the next girlfriend, you will be less virulent and thus a bit less likely to infect her. But if you have multiple mates during the "virulent" period, then you are far more likely to infect all of them.

If there are tribes in Africa that are more monogamous, then infection rates will be lower and circ status less of a factor. But if within a region, you have some uncut tribes that are more monigamous, and a circ tribe that is more polygamous, then it is to be expected that the more polygamous tribe will have higher infection rate. But if they were uncut, they would have even higher rates.

Lifestyle is the primary cause of large scale spreading of HIV. Circumcision works well in areas where the lifestyle is such that circumcision makes a difference.

 

[Sapien]

Circumcision makes little/no difference in areas where sexual habits do not result in males catching HIV via penis and spreading it to many females afterwards. But it makes a difference in cultures where this happens. (and now, they even know that there is a period shortlty after infection where the odds of spreading are much higher, so if you have sex with multiple women during that period, you are far more likely to infect the females that come after the one that infected you.

You are correct that we need to be careful when comparing the HIV infection rates in the U.S. with those in Africa. The studies always refer to "heterosexual" HIV transmission. In the U.S. a significant amount of the HIV infection is due to gay sex. However, I think there are some regional ethnic populations that also have higher concentration of heterosexual transmission. It is also quick likely that these populations have a higher percentage of intact males (due to poverty, lack of medical insurance, ethnicity).

I really don't know if circumcision reduces heterosexual HIV infection or not. I think it is very difficult to accurately conduct such a study in the best of conditions and those that conduct them are not impartial.

However, assuming that the circumcision does reduce heterosexual HIV transmission. Does that make it the right thing to do? Humans are too complex to fit such a simple cause an effect scenario. There are complications from circumcision that will make HIV transmission more probable in the long run. Also, eduction in safe sex practices and the spread of HIV is a less invasive alternative.

Reduced sensitivity and sexual responsiveness that get worse over time will result in a greater tendency for those that were circumcised to have sex without condoms. The will want to maximize their pleasure and will have a false sense of security because they are circumcised. All of the studies are relatively short term and do not take this possible consequence into account.

If there are tribes in Africa that are more monogamous, then infection rates will be lower and circ status less of a factor. But if within a region, you have some uncut tribes that are more monigamous, and a circ tribe that is more polygamous, then it is to be expected that the more polygamous tribe will have higher infection rate. But if they were uncut, they would have even higher rates.

Lifestyle is the primary cause of large scale spreading of HIV. Circumcision works well in areas where the lifestyle is such that circumcision makes a difference.

There are still tribes that live in Africa but the bulk of the people now live in cities and villages as we do (though smaller and not as sophisticated). I am not sure but I suspect it is the cities & villages where the bulk of the HIV infection is spreading rather than with those that are still in traditional tribes.

 

[mandoman]

Uh.. look, try boning up on courses in reasoning....
If it reduces the risk of infection... HOW DO THEY DETERMINE THAT?

FEWER INFECTED PEOPLE... that is how.

Reducing transmission means fewer people GET the disease... when fewer enough get the disease, the ability of the disease to spread epidemically is drastically reduced.

The reason transmission in the heterosexual community is so low in the US is because a large percentage of men are circumcised.
In the gay community, transmission i closely associated with drug use and Anal penetration... which often damages rectal tissue offering a way in that a circumcised dick does not.


really... its fine if you want to keep your foreskin... fine if you want to deny your child a minor procedure that will significantly reduce his exposure to sexually transmitted disease...
But its time you foreskin fanatics STOPPED with the 'harm' argument.

The science is conclusive. getting cut reduces not only HIV transmission, but many others...

I should have the right to bestow this added protection on my child in the exact same way I have my child inoculated against common diseases.

And your foreskin fixation is not a valid argument for outlawing the procedure.

Phil, having a foreskin does not equal having a foreskin fixation, just like having a circumcision scar does not automatically include you in the club of people who think it is a good idea.
It's time you stopped thinking of people who have all of their body as fanatics.
That is a convenient device for you, to dismiss everything they have to say as false.
The science is far from conclusive. Why do you suspect that the AMA talks about 'potential benefits', and not 'actual benefits'? If circumcision is so universally accepted, why are they doing it less all the time in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, etc, places where it used to be common? Because they have found that the benefits don't outweigh the very real risks, such as meatal stenosis, hidden penis, painful erections, MRSA infection, and so on.
Nobody in his right mind is advocating unsafe sex. Why? Because you still get infected, whether you are circumcised or not. Circumcised Americans died of AIDS, in large numbers. If you have to wear a condom to be safe, why remove anything, especially parts that feel really good?
I think it is hilarious that you knock my logic, when yours holds no water, and I earn my living by logic.
Try making sense, and giving a logical, not an emotional, knee-jerk response that simply cheerleads. Perhaps more people will take you seriously.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Circumcision works well in areas where the lifestyle is such that circumcision makes a difference.

The HIV/circ thing will implode, just like all other disease/foreskin attributions of the past have.

Bottom line: infant circumcision is an ancient blood ritual in search of modern justification. Helped along by adult males like you who had themselves cut for no reason/personal reasons.

The vast majority of circumcised adult males were routinely cut at birth. Amputating healthy, vital, nerve-supplied erogenous tissue from helpless infants, based on an assumption that they will be promiscuous adults, is remarkably totalitarian medicine.

 

[SirConcis]

> Does that make it the right thing to do?

HIV in Africa is not a disease, it is a very serious epidemic.Large proportion of children are orphans because both parents dies of AIDS, and the children were born with aids.

This isn't an esoteric question of whether it should be ethical or not.

If you are in a fancy restaurant, you will drink Perrier in a champagne glass. If you are in Haiti, you'll drop all the good manners and drink from some pipe sticking out of a truck because you are desperate to get some water.

So, when thet are desperate to reduce the epidemic to controllable levels, they will look at all possible solutions that help curb Aids, and that also means dropping many ethical questions about circumcision because in the end, survival of a society is more important than the esoteric debate on whether a foreksin must be preserved or not.

More importantly, in africa, circumcision is targetted at young adults, not at babies. So there is no "its his penis, let him choose" issue because the owner of the penis is old enough to choose.

The anti-circ folks are caught in a dilemma. They have the "right to choose" argument to stop baby circs.This is a reasonable argument. But they have gone much further than that in calling circumision a mutilation and as a result, they are now opposing all circumcisions, even those for adults who choose it.

 

[mandoman]

First of all, the evidence is contradictory. In the studies which were actually finished, in six countries, men with foreskins were less likely to contract HIV. In the rigged studies by Halperin, whose grandfather was a mohel (who he emulates), Gray, and the other guy with the French name, the studies were never actually finished.
Regardless, the women who are with circumcised men see their infection rate climb, not dive. The men feel invulnerable, and do not curb their promiscuous behavior. Some don't even wait until they are healed, and get infected right away. Some are even infected, by using the same knife for many people. Condoms and education are the answer, not circumcision.
How is circumcision not mutilation? I don't like to bring it up, because no good comes of it, but as long as you brought it up first, let's check Webster-Merriam.
Main Entry: mu·ti·late
Pronunciation: \ˈmyü-tə-ˌlāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): mu·ti·lat·ed; mu·ti·lat·ing
Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed
Date: 1534
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple
synonyms see maim

Let's see. cise, from the Latin verb "to cut" as in excise.
Does circumcision permanently destroy the foreskin? I would say yes. What would you say? Make imperfect? I am not willing to go there. I will say that on my body, the two most sexually responsive parts are the frenulum and inner foreskin.

And to Phil, I'm 56. My son is 31. My father died at 65. None of us has ever had an infection. When do they start? My father in law died at 72 without ever having had one.
His son is 65. Same deal. The youngest son is 50. He's never had one either.
Were we condemned to ill health? I don't think so.

 

[gymfresh]

There should be a FAQ for this.

The uncircumcised inner foreskin offers easy entry for HIV and hence hifgher infection rate.
In circumcised males, the inner foreksin's receptors are further from the surface (due to some keratinisation) and the virus can't enter easily.

Wow, even the biased researchers don't go this far. So far they "speculate" or "hypothesize" that the foreskin may offer an entry point for the virus -- they have never proven this mechanism in a single scientific experiment. Others think it's hooey. The researchers have never been able to quite bridge from correlation to causation, so the route they have chosen is to say, in effect, "this doesn't make common sense, so we suspect that what's going on here is microabrasions and Langerhans cells and receptors" and yadda yadda yadda.

It could turn out in fact to be the exact opposite -- that the langerin produced by the Langerhans cells of both intact men & women neutralizes the virus, as do the lysozymes found in more abundance in intact males, which coupled with more penile skin to move back and forth during intercourse equals less friction, less abrasion and more protection against HIV for intact males (and their partners). This would at least partly explain why nearly identical first-world populations -- like Europe vs the US -- show significantly lower HIV transmission rates on nearly identical modal profile.
(Every time this gets brought up, the circers start jumping up and down and shout "But they're completely different! Europe has safe-sex campaigns and uses condoms and it's mostly drug use! Wrong. Europe a has very similar condom/homo sex/hetero sex/drug profile to the US and they are directly comparable.)

To date, we don't know which it is. All we have is these poorly-constructed, halted-early RCT (randomized clinical trials) showing tiny results (the figures were miniscule in the scope of the whole studies) all going in one direction, the direction the study designers indicated they set out to prove. It certainly wasn't good enough for the researchers to just leave their results without explanation, so they concocted one. Hasn't been shown to ever work that way.

Lack fo circumcision in europe may not offer protection from HIV

Only a circ fanatic would refer to "lack of circumcision" in a population. Tell us, how does the general lack of mastectomy affect the overall breast cancer rate in the United States? Should we look more closely at our relatively high rate of unmastectomized women? Is it a problem in Europe, too?