Circumcision may stop millions of HIV deaths-study

[Sonno]

Can I get a link for the article please?

 

[BeckWhy]

Hmmm... I better tell my boyfriend's best friend.. He's not circumcized. I like him, I don't want him to have HIV.

People will believe whatever they want. And I believe studies will find things and they can be true or not. I'm not gonna argue with you because I don't care about the topic.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Hmmm... I better tell my boyfriend's best friend.. He's not circumcized. I like him, I don't want him to have HIV.

People will believe whatever they want. And I believe studies will find things and they can be true or not. I'm not gonna argue with you because I don't care about the topic.

You had better tell that to most of the men in Europe also as they have a very low rate of Circumcision

 

[Cool-Beans]

I have to disagree that over 99% of men are circumsized. I'm a nurse, too, and see way more than 1% non-circumsized male patients. Jews, always. Black men, rarely. Other white me, I dunno...55%?????? But my patients aren't babies...maybe America is changing?

Also, the cut in infections probably has a lot more to do with the sanitary conditions in Africa than the procedure (and its results) itself. Any break in the skin would increase the risk of AIDS in a place where it runs so rampant. The less open wounds over there, the better!

Every medical thing I ever read on the subject says that non-circumsized men are at no more risk for infection that their circumsized counterparts. But that's here in the U.S. And my experience bears that out, as well.

I'm not pro or anti. I think either decision is fine.

 

[BeckWhy]

You had better tell that to most of the men in Europe also as they have a very low rate of Circumcision

Hmm.. well I don't live in Europe and don't know any men over there.. so I guess I don't care about them.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

The original studies were demographic/statistical in nature, but I found this one in which 3,000 HIV negative men who lived in a high endemic area were followed for three years. Half were circumcised and half were not. When they were retested, there was a lower rate of infection in the circumcised group.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=982931&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds031

According to the study, circumcision only seems to lower (but not eliminate) risk for men who are infected through female-to-male transmission. This is probably why the world health professionals aren't promoting circumcision as an HIV preventative, although IMO every little bit helps.

 

[Galahad]

IMO every little bit helps.

To me, that seemed to be the point to the whole thing.

How is it that the US has had one of the highest circumcision rates AND one of the highest AIDS rate as well?

The US infection rate is 0.6%
The average in Africa approaches 25%

I thought circumcision was supposed to prevent AIDS.

No, just reducing a risk factor.

This "study" was rejected by many peer reviewed journals due to the many problems with it.

There are dozens of peer reviewed studies. Among them are recently publishes studies in these journals:

Bioligicall Sciences
Sexually Transmitted Infections
American Journal of Clinical Pathology
Journal Of Urology
American Journal of Public Health
Public Library Of Science: Medicine
Nigerian Journal of Medicine

 

[MzDiz]

Cutting off my feet will prevent me from stubbing my toe.

Or, I could just watch where I'm walking.

 

[Tinijocaro]

Cutting off my feet will prevent me from stubbing my toe.

Or, I could just watch where I'm walking.

Nice analogy- just like removing my eyelids will help dry out the eye, thus preventing all those nasty infections you can get in a moist eye.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

But, if I can cut my toenails short to decrease the chance of me hurting my toe, I would definitely do that.

 

[LukenDC]

How is it that the US has had one of the highest circumcision rates AND one of the highest AIDS rate as well? I thought circumcision was supposed to prevent AIDS.

Also, why does Sweden, who has practically no circumcision, also have practically no AIDS? Something's not adding up here folks. We really need to look into these studies before we just blindly believe them.

Did they factor in the fact that the men who became circumcised were out of commision for several weeks, and perhaps less active for several months due to the circumcision? Meanwhile, the intact men were able to have much more sex than the circumcised men. Doubt that was factored in.

This "study" was rejected by many peer reviewed journals due to the many problems with it.

What will probably end up happening is that the AIDS rate will INCREASE since these men and women are being told that circumcision will prevent AIDS. "It's OK honey, I've been circumcised" Sure.....

The rate of HIV infection in the USA is quite small compared to the HIV infection rate of most other nations.

HIV does exist in Sweden. There are some people, however, of Scandanavian ancestry who appear to possess a natural immunity to HIV. Scientists are still studying the phenomenon. Sweden also has a much more frank and explicit sex education regimen than the United States. Swedish schools teach at lot more than their American counterparts and at a much earlier age. I regard the Swedish approach to sex education and sexuality as much more practical than the American stance and it seems to have resulted in lower instances of STDs and abortion.

 

[dcentity2000]

There are two deciding factors as far as I'm concerned:

• Medical benefit
• Personal autonomy

If circumstances permit, circumcision should not be performed, IMO, until the patient is old enough to make their own mind up. However, circumstances don't always permit.

It's a balance thing as far as I'm concerned.



Rich::

 

[DISUNC]

OIY ! I'm safe!

 

[LukenDC]

If circumstances permit, circumcision should not be performed, IMO, until the patient is old enough to make their own mind up. However, circumstances don't always permit.

Rich::

Keep in mind that circumcision is a difficult, painful procedure for an adult or adolescent male. As a gay man who has had several frank discussions on this topic with other men, I have yet to encounter one man who truly mourns the loss of his foreskin. In the USA, circumcision is very common and the vast majority of men who were circumcised in infancy are very accepting of their present state.

 

[Tinijocaro]

But, if I can cut my toenails short to decrease the chance of me hurting my toe, I would definitely do that.

Toenails grow back, foreskins don't.

 

[MickeyMouseGal]

I would be willing to trade my toenail growth for my personal safety.

 

[Tinijocaro]

The rate of HIV infection in the USA is quite small compared to the HIV infection rate of most other nations.

HIV does exist in Sweden. There are some people, however, of Scandanavian ancestry who appear to possess a natural immunity to HIV. Scientists are still studying the phenomenon. Sweden also has a much more frank and explicit sex education regimen than the United States. Swedish schools teach at lot more than their American counterparts and at a much earlier age. I regard the Swedish approach to sex education and sexuality as much more practical than the American stance and it seems to have resulted in lower instances of STDs and abortion.

Yes, the US rate is smaller than Africa and Asia, but still, if circumcision prevented HIV, we shouldn't have NEARLY as high a rate of HIV as we do here in this country. It should be slim to none, and we all know that isn't the case.

I realize that HIV does exist in Sweden, that's why I said "practically no HIV". But it is a very, very small number of cases. Perhaps this '"phenomenon" of Scandinavian natural immunity is simply nature's wonderful design. The foreskin has many immunological functions that actually prevent most STD's. I know this is contrary to what we have grown up hearing, but if you look up anything on the function, and especially the immunological function of the foreskin (prepuce) you will see that this is true. I think it's safe to say that this natural immunity is BECAUSE of their retained foreskins.

 

[Tinijocaro]

Keep in mind that circumcision is a difficult, painful procedure for an adult or adolescent male. As a gay man who has had several frank discussions on this topic with other men, I have yet to encounter one man who truly mourns the loss of his foreskin. In the USA, circumcision is very common and the vast majority of men who were circumcised in infancy are very accepting of their present state.

An adult male...
1. has consented to the procedure
2. understands why he is in pain
3. doesn't have to have his foreskin skinned off the glans (head) before the procedure
4. has all kinds of pain relief available to him, and can ask for them without any trouble
5. usually has a problem that needs to be corrected

None of the above is true for the tiny infant undergoing routine infant circumcision.

I'm not at all surprised that none of your circumcised friends mourn the loss of their foreskins. They have know idea what they are missing- all they know is the portion they've been allowed to keep. You don't know what you've never had. Here is a list of what they are missing. This is a list of everything a man loses when he is circumcised.

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

However, many men do know what they are missing, and are quite ticked about it and are doing something about it.

http://norm.org/

I have no problem with a MAN choosing circumcision for himself if he is given ALL the facts. A man should be able to choose for himself what he wants to do with his own body. Problem is, he should be give accurate information and that really seems to be lacking these days.

 

[DawnCt1]

Yes, the US rate is smaller than Africa and Asia, but still, if circumcision prevented HIV, we shouldn't have NEARLY as high a rate of HIV as we do here in this country. It should be slim to none, and we all know that isn't the case.

QUOTE]

Are you not considering iv drug use as a source of HIV transmission?

 

[Tinijocaro]

Yes, the US rate is smaller than Africa and Asia, but still, if circumcision prevented HIV, we shouldn't have NEARLY as high a rate of HIV as we do here in this country. It should be slim to none, and we all know that isn't the case.

QUOTE]

Are you not considering iv drug use as a source of HIV transmission?

I'm quite sure that it is a source here in the US. But not the only source.