NY Times article - how to counter these arguments/findings?

[RoseDuperre]

Circumcision Is Found to Curb Two S.T.D.’s

Help! This new article is considered proof-positive to my pro-circ friends!

[2xy]

From the article:

The mechanism for the effect is unclear, but the authors suggest that the retraction of the foreskin during intercourse exposes the penis to infection, and that the moist area under the foreskin may then provide a protected environment in which the viruses can flourish.

Circumcision obviously removes the "protective" factor; it also dries out the glans.

So what people want to do is mutiliate, dry out, and scar the organ to protect it from disease? Sounds silly.

And if it works so well, why do so many American men have herpes and HPV?

[NettleTea]

So the ideal here is to just assume that your sons are going to be promiscuous?

[Pirogi]

I just saw this on cnn.com and I was coming to see what everyone thought. It looks like it was just published this week, so I bet few people have seen the actual research. The cnn cover story said it was conducted by the same research group that conducted the African AIDS study, which did not exactly have stellar research protocols and has been called into question. I don't know about others, but when a research group seems to twist data and methods to fit a preconceived notion, I tend not to give their work much credence. I feel confident that as more people look at the actual data, it will become less certain that these study results are valid.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that circumcision is sexual mutilation of a child against his consent. If a man decides that he wants to undergo circumcision upon reaching adulthood to decrease his chances of contracting STDs, he certainly may. Nothing is lost by waiting.

[meganmarie]

Ugh, my DH read this out to me last night (it was also published in the Wall St Journal). He went along with our decision not to circ our son, but his first instinct was to do it, so he was bringing it up to second guess the decision.
My 2 counter points were:
1. Condoms are also highly effective against STDs, and protect against pregnancy to boot, while being a whole lot less invasive than circ.
2. Circ-ing to reduce a small risk of disease seems to me like an extreme response that cuts off your nose to spite your face; like doing a preventative masectomy - except for that small % of women who are highly genetically inclined to breast cancer, it isn't common sense.

[Pumpkinheadmommy]

You can show him the BBC article on the same topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7960798.stm

Dr Colm O'Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an "obsession" with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections.

He said: "Sure, a dry skinned penis is a bit less likely to contract HIV, herpes and possibly genital warts but it will get infected eventually."

[perspective]

Originally Posted by RoseDuperre

Circumcision Is Found to Curb Two S.T.D.’s

Help! This new article is considered proof-positive to my pro-circ friends!

I love how this is a classic representation of the circ argument. You have a vaccine against HPV, (which of course is only being used with women) and for guys there are still further "studies" on finding ways of curing HPV with circumcision.

If there is already a working vaccine against HPV, why are we wasting money on these circ studies as if there was no other workable option available?


We are a culture trying to find reasonings to continue practicing one of our most outdated traditions. And in the process are wasting the time of researchers and doctors, money, and taking unneeded risks with men's health.

Its time to let the circ issue die, and let the practice of circumcision reseed to the same level of importance as mall piercings, and dive bar tattoo's.

[kriket]

Originally Posted by 2xy

Circumcision obviously removes the "protective" factor; it also dries out the glans.

So what people want to do is mutilate, dry out, and scar the organ to protect it from disease? Sounds silly.

this was what I was going to say.

If we have all our men rough up their penisis with sandpaper and cause calluses, STD rates will plummet.

Or wear condoms.. I mean, the sandpaper thing sounds more fun, but if you want to cut corners...

Or we could just cut the entire penis off, that would really reduce transmission rates.

I hate when people show me these 'studies' If they want a study, the UK has about a 16% circ rate. Pretty low right? So they should all be dead from STDs by now?

[kriket]

Originally Posted by Grylliade

So the ideal here is to just assume that your sons are going to be promiscuous?

yeah... any son of mine will be able to get any girl any time any place!! duh.




You know that some people really do hope that their son has multiple partners. I don't get it either, we're willing to cut pieces off of them so they can be 'popular' with the ladies?

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by RoseDuperre

Circumcision Is Found to Curb Two S.T.D.’s

Help! This new article is considered proof-positive to my pro-circ friends!

I can only give you a few quick things now but we've been having this discussion. Here are two better prospectives that you can read (both British go figure) Be sure to read both articles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7960798.stm

Dr Colm O'Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an "obsession" with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted infections.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...genital-herpes

But the benefit of being circumcised was small. After two years, 114 circumcised men and teenagers tested positive for herpes simplex virus type 2, which means they had about an 8 percent chance of becoming infected over the course of the study. Of the uncircumcised group, 153 tested positive for this virus, which gave them around a 10 percent chance of becoming infected over two years.

and

" ... if you want to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision almost certainly won't be your first or best option."

Now as far as specifics we have an option for an HPV vaccine so why circumcise? One could choose and the vaccine is way more efficient, nearly 100% in girls and it's about to be approved for boys. We've discussed the HIV issue a number of times here. If you don't understand what was posted in the thread just ask I'll help you understand it. Finally, as the British Dr said in the Guardian the reduction in HSV is actually relatively small I'll also point out that other first world studies haven't shown a protective effect there could be a number of issues. Here is some more commentary from British sources.

[super mamabug]

I think the point is are we really as a society advocating the removal of body parts to prevent their infection. I had an eyelid infection, I suppose that would have been prevented by removal as an infant. We could cure breast cancer, by removing baby girls breast-buds.
We are a society that puts education first. Lets educate our sons on how to take care of their bodies. Condoms, baths etc. are successful and effective prevention. We don't need to go as drastic as removal of the part to prevent it's infection.

These types of articles make me nervous. They may mislead people into thinking that if you are circ'd the need for condom use is lessened. All men need to be using condoms circ'd or intact.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by kriket

the UK has about a 16% circ rate. Pretty low right? So they should all be dead from STDs by now?

All those poor European men must live in terror just waiting for their foreskins to jump out and kill them!

Don't we in the US have the highest mutilation rate and the highest rate of transmission of HIV and STDs?

[RoseDuperre]

Thanks for all your wise responses, mamas!

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

Don't we in the US have the highest mutilation rate and the highest rate of transmission of HIV and STDs?

I thought this was the case too. Do we have a source for that?

[liseux]

Perspective, I like the way you put things, you said it perfectly!

[Fyrestorm]

Many sources of data contradict the claim that circumcision protects against HIV. The United States has one of the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection in the developed world. European nations, which rarely practice circumcision, have very low rates of HIV. Numerous regions in Africa show higher rates of HIV in circumcised populations compared to uncircumcised populations. For example, 2004 data from Lesotho show HIV infection of 15 percent for uncircumcised males and 23 percent for circumcised males. A 2007 study showed that, once commercial sex worker patterns were taken into consideration, circumcision status was irrelevant in HIV infection rates.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/05/prweb916104.htm

[G8P4]

Has anyone read the actual study? The news reports state that circumcision was done in the two groups either immediately or after 24 months. Wouldn't there be a "lag" period of going back to having sex in the immediately circ'd group that could account for the differences? Or maybe the circ'd group have a higher number of impotent males to account for the difference. Not being able to get it up will certainly reduce your chances of getting an STD.

However, even if this study is true, why not let the kid make up their own mind when they become sexually active? Why is this a justification for infant circumcision?

[G8P4]

From that Guardian article....

Surprisingly, the study didn't give any information about side effects or complications of circumcision.

Hmmm.

In the Guardian article, they also point out that infection from the wart virus actually decreased in both groups over the length of time that the study was done. There were 62 in 100 infected at the start, down to 36 in 100 of the circumcised and 51 in 100 circumcised at the end. The article points out that this decrease in the virus is because the virus is usually naturally cleared by the immune system. But, one can hardly conclude that circumcision prevents the wart virus based on this. Perhaps, cutting off a huge wack of the infected skin helps clear it quicker....similar to the idea of amputation of fungally infected toes "preventing" atheletes foot I guess....but even that can't be concluded with certainty.

[bluetoes]

Our local paper had a similar article. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/6342745.html
Grrrr.... People just don't like to think I am afraid.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by G8P4

From that Guardian article....
Hmmm.

The article points out that this decrease in the virus is because the virus is usually naturally cleared by the immune system.

This is true. HPV in most cases is cleared by the body with no ill effects. I think I read somewhere that most adults over 50 have been exposed at the very least once but usually multiple times. As infections go, HPV is not considered very serious at all.

[A&A]

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetch...l.pone.0000543


http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/