Answer to HIV argument?

[BlessedMommy2006]

What are some good studies and links to give to friends who persist in the old HIV/AIDS reduction studies and arguments for circ?

To be honest, I'm not terribly familiar with the HIV propaganda, because I intend to teach my son abstinence as an alternative to amputation to prevent HIV.

[tlh]

The people that AIDS was first discovered in were the people born during the time when 90% of men were circumcised.How did it spread if circumcision prevented it?

[TCA2008]

pm me with your e-mail address and I'll send you copies of several good articles that refute the excuse.

[Fellow Traveler]

Check out this thread, I had a lot to say about it here:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions....php?t=1065043

[tlh]

Originally Posted by MommytoC

The study didn't say circ eliminated the spread of HIV. It said it somewhat reduced the chances of getting it. Those are incredibly different, and it's important to note that. It'd be irresponsible to to say that the study reportedg anything more than a risk reduction.

When AIDS was discovered, condom use was not as high as it is now. I suspect that probably had a lot more to do with it spreading than circ.

And I think it bears repeating that I'm not advocating circumcision. I don't agree with it at all, but I think evidence-based research can't be ignored, either, and this is the most recent study released (and again, it was a WHO study, which are usually very well done with proper controls).

I know.But saying that it reduces the risk by 60% to me still doesn't add up with such a high rate of circumcision at the time.And you add in the fact that more women were circumcised at the time it makes even less sense.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by MommytoC

The study didn't say circ eliminated the spread of HIV. It said it somewhat reduced the chances of getting it. Those are incredibly different, and it's important to note that. It'd be irresponsible to to say that the study reportedg anything more than a risk reduction.

That is clearly an important distinction that I don't think is being understood. If we accept it as fact then to me the choices are as simple as:

A. You can get circumcised, but you must always be choosy about your sex partners and you must always wear a condom.

or

B. You don't need to get circumcised, but you must always be choosy about your sex partners and you mush always wear a condom.

I am not sure really, what did I buy getting circumcised? Nothing it seems to me and I think most rational thinkers would conclude the same thing. The problem is although most NGOs swear up and down this is the message they are delivering I don't think this is the message being heard. I think those in Africa are getting circumcised thinking that it will fully protect them, I have read numerous articles where men interviewed were quoted as saying this much. And if men think circumcision is protective, it will dis-empower women in a continent where they already have little power in these situations [This was actually brought up at the AIDS conference in Mexico but few paid it much mind.]. So if circumcision is protective, that protection will probably be frittered away in a combination of dis-inhibition of men and dis-empowerment of women. If it isn't protective then things will surely get worse. I have a feeling that either way they loose.

Originally Posted by MommytoC

When AIDS was discovered, condom use was not as high as it is now. I suspect that probably had a lot more to do with it spreading than circ.

True.

Originally Posted by MommytoC

And I think it bears repeating that I'm not advocating circumcision. I don't agree with it at all, but I think evidence-based research can't be ignored, either, and this is the most recent study released (and again, it was a WHO study, which are usually very well done with proper controls).

I don't think they were WHO studies, WHO interpreted the study but they weren't carried out or funded by WHO. In any case, several first world countries [pretty quickly] have correctly pointed out that due to very low prevalence there is no relevance, see my link to the other thread. Curiously, the US [where the situation is little different] hasn't said as much and it's now two years later.

[becca_howell]

Originally Posted by BlessedMommy2006

I intend to teach my son abstinence as an alternative to amputation to prevent HIV.

:
You hit the nail on the head there! Abstinence is the ONLY way to prevent HIV/AIDS. Condoms break. Circumcision is NOT the answer, I won't even go into that. If we teach our children to be abstinent and monogamous once they find their life mate (spouse, etc.) they won't have to worry about stupid inaccurate studies that say they are at a higher risk of getting HIV because they have/are married to someone who has their foreskin intact.

[Papai]

Originally Posted by MommytoC

The study didn't say circ eliminated the spread of HIV. It said it somewhat reduced the chances of getting it. Those are incredibly different, and it's important to note that. It'd be irresponsible to to say that the study reportedg anything more than a risk reduction.

When AIDS was discovered, condom use was not as high as it is now. I suspect that probably had a lot more to do with it spreading than circ.

And I think it bears repeating that I'm not advocating circumcision. I don't agree with it at all, but I think evidence-based research can't be ignored, either, and this is the most recent study released (and again, it was a WHO study, which are usually very well done with proper controls).

The research itself didn't say that circ eliminates the spread of HIV, but its founders and researchers certainly are on a media campaign to make it seem so! "CIRCUMCISION: THE ANSER TO THE HIV PROBLEM?" "SHOULD ALL MALES BE CIRCUMCISED?" "HOW MALE CIRCUMCISION CAN STAMP OUT THE HIV EPIDEMIC"

Those are the headlines that are dashed on news articles regularly and these articles tout this 60 percent protective benefit of HIV as a life-changing tool in the HIV epidemic. Of course, they slip in a sentence that, "Oh, you should still use condoms" for the people who point out that condoms are far more effective at preventing HIV.

And just because WHO has been bought and sold by these studies doesn't mean they are air-tight. There's plenty to criticize about the studies and many researchers have done so in the Lancett and other pubs!

I don't believe evidence-based research can be ignored either but when evidence-based research doesn't play out in real life then I question the validity of that research.

[jeliphish]

I just always say that I don't care what the "studies" say. My child will not have his foreskin cut off so that he can have crazy, risky sex with anyone he meets. He will be taught how to be responsible with sex...so it's a moot point. If his lack of foreskin is the only thing protecting him from not getting HIV then he's screwed.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by Papai

Of course, they slip in a sentence that, "Oh, you should still use condoms" for the people who point out that condoms are far more effective at preventing HIV.

I agree, they seem to slip that sentence in as an after thought. It's kind of like the fine print in a credit card agreement or that fast taking announcer at the end of car and financing ads. You know what they say, the big print giveth the small print taketh away.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

Circumcision and AIDS/HIV
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003362.html
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...Statement.html

Comparison of North America to other non-circ countries HIV status
http://www.avert.org/america.htm
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

If you teach condom use that is what is needed not cutting off a very important body part.

[Galatea]

Since it is not 100% foolproof protection against HIV, why not let the boy weigh the costs and benefits and make the decision for himself when he is old enough to face the issue?

[glongley]

A handout on arguments in re: the HIV/circumcision issue.
http://www.coloradonocirc.org/files/...ing_Points.pdf

[Fyrestorm]

USA = highest circumsision rate
USA = Highest HIV transmission rate

Finland = Lowest circumcision rate
Finland = Lowest HIV transmission rate

Do the math

[Claire and Boys]

I've been having an argument with someone about this issue and pointed out the fact that Europe has lower circ rates + HIV prevalence and their argument was that in countries where circ is not practised there is a greater heterosexual risk and where circ is practised the biggest risk groups are MSM and drug users. Looking at the figures on Avert, this seems to be mostly true, I did uncover a few exceptions looking at other sites namely Japan and Ethiopia..Japan has a very low circ rate and low risk of heterosexual transmission and Ethiopia the opposite.

The other issue is they point out that the groups in the US with high HIV rates are blacks and hispanics who tend not to circ. I have said that they also have disproportionate rates of poverty which may affect sexual education etc. But it's a difficult argument to win.

[MomToKandE]

Originally Posted by Galatea

Since it is not 100% foolproof protection against HIV, why not let the boy weigh the costs and benefits and make the decision for himself when he is old enough to face the issue?

This is where we wound up. We determined it simply wasn't our decision to make. By the time Ds is old enough that it matters there will likely be more info and he can make his own decision.

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by MomToKandE

This is where we wound up. We determined it simply wasn't our decision to make. By the time Ds is old enough that it matters there will likely be more info and he can make his own decision.

ITA. And in a first world country, there isn't enough of a risk to warrant amputation. I wasn't even aware of how low that chance is until reading that post by jwhispers - I think a lot of people think it's pretty much a 100% risk of contracting HIV if you have sex with an infected person without a condom. Reducing that by 60% sounds great until you look at the actual chance of transmission.

If he's engaging in risky practices later on that's his decision to make if the info shows it's worth doing then.

[Jennifer3141]

My argument about HIV and circumcision is that if I find out my DS is out there having unprotected sex with anyone he's not in a committed relationship with AND made sure both of them have had multiple negative HIV tests before knocking boots, that I will kick his butt from here to Timbuktu. Gross. :Puke

I hope and pray DS has a marvelous sex life with marvelous people someday. But if I catch the little nut out there bareback, he's going to be in big trouble no matter how old he is!!! I'll never be too old to get him.

I also intend to talk about condoms as soon as he's ready.

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by Claire and Boys

I've been having an argument with someone about this issue and pointed out the fact that Europe has lower circ rates + HIV prevalence and their argument was that in countries where circ is not practised there is a greater heterosexual risk and where circ is practised the biggest risk groups are MSM and drug users. Looking at the figures on Avert, this seems to be mostly true, I did uncover a few exceptions looking at other sites namely Japan and Ethiopia..Japan has a very low circ rate and low risk of heterosexual transmission and Ethiopia the opposite.

The other issue is they point out that the groups in the US with high HIV rates are blacks and hispanics who tend not to circ. I have said that they also have disproportionate rates of poverty which may affect sexual education etc. But it's a difficult argument to win.

In the end, behavior seems to be the key to the whole thing. I think you are dead on when it comes to disproportionate rates of poverty and sexual education. People in a lower socio-economic bracket are more likely to engage in riskier behavior that includes sexual practices. As you said, in the US, the biggest HIV risk groups are MSM and drug users. Even by the most favorable interpretation of the RICs, it's clear that circumcision has no prophylactic effect within those two groups. Therefore, its promotion to curb HIV in the US is not backed by any relevant research. What you mentioned about Japan and Ethiopia is interesting because it demonstrates that all kinds of factors have to be considered (that were not taken into account by the RCTs) when one tries to ascertain "real world results" from controlled experiments. It would be also interesting to see how the European heterosexual risk compares to the US risk. I have a hunch that the difference is not statistically significant. In any case, I once remember reading about HIV prevalence in two South African groups, one that circumcises and one that does not. Statistically, there was no difference. I know one of the groups was the Zulu (don't circumcise). I forgot the other one. Anyway, what this example shows is that behavior, not circumcision status determine the spread of HIV, even for high-risk groups. While perhaps they may be some prophylactic effect given by circumcision, it seems to be negated pretty quickly once behavioral factors are taken into account.

[Claire and Boys]

you can look up all the transmission stats on Avert. Most of the European countries have a higher risk of heterosexual transmission overall vs MSM. But, I am not sure how relevant this is when the actual HIV prevalence in the country as a whole is much higher as it is in the united states.