quick! Need links disproving the disease-prevention argument

[alegna]

Quick!

I need the best links ripping apart the std studies!

-Angela

[Nandi]

Here's one to start:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...Statement.html

This is an interesting blog post with more info too
http://ourmanincameroon.com/2009/06/...n-aids-africa/

[Fellow Traveler]

Which ones? Here is one http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

Here is a bit about the HIV stuff in Africa: http://davidgisselquist.googlepages.com/chapter7

[alegna]

Thanks! The argue-er hasn't posted back with which article- he claims it's peer reviewed so it must be true

I expect it's the big HIV one that's been in the news out of Africa....

that didn't account for amount of sexual activity or condom use....

-Angela

[Ron_Low]

The HIV and HPV studies are highly suspect, but even if 100% true they are no reason for a man to choose circumcision. There is an HPV vaccine for those who don't already have HPV. Condoms are 95 times as cost effective at fighting HIV in Africa. Since circumcision costs a male over half his pleasure-receptive nerve endings and 15 square inches of sensual interface, and also carries great risk, the choice is obvious.

But you don't need to refute these studies. They have ZERO relevance on an infant's right to keep his whole body. Infants don't have sex. There is no emergency which would warrant granting proxy consent power about cosmetic amputations.

The only medical info that has even slight legitimacy in favor of infant circumcision is reduced urinary tract infection, but as the AAP acknoweldges, those results are suspect, with the infections of intact babies likely CAUSED by incorrect care. They now say leave it aloone, clean only what is seen.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by alegna

Thanks! The argue-er hasn't posted back with which article- he claims it's peer reviewed so it must be true

I expect it's the big HIV one that's been in the news out of Africa....

that didn't account for amount of sexual activity or condom use....

-Angela

OK, well read the second link closely. The critique those trials pretty harshly, among other things they ignored the possibility of HIV infection by medical treatments and such. There is strong indications that this is common in Africa and might be what is actually driving the epidemic.

[alegna]

okay- it's the 2009 article from the New England Journal of Medicine

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/13/1298

Any specific links to refute that one?

thanks!

-Angela

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by alegna

okay- it's the 2009 article from the New England Journal of Medicine

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/13/1298

Any specific links to refute that one?

thanks!

-Angela

Well, if I am not mistaken in that one, which was published only a few months ago, they made a lot of noise about HPV and HSV [herpes]. It's based on the same groups they did the HIV testing on, they're just releasing the data sporadically to get the most 'bang' for it.

Under this link I gave you:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

there is this: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/dickson1/

The Dunedin study of a cohort of New Zealand children born in 1972. This cohort, who are now adults, have been studied since birth. The males in the group included both non-circumcised and circumcised male. 201 or 40.3 percent were circumcised. The Dickson et al. found no relationship between circumcision status and HPV infection. in that cohort15

The basically followed two groups (circumcised and intact) from birth to age 25 or so and found no significant difference in herpes exposure. This matched data from some other papers (see links). That data from Africa made a big deal because they think they saw a 25% reduction. I am pretty sure that such a small reduction (even if it was true) would not allow a vaccine to advance in testing it would have been dropped.

As far as HPV goes, it's rare and we now have a vaccine which is like 100% effective which is far better than the pathetic 35% they are claiming. Which if the vaccine was only 35% effective it would have never passed clinical trials. I hope that gives you some material to use.

[alegna]

Thanks! I think the main interest is the HIV... I just wish someone had something out specifically picking apart this study. Wish I had time.....

-Angela

[A&A]

http://www.poz.com/articles/2023_12145.shtml

"There is ample cause to question this conclusion. First, a hard reckoning: Several African countries with some of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS in the world (Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Ivory Coast, Gabon) already circumcise at rates exceeding that of the United States."



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

"Muslims as a percentage of the population, itself highly correlated with country circumcision rates and previously found to be negatively correlated with HIV/AIDS prevalence, is insignificant when the percentage of commercial sex workers in a population is included in the analysis."

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by alegna

Thanks! I think the main interest is the HIV... I just wish someone had something out specifically picking apart this study. Wish I had time.....

-Angela

For HIV related talking points you should read the book I linked to. Chapter seven is the most important. You can also point out that even if the results are true, they have no applicability in the US context. Several HIV/AIDS groups have said as much here is one publication from Austrailia:


http://www.afao.org.au/library_docs/...umcision07.pdf

[Ron_Low]

Originally Posted by alegna

okay- it's the 2009 article from the New England Journal of Medicine

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/360/13/1298

Any specific links to refute that one?

thanks!

-Angela

That says that 8% of the cut and 10% of the intact got syphilis. The effect is small. Far more men were lost to follow-up during the study (status unknown) than got sick. Neither group is safe without condoms.

http://Circumstitions.com is the first source for refuting anything published. Use its google link on the main page to enter a phrase or two from the report and you'll find out if there is a write-up on it there.

[Fyrestorm]

The only thing you need to dispute those studies are this fact:

The US has the highest circumcision rate and one of the highest HIV transmission rates.

I believe there is also a study showing that FGM lowers the HIV transmission rate in woman.

It might also raise the rate of asst STDs in men since the desensitization can lead to riskier sex practices.

Also, the loss of lubrication from circ is more likely to cause micro tears in partners and increase the HIV transmission rate.

Condoms are the answer...not mutilation

[alegna]

Thanks all! I may have scared him off... If he comes back I have plenty of ammunition.

-Angela

[leila1213]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler

As far as HPV goes, it's rare and we now have a vaccine which is like 100% effective which is far better than the pathetic 35% they are claiming. Which if the vaccine was only 35% effective it would have never passed clinical trials. I hope that gives you some material to use.

I was following you up until this point. How do you figure HPV is rare? Something like 80% of women have it (pretty sure they are not all passing it to each other), and I certainly beg to differ on 100% effectiveness of any vaccine, least of all this one. I agree on all your conclusions, but this type of hyperbole turns me off, as a non-vaxer.

[Nandi]

Here's a great link showing the lower STD rates in Europe. It has an analysis of possible reasons why (cultural, less sex partners). The U.S. has higher rates of circ. and much higher rates of STD levels because of higher rates of different partners, less condom use.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/ind...419&Itemid=177

[SlackerDad]

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is in fact some effect on disease prevention. As an intact man I find absurd the idea that I should have part of my penis removed, significantly reducing my ability to feel pleasure, to marginally reduce the chance of getting this or that condition. I'm sure we could massively reduce the incidence of breast cancer by doing routine universal double mastectomies. Testicular cancer? Castration will solve that. Heck, there are a lot of body parts that expose us to risk and we don't really need. Can't we get along with just a head and torso?

[alegna]

Exactly SlackerDad. Makes perfect sense to me.... sigh.

-Angela

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by leila1213

I was following you up until this point. How do you figure HPV is rare? Something like 80% of women have it (pretty sure they are not all passing it to each other), and I certainly beg to differ on 100% effectiveness of any vaccine, least of all this one. I agree on all your conclusions, but this type of hyperbole turns me off, as a non-vaxer.

You're right I did make a mistake because it was an early morning post. I, in fact, caught the mistake later in the day but opted not to correct it. What I meant to say was that penile cancer, of which HPV is thought to be a risk factor, is rare. HPV infection is in fact very common and also very easily aquired even by casual (non sexual) contact. Fortunatly, the chance of that infection leading to any problem is rare. I also believe HPV is as prevelent in men. So this is my formal correction.

As to the vaccine, the last time I looked I recall an efficiency along those lines. Since this isn't the vaccine debate board I won't follow up more than that (plus I have no firm position on the issue). At the risk of further offence, which is not intended in any way, I will add that if I can allay someone's concerns about circumcision and HPV related cancers by citing the availability of a vaccine I think that is worth it since they won't have to think about this particular one for at least 10 years. While I respect your position on vaccines, I assure you when one for HIV pops up, I'll be citing that too if it will prevent a circumcision.

[leila1213]

Hey, no offense taken. I just thought you might like to know that this particular argument could turn someone off if they have done their research and doubt vaccine effectiveness. Not that it's a reason to circ, but it's an excuse to write off all your arguments, KWIM?