Circ and HIV

[DoulaLMT]

I'm having a discussion with a family member about circumcision, and she brought up this, mostly just playing devil's advocate (she doesn't have children and admits she has no opinion on circumcision)
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm

I just need some quick advice on how to respond

[Fyrestorm]

You might find the answers that you're looking for on Alegna's thread:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions....php?t=1104998

[kriket]

my biggest single talking point is the men that were circed in that study were talk to about safe sex practices, the intact men weren't. Knowledge is power, not cosmetic surgery.

[DoulaLMT]

thanks, that is very helpful!!

[Fellow Traveler]

Take a close look at the links in that thread. Particularly you can mail her back the Austrailian briefing paper. One of the big thingthe CDC neglects to mention is context.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by kriket

my biggest single talking point is the men that were circed in that study were talk to about safe sex practices, the intact men weren't. Knowledge is power, not cosmetic surgery.

Where did you find that info?

-Angela

[glongley]

Talking points on HIV and circumcision from Colorado NOCIRC:

http://www.coloradonocirc.org/files/...ing_Points.pdf

Also a lot of other good articles here:

http://www.coloradonocirc.org/hiv.php

Also ongoing blog debunking the circumcision/HIV connection:

http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/

Gillian

[glongley]

Originally Posted by DoulaLMT

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm

Re: the CDC "Fact" Sheet. They trumpet the benefits of circumcision while downplaying or ignoring the other side of the story - namely the functions of the foreskin, especially the sexual functions; the true range and rates of complications; and a full exposition of the ethics of infant circumcision. They are pretty much saying at this point that the benefits of circ outweigh the risks, but we don't even have a system in this country for collecting accurate data on the risks, so this is a bogus claim until we have an honest accounting of the risks, not just claims of how minor and rare the risks are.

Gillian

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by kriket

my biggest single talking point is the men that were circed in that study were talk to about safe sex practices, the intact men weren't. Knowledge is power, not cosmetic surgery.

I haven't seen that but it might be possible. A circumcision might require multiple follow ups at which point safe sex practices can be reinforced. But I am not sure on that point. However you can talk about things like what is on the Australia fact sheet here:

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

Key points:

• There is no demonstrated benefit of circumcision in men who have sex with men.
• Correct and consistent condom use, not circumcision, is the most effective means of reducing female-to-male transmission, and vice-versa.
• African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australian epidemic in any way.

You can also check out this latest critique:

http://davidgisselquist.googlepages.com/chapter7

Under Examples of incomplete research with unreliable conclusions
among other things:

During 2002-06, three studies – in South Africa,[xxviii] Uganda,[xxix] and Kenya[xxx] – solicited men wanting to be circumcised, then on a random basis circumcised some men first, but told others to wait. Following and retesting the men, the studies observed that circumcised men acquired HIV infection only 24-45 percent as fast as uncircumcised men. All three study teams concluded that lower HIV incidence in circumcised men was due to less sexual acquisition of HIV. That may be so. But to reach that conclusion, the study teams rejected what the men reported about their sexual behavior and ignored information about non-sexual risks.

Originally Posted by glongley

Re: the CDC "Fact" Sheet. They trumpet the benefits of circumcision while downplaying or ignoring the other side of the story - namely the functions of the foreskin, especially the sexual functions; the true range and rates of complications; and a full exposition of the ethics of infant circumcision. They are pretty much saying at this point that the benefits of circ outweigh the risks, but we don't even have a system in this country for collecting accurate data on the risks, so this is a bogus claim until we have an honest accounting of the risks, not just claims of how minor and rare the risks are.

Gillian

I guess it is easy to make something look good when you don't consider the downside.

[kriket]

Originally Posted by alegna

Where did you find that info?

-Angela

I so wish I could remember, I have read soooo much on those studies that I can't find the article again. It was almost mentioned in passing that the men were 'advised against high risk sexual encounters.... something about birth control" It was said in such a way that I didn't think to bookmark the article, like it was common knowledge.

[Dev]

Gillian: thanks so much for your continued professional and common sense input. I get so angered by the CDC and like others promotion of male circ to cure AIDS while ignoring the functions of the male prepuce and individual birth rights of male infants to involuntary amputation of parts of their God given, healthy, non-deceased genitals. When will the insanity End for our precious little boys?

[belchers1]

I know it's a little late, but I thought I'd share this:

http://www.foreskin.org:80/lysozyme.htm

[serendipity22]

also
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

There is a chart on that page showing circ/hiv rates for different countries.
There doesn't seem to be a pattern.

Some countries have very high hiv rates and very high circ rates.

In the last African study circumcised men were under strict instructions not to have unprotected sex (preferably no sex) for 6 weeks while their wound was healing.

There is a possibility that circumcision increases male to female transmission, but i am still getting my head around it.