Death/complication stats from universal circ versus HIV/AIDS deaths

[BlessedMommy2006]

Let's say that hypothetically all boys in the U.S. were circ'ed, how many hypothetical deaths and complications would happen in a year? How would this compare with deaths and complications from AIDS? And then what preventative effect would circ, if any would it have for the average person?

In other words, is there any way to prove that the average boy is more likely to bleed to death from being circ'ed than to die of AIDS?

Is there any way to decently crunch these numbers?

[Crunchy Frog]

The truth is that no one knows what the real numbers are for complications and deaths resulting from neonatal circs.

If CDC had any intellectual honesty whatsoever, the would institute a system similar to the VAERS database to collect and collate all adverse incidences associated with it, with mandatory reporting by healthcare professionals.

How can they possibly reccomend universal circ when they don't even have a clue what the short term and long term complication rate is from it?

This whole business is absolutely insane.

[phatchristy]

I don't think they want to know--I have no doubt that numbers of boys who die as a result of circumcision (hemmorage, infection...and other complications) would be higher than the number who would benefit from any supposed reduction in HIV here in the US.

When you factor those in who are maimed (botched jobs, buried penises, etc), who have long term consequences sexually and have other long term consequences like meatal stenosis...it would be shocking. And, there are a large amount of men affected by it but don't know what they are experiencing is not normal...because seriously how many of us here who *know* men harmed by circumcision who thought the state of their penis was 'normal'?

It's a joke that they have been doing this surgery to millions upon millions of baby boys. And, they haven't a clue what harm it does. I think for them it would be opening up pandora's box. I've talked to enough people in the medical field to know that botch jobs aren't that uncommon, and complication rates are pretty high. If they acknowledged that, they would be out of business...

[jessjgh1]

Very unlikely to get these figures. Meatal stenosis and adhesions are not even listed as a possible complication of circumcision... nor are any later to be diagnosed sexual effects. So I highly doubt there would be any push to look at this.

Funny, when listing problems associated with intactness they include LIFETIME complications including those most often seen in geriatrics (penile cancer) but the listed complications of circumcision ONLY include immediate post-surgical complications.

Jessica

[kriket]

Originally Posted by phatchristy

And, there are a large amount of men affected by it but don't know what they are experiencing is not normal...because seriously how many of us here who *know* men harmed by circumcision who thought the state of their penis was 'normal'?

in that same thought how many men do you know with circ complications? (I know 2, but a lot of the men I know are intact) vs. how many men do you know with AIDS? I know 0. I think thats a simple concept to grasp.

[glongley]

Originally Posted by Crunchy Frog

The truth is that no one knows what the real numbers are for complications and deaths resulting from neonatal circs.

If CDC had any intellectual honesty whatsoever, the would institute a system similar to the VAERS database to collect and collate all adverse incidences associated with it, with mandatory reporting by healthcare professionals.

How can they possibly reccomend universal circ when they don't even have a clue what the short term and long term complication rate is from it?

This is a key argument that we should use to pressure the CDC. We pay taxes to support their policies. The need to be accountable. Please include this point in any letters that anyone writes.

Gillian

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by kriket

in that same thought how many men do you know with circ complications? (I know 2, but a lot of the men I know are intact) vs. how many men do you know with AIDS? I know 0. I think thats a simple concept to grasp.

I had a friend with both! He died from an AIDS related illness and lived with major complications from his circumcision. He was in the process of restoring (or at least trying to get some relief) when he was diagnosed with HIV. I would say circumcision as an AIDS vaccine didn't work for him, or the guy that gave it to him.

[serendipity22]

I read that there were more deaths from MRSA than HIV in the US.

Circumcision can lead to MRSA of course.

[SleeplessMommy]

The circ complications affect children who are not yet sexually active - and who may choose not to be sexually active as an adult, or may choose to use condoms 100% (for example to prevent pregnancy), or may choose male partners (no alleged HIV protection with male partners). We have no way of knowing which infant will be celibate, which will be monogamous, which will be gay, which will use condoms... so a vast number of infant males will experience complications when the circ is "wasted" anyway - at a cost of $500+ per infant male.

[eepster]

The conservative (so no one ever argues about it) figure for immediate surgical complication is 2%. I have looked and tried to find a death rate, but if it's on the internet, it's really well hidden. (At the time I went looking, I wanted to definitively say that "a child is more likely to die during the circ than ever get penile cancer." I highly suspect this is true, but can't find actual # to back it up. I don't want to go around saying it without the real info to back it up, considering how I like to pick apart the HIV study based on the actual data.)

I was able to find at a certain point that only around 11% of male HIV cases are caught through heterosexual intercourse.

[Minarai]

Originally Posted by serendipity22

I read that there were more deaths from MRSA than HIV in the US.

Circumcision can lead to MRSA of course.

And to think the CDC were the ones who first pointed out the MRSA crisis...

[jessjgh1]

From one of the cdc's pages on MRSA studies, MRSA was found but not at the circumcision sites or on the penis. I'm sorry I didn't pay closer attention to where this was, but it was a few days ago that I looked at the new CDC statement and followed some of the links back to their circumcision information.
Jessica

[hakunangovi]

[QUOTE=eepster;14308598]The conservative (so no one ever argues about it) figure for immediate surgical complication is 2%.

It seems to me that a paper at www.cirp.org, written by Kaplan (I think) quoted a complication rate of around 10%. This was in the U.K.

[eepster]

[QUOTE=hakunangovi;14309730]

Originally Posted by eepster

The conservative (so no one ever argues about it) figure for immediate surgical complication is 2%.

It seems to me that a paper at www.cirp.org, written by Kaplan (I think) quoted a complication rate of around 10%. This was in the U.K.

I most often see it written out as "2-10%" by sticking to the conservative estimate, instead of the more generous one, I can say things like "compare a 1% reduction of UTI to a 2% chance of immediate surgical complication, which doesn't include....." and know that my statement will stand up to a very high degree of scrutiny from doubters.

[beep]

Originally Posted by kriket

in that same thought how many men do you know with circ complications? (I know 2, but a lot of the men I know are intact) vs. how many men do you know with AIDS? I know 0. I think thats a simple concept to grasp.

I know half a dozen men with HIV, one with an intact penis who is planning a circumcision, and none who have ever complained about a problem with their circumcisions... but (a) I am certain that I don't know the HIV status and foreskin/circumcision histories of all the men I know because these are often seen as private issues, and (b) I am certain I don't know a representative sample of men, given issues like geography, culture, education, social class, etc. It's too bad that it's so hard to find good epidemiological data on these issues. I wish I had that, since I don't believe I can generalize too usefully from my own experience in this matter.

[Fyrestorm]

Originally Posted by beep

I know half a dozen men with HIV, one with an intact penis who is planning a circumcision, and none who have ever complained about a problem with their circumcisions... but (a) I am certain that I don't know the HIV status and foreskin/circumcision histories of all the men I know because these are often seen as private issues, and (b) I am certain I don't know a representative sample of men, given issues like geography, culture, education, social class, etc. It's too bad that it's so hard to find good epidemiological data on these issues. I wish I had that, since I don't believe I can generalize too usefully from my own experience in this matter.

This is a pretty simple equation though...The US has one of the highest circ rates in the world and also has one of the highest HIV transmission rates in the world.

A large majority of men in Europe are intact and they have a much lower transmission rate. This may have to do with the study that was done showing that due to loss of sensitivity, circumcised men are more likely to engage in riskier sexual behavior and use condoms less often.

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

Behavior. It is documented that circumcised adult males exhibit a greater tendency to engage in risky sexual behavior. Hooykaas and colleagues reported that circumcised men in the Netherlands engage in more risky sexual behavior and have markedly higher rates of STDs.3 Laumann and colleagues reported more risky sexual behavior amongst circumcised men in the United States and have higher rates of STDs.9 Michael et al. reported more variability in sexual behavior, less condom usage, and more STD amonst the predominantly circumcised population of the United States as compared with the predominantly non-circumcised intact males of the United Kingdom.12

[Night_Nurse]

Originally Posted by beep

I know half a dozen men with HIV, one with an intact penis who is planning a circumcision

Is your intact, HIV+ friend planning a circumcision due to the HIV studies? Because regardless of if he's circed or not, he really should be using a condom with every sexual encounter. That's the only thing that will prevent further transmission. I'm certain circumcised me can and do get HIV. As a matter of fact, every single HIV+ man I've ever catheterized in the hospital was circumcised (it's been a while since I've worked with adult men, but still...).

[beep]

Originally Posted by Night_Nurse

Is your intact, HIV+ friend planning a circumcision due to the HIV studies? Because regardless of if he's circed or not, he really should be using a condom with every sexual encounter. That's the only thing that will prevent further transmission. I'm certain circumcised me can and do get HIV. As a matter of fact, every single HIV+ man I've ever catheterized in the hospital was circumcised (it's been a while since I've worked with adult men, but still...).

The intact man I know who is planning a circumcision does not have HIV. He is doing it because he believes it will help make keeping clean easier and help him avoid repeated fungal infections, as well as because he believes his foreskin decreases his sexual pleasure. He is a risk-averse sort who has always used a condom unless trying for pregnancy, and HIV does not factor into his decision.

[Night_Nurse]

Okay, gotcha! I read it wrong. I was under the impression that he was intact but also HIV+ and was getting circed to reduce passing the virus to partners (and not understanding why he wouldn't just reduce the transmission risk by wearing a condom).