Non graphic article on coming cps/aap changes

[Mirrormonkey]

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/f...e-circumcision

What is most irritating is this is based on an African study, where condom use is negligible, not to mention how vastly different our societies are, these researchers seem to have only considered their numerical data! The new guidelines should simply state 'insist on condom use'.

So frustrated!

[jessjgh1]

Plus nothing about circumcision ever mentions the risk of meatal stenosis, adhesions (usually a minor complication), or talks about the changes resulting after circumcision.
It is incredible how these things are minimalised to the point that most people simply do not know and do not understand how the foreskin works.
I hope in most of Canada these 'flaws' will be easily exposed since most of Canada has a much higher intact rate.

Jessica

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by jessjgh1

Plus nothing about circumcision ever mentions the risk of meatal stenosis, adhesions (usually a minor complication), or talks about the changes resulting after circumcision.
It is incredible how these things are minimalised to the point that most people simply do not know and do not understand how the foreskin works.
I hope in most of Canada these 'flaws' will be easily exposed since most of Canada has a much higher intact rate.

Jessica

Exactly. You see here is the thing. When one speaks of circumcision's complications and problems, they always use language which minimizes the risk and damage. When the discuss a potential benefit, all of which are vanishingly small, they use language which up sells them and maximizes them.

For example, how many positive HIV tests (in all of Canada) were reported in men over 15 whose infection were thought to be from a heterosexual source in 2007?

Answer: 120.

This is in a male population, 15-64 of about 12 million.

ETA: Calling circumcision a vaccine is also stunningly irresponsible.

[Mirrormonkey]

Why are we not being told instead to talk to our kids about condom use? That is what is crazy to me, instead we are being told to perform a very invasive and painful surgery on our neborns.

[Bea]

It's interesting that the 60% reduction they tout is never contextualised alongside the actual statistical risk of a North American man contracting HIV through heterosexual sex.

I suppose 60% of almost zero isn't a very compelling argument for circ.

[mama24-7]

and what if there's a cure for HIV and/or AIDS by the time those being circ'd here b/c of these studies are sexually active?

sus

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by Bea

It's interesting that the 60% reduction they tout is never contextualised alongside the actual statistical risk of a North American man contracting HIV through heterosexual sex.

I suppose 60% of almost zero isn't a very compelling argument for circ.

Seeing potential benefits in context completely undermines their goal. Because as you point out 60% of an incredibly small risk is incredibly small. Also most hetero cases in the US or Canada are high risk individuals to boot.

Originally Posted by mama24-7

and what if there's a cure for HIV and/or AIDS by the time those being circ'd here b/c of these studies are sexually active?

sus

If we had cure or vaccine tomorrow they wouldn't change their advocacy. This situation already exists with regard to other claims there is no reason to believe that an HIV cure or vaccine would stop advocacy on those grounds.

[MommytoB]

Why do those people ever continue to pass around this HIV as a reduction in circ'ed males especially 60% when we obviously have a High HIV rate with already circ'ed men .

This has been going on and seems to be more pushing with that because not many people are taking the potential UTI benefit(myth) seriously anymore so they are pushing on the hiv stuff . Which for those people who believe in the circ helping preventing hiv should have their head examined .

I also believe that we hear illogical myth and falsfied stuff on circ benefits promoted as something real just to make it be sadly allowable to allow a doctor to alter a boy because if their wasn't a statement of potential benefits then i would feel for sure that many doctors wouldn't perform a circumcision because dad had his done but some proably would but with no benefits around it proably would be stated to not be done even for cultural reasons .

[KaylaBeanie]

Maybe if we took the asinine amounts of money used to study circumcision and channeled it into actual scientific research, we'd have found a cure for HIV by now

[pigpokey]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler

For example, how many positive HIV tests (in all of Canada) were reported in men over 15 whose infection were thought to be from a heterosexual source in 2007?

Answer: 120.

This is in a male population, 15-64 of about 12 million.

This is a very important point. It's quite difficult to catch HIV through one's healthy, intact penis. It's quite easy through one's anal tissues because they were not designed for sex, and tear. Thus, circumcision allegedly benefits a disease that in North American heterosexual men, is an STD risk approaching zero. In North American men who engage in behaviors where their anal tissues are exposed to body fluids, it's quite easy for them to catch HIV and circumcision offers them no protection.

It's really quite useless in North America for HIV infection control.

One important difference is that in first world men do not tend to keep open sores on their penis. They go into the doctor and get antibiotics, etc.

[ursaminor]

what is the current % of heterosexual males acquire HIV in the US?