WSJ article - Circumcision Reduces AIDS Risk by 70%

[Katheda]

8

[bell bottom blues]

be sure to take a moment to rate this garbage

[thismama]

Even if it's true, so what? I have known about this for years. Not a reason to circ IMO. In gay men's community, it's well known that topping is less risky than bottoming, but people still bottom. You just use a freakin condom. Also in heterosexual sex, women are at higher risk for contracting HIV than men. Again, use a condom.

[bell bottom blues]

Check out http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/.

None of the studies in Africa considered all of the relevant variables involved in HIV transmission. So...the studies are basically worthless.

The one indisputable fact is that the World Health Organization tracks all the number of AIDS cases per 100,000 persons in developed countries. The United States had the highest by far in 1999 - and we also had the highest circ rate.

[DahliaRW]

Using common sense and safe sex practices (i.e. condoms) reduces the aids rate by more than 70% I'd bet...

...oh, and castration would probably reduce it too - but you don't see anyone choosing that option!

I can't believe they would publish something that was so poorly researched!

[Aura_Kitten]

Originally Posted by bell bottom blues

Check out http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/.

None of the studies in Africa considered all of the relevant variables involved in HIV transmission. So...the studies are basically worthless.

The one indisputable fact is that the World Health Organization tracks all the number of AIDS cases per 100,000 persons in developed countries. The United States had the highest by far in 1999 - and we also had the highest circ rate.

:


and guess what? wearing a condom properly reduces the risk of HIV transmission by something like 99.9%.


"studies" like this make me

[Daisyuk]

Yes, there must be something very wrong with this 'study'

Looking up the news articles in other places that this has been reported shows that not only has it not been published anywhere yet, and thus not peer reviewed, but it was actually turned down for publication in The Lancet. I wonder what interest this research team have in promoting MGM?

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Claim_...ty_p_0705.html

[sarcasm] But hey, a 70% reduction in transmission! The USA has the highest rate of AIDS in the developed world, better get the men circumcised then....[/sarcasm]

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/vrc/clintri...statistics.htm

I hope the WSJ melts under the flaming it deserves for publishing this unsubstantiated pseudo-science.

The good news is that there appears to be a chance of a vaccine soon, developed by Italian scientists, so with any luck, if the mutilators can be held off long enough it will become a non issue.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...VACCINE-DC.XML

Circumcision is still a damaging, unnecessary, procedure looking for something to cure, it was only a matter of time before AIDS was targetted.

Edited to change the way a sentence reads

[Daisyuk]

From the USAID factsheet:

" MC will not be a "magic bullet." As will likely be true for future microbicides or AIDS vaccines, circumcision will not provide full protection against HIV. It will provide little or no protection against urethral STDs such as gonorrhea and chlamydia and obviously will not prevent unwanted pregnancies. Effective behavior change programs will still be needed to address these risks. There will also be an urgent need to address possible behavioral "disinhibition" among circumcised men who may continue or return to high-risk behaviors if they feel they are protected by MC, when in fact such protection is partial, not 100 percent. Counseling that addresses informed choice and consent; the HIV prevention "ABC" behaviors of abstinence/delay of sexual debut, being faithful/partner reduction, and condom use; and other male reproductive health needs (such as STD treatment, family planning, and gender-based violence) would therefore need to be part of any future MC services."

And guess what, so unbiased:
"Large clinical trials to confirm an association between MC and HIV risk are now underway."

In other words, circumcision won't make a blind bit of difference, we still have to educate about behaviour and men will still have to use condoms, but we're going to get them to do it anyway, and we'll make sure any studies prove it's beneficial...I think the US obsession with genital cutting is just sickening.

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global...factsheet.html

USAID - we'll cut off part of your penises for you, sample the American way!

Sorry about the double post, I wanted to get this into this thread - there's a lot of info also on this thread from yesterday:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=310121

[DesireeH]

Male circumcision (removal of the foreskin of the penis) is a common practice in many cultures. It may be a birth ritual or, as in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, a rite of passage performed around adolescence.

This is from that last link posted: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global...factsheet.html

If circ reduces HIV/AIDs then why is the HIV/AIDS rate the HIGHEST in sub-saharan Africa where circs ARE performed?

This "study" is garbage IMO. What this will do is help HIV to spread worse cause it will give circ'd men a false sense of security. Instead of chopping up baby boys, how about PROTECTION?

[A&A]

Circumcision prevents anxiety, bedwetting, paralysis, tuberculosis, and masturbation. Oh, wait. That's what people used to think. What's being "prevented" changes as our fears change.

[Quirky]

Write letters to the WSJ!! Ask them why they're publishing "news" about a "study" that has not been peer-reviewed and has been rejected by the Lancet. Write directly to the reporter if you can find his/her address. Maybe this will prompt them to investigate the story a little deeper.

[bell bottom blues]

It looks like you have to be a paid subscriber, or at least sign up for 2 weeks free as a subscriber, to read this article online.

Would someone who either is a subscriber, or the OP, copy/paste the article here, and please give us the links to who we can send a response to?

We should send letters to the editor and journalist en masse.

[sunflower1978]

Great article - thanks for posting!

The US does NOT have the highest rate of AIDS contraction, btw. Africa does.

[bell bottom blues]

We have the highest rate of contraction of developed countries.

[Katheda]

please delete, thank you

[Daisyuk]

North America has the 4th highest rate of AIDS infections in the world, and has the highest rate of any developed country.

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

You can also check that out on the World Health Organisation site (which shows the same thing):

http://www.unaids.org/wad2004/EPIupd....htm#TopOfPage