Circumcision may offer Africa AIDS hope - Page 2

[Frankly Speaking]

I've read every single study on this subject that is available as far as I know. I'm not talking about newspaper or magazine articles or even the condensed version available in medical journals but the actual studies and the thing that is common in all of them is that there are glaring and fatal flaws in the way the reasearch is conducted. The first thing I noticed about this one is that they were able to find that many intact African men willing to be circumcised. For instance, the Xhosa are a circumcising tribe and the Zulus are not. I can imagine they would have a difficult time finding any Zulus willing to be circumcised as that would make them different from all other Zulus and would mark them as Xhosas. Just what did they tell these men or what did they pay them to get them to do this? I haven't seen any answers yet. That may be telling. It will be interesting to see if this study is actually published or not. There have been some that have never been published but are quoted widely

It reminds me of the 2005 Bluestein study that was conducted to show that circumcised men are no less sexually sensitive than intact men. First of all, that makes no common sense at all but the fatal flaw was that the glans was the part that was tested and not the foreskin. The sensitive foreskin was apparently moved back so that it didn't interfere with the test results. It is also a fact that a man becomes more sensitive as he becomes aroused and Bleustein did not do his testing on sexually aroused men. However, the glaring (to me) fatal flaw that I saw was that the circumcised men suffered from impotence 6 to 8 years earlier than the intact men which confirmed Laumann's 1999 study.

There was another of these that were widely publicized that had these glaring fatal flaws. That was the 2002 circumcision and cervical cancer study. There was a lot of publicity surrounding the release of the study before it was published, none of which mentioned that The New England Journal of Medicine basically slammed the study and all of it's methodological flaws. The one that I noticed first was that women were only accepted into the study if they had 6 or more sexual partners. Since the incubation time between initital infection to cervical cancer is 16 - 20 years, that made it impossible to pin the cancer on their current sexual partner.

It is apparent that they are so eager to prove something beneficial about circumcision that they either just get sloppy or actually don't bother to construct a proper study since they already know what their outcome is going to be.



Frank

[A&A]

Originally Posted by Neoma

I honestly have to wonder how biased and how exactly they tracked the sexual activity of these men. And of course, how many of them were exposed to HIV positive partners. Did any use condoms? Did the circumcised men even have sex that often due the recovery time (from what I understand, sex with a penis that's had surgery on it is likely very uncomfortable *duh*).

Yep, I wonder for how long the circ'd men were out of "commission." You could probably take out a part of their liver and get similar results--more surgery equals less sex.

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking

The first thing I noticed about this one is that they were able to find that many intact African men willing to be circumcised.

I thought I read somewhere that the circumcised men in the study were Muslim. I imagine that being Muslim would also impact their sexual behavior.

What a load of crap this all is. It just galls me the way that an as yet unpublished, flawed, unfinished study is being touted as gospel.

Here's an idea: How about we focus on education and making condoms widely available and easily accessible instead of trying to find more reasons to hack up little boys' penises? :

[calngavinsmom]

IMO, let my sons think that their intact status puts them at a higher risk for contracting AIDS.....Anything to make them think twice and take more precautions when choosing to engage in sexual activity.

I would rather have it be that way instead of having had them circed and be thinking, "well, I am circumcised, so I don't have to be as careful because of that".

Just another reason on the plus side for leaving my guys alone. Damn that list just keeps getting longer.....and longer.... :

Take acare,
Tara

[MamaTT]

I just want to scream, use a condom or keep your pants zipped! GAH!

Lopping off body parts is a bit extreme and interventionist.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

I thought I read somewhere that the circumcised men in the study were Muslim. I imagine that being Muslim would also impact their sexual behavior.

It would be extremely difficult to find 3,000 intact Muslims for a study such as this as circumcision is essentially universal among the Muslims. There is tremendous pressure exterted on Muslim boys to be circumcised if they have an option at all. Muslims are typically circumcised sometime between about 6 or 7 years old and their early teens. There have been several reports of Muslim men in their late teens or early 20's being chased down and forcibly circumcised. Muslims have also been known to forcibly circumcise Christians as well.



Frank

[jenP]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

What a load of crap this all is. It just galls me the way that an as yet unpublished, flawed, unfinished study is being touted as gospel.

:
A similar article about the study was just in our local Sunday paper today. I'm still sputtering and trying to think of a coherent letter to the editor.
Maybe someone should point out to the "researchers" that if they take off the ENTIRE dick the man will really be less likely to get and spread HIV.
Circumcision... still a "cure" looking for a disease.

Jen

[Daisyuk]

What I'm finding hard to believe is how this came to be splashed all over your news media at all.

There's been absolutely nothing in the media over here as far as I can tell, literally nothing.

One would have thought that if it was that important a revelation, then it would have made the news all over the world. So why is it, apparently, only America that's latched on?

Could it be that the country that circumcises anyway, but has the developed worlds biggest AIDS problem, feels a need to justify?

[bell bottom blues]

Of course it is.

I've come to realize that they've "got us by the shame".

Men who are circumcised don't want to be ashamed of their penises, and mothers who've circumicsed their children don't want to feel ashamed at the damage that they've done. The whole country likes stories like this, for those people who deep inside fight against the shame.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by Daisy

What I'm finding hard to believe is how this came to be splashed all over your news media at all.

I see this as an oddity too. In the legitimate research community, this kind of publicity seeking is very frowned upon. Of the hundreds and hundreds of research projects going on at any one time, few get any publicity at all and the ones that do are generally the ones that have huge public health implications. This study does not.

One would have thought that if it was that important a revelation, then it would have made the news all over the world. So why is it, apparently, only America that's latched on?

It's because of the unique position America is in. By and large, we don't circumcise for religious reasons. That pretty much ends the justification for doing it so some here stubbornly cling to the better health justifications even to the point of arguing with such prestigious professional medical organizations like the AAP and AMA who clearly say that there are no conclusive health benefits. Even though this study has not been published or critically reviewed, it leaves a glimmer of hope that there just might be a good reason for something that has already been done.

Originally Posted by BBB

Men who are circumcised don't want to be ashamed of their penises, and mothers who've circumicsed their children don't want to feel ashamed at the damage that they've done. The whole country likes stories like this, for those people who deep inside fight against the shame.

The rapidity that these publicity releases are accepted and hawked is simply a desire to maintain the status quo. People are comfortable with the status quo. It's change that threatens us and we are resistant to that change because it makes us uncomfortable.

Even here at good ol' MDC among non-circumcising mothers, we have seen it. Mothers who have chosen not to circumcise worry that their son will be one of those few who do have an infection or phimosis or the worry that their son will be teased or any number of other things our culture has hammered into their head. It takes a while for this worry to subside. For the mothers who have circumcised, every one of these boys who does not have these problems and is healthy and happy, they represent a threat. It is a threat that what they have done will prove wrong and they will be found out. The potential sexual implications of this surgery are enormous. Imagine when this gains the same profile as female genital mutilation! Imagine how these parents will feel when it is all over the news! Females were circumcised in this country early in the last century and that shameful practice has been carefully hidden. No one but no one wants to be connected with that in this country. Even the women it happened to want to hide it from public knowledge. Our culture at the time allowed it to be hidden and it was not a wide spread practice as male circumcision is. Female circumcision victims are not easily identifiable and I suspect that many that were circumcised as infants or children don't even know it. There was a dearth of information and the only place a woman would be able to see a whole and intact vulva would be in a medical book. Male circumcision is a totally different situation. A circumcised penis is immediately identifiable and is in public view in some situations. Certainly, anyone who wants can go to the internet and see the difference.

Because of the potential shame, those who circumcise want this whole topic to just go away. If it won't go away, their reaction is to jump on spurrious claims of a health benefit in the face of contradicting information. They must continue to support it or be proven wrong. Witness the mother of Ryleigh McWillis after his death. She actually said that if she should have another son, she would have him circumcised as well. Let's look at the implications there. Imagine that a toddler was momentarily alone at a back yard swimming pool and fell in and drowned. I can't imagine a parent having another child and putting that child into the same situation much less publically saying that a child drowning in a swimming pool is a rare event and that if they had another child, they would put that child in the same situation as killed the first. Yet, this is exactly what Ryleigh's mother said and this is what every parent who has seen the death reports of children dieing from circumcision is saying when they circumcise their child. Ryleigh's mother must continue to support circumcision to avoid the reality that her child died from needless genital surgery. Every parent who has circumcised their child must deny that death or accept that they put their child in unneeded danger. The difference between Ryleigh's Canadian mother and the typical US mother is that few children are circumcised in Canada and circumcision is not supported by the medical profession there as it is supported here in the US. Ryleigh's mother should have had a heads up while it can not be concluded that US mothers have this same heads up warning.

Changing those who want to maintain the status quo is our biggest obstacle in ending this practice. However, each time an intact boy is introduced into a family, we are taking a huge step in ending the status quo. Each one of these boys will be testimony that the foreskin is not a problematical structure and is not to be feared. He will be walking and talking testimony and his progeny will also be walking and talking testimony against a needless and dangerous procedure and we will eventually win this one by overwhelming evidence.



Frank

[pdx.mothernurture]

I'm going to rumor-monger for a moment, because I have no proof of this...but on another parenting board someone shared that this study was being discussed on the radio the other day and "Some radio talk show host named Schnit from Tampa urged all parents to circ their boys and even suggested intact men get themselves done."

http://www.schnittshow.com

I'm not sure if there's a way to listen to this online, but it looks like it was a topic of discussion on 7/6/05. http://www.schnittshow.com/schnitt2005ii.html

Contact info can be found here: http://www.schnittshow.com/contact.html

Jen

[ChelseaG]

Lilylove -
Check out http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/.
This is the link I used to refute the WSJ article to my DH who felt that this so called "study" justified the need for circ. It does a good job of refuting the Africa studies because of several flaws in the research - there are multiple other reasons that could result in differences of AIDS rates...
HTH

[Daisyuk]

And just think, if half the energy spent on getting parents to maim little boys could be spent on education and teaching the proper use of condoms, the USA could have as low an AIDS rate as the rest of the (uncircumcising) developed world.....this would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

The phrase "heads buried in the sand" springs to mind.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by jenP

Circumcision... still a "cure" looking for a disease.

Jen

:

[lilylove]

Originally Posted by ChelseaG

Lilylove -
Check out http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/.
This is the link I used to refute the WSJ article to my DH who felt that this so called "study" justified the need for circ. It does a good job of refuting the Africa studies because of several flaws in the research - there are multiple other reasons that could result in differences of AIDS rates...
HTH

thanks that was very helpful and I included a quote from them
I also included this
AAFP (American Academy of Family Physicians)
"Most of the studies on the relationship between acquiring HIV and being circumcised have been conducted in developing countries, particularly those in Africa. Because of the challenges with maintaining good hygiene and access to condoms, these results are probably not generalizable to the U.S. population. These studies did, however, find an association between contracting HIV and being uncircumcised. Based on two of the African prospective studies, an estimated 10 to 20 circumcisions are needed to prevent one infection of HIV. (4) A literature review estimated that the risk ratios of HIV sero-conversion for uncircumcised men compared to circumcised men ranged from 2.3 to 8.1. (18) Limitations to the studies from which these risk ratios are derived include poor sampling, a low rate of acquiring the disease, and not controlling for confounders such as the number of sexual partners or other sexual practices."

http://www.aafp.org/x1462.xml




Hey I'm in Oakland county

[Acksiom]

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

What I'm finding hard to believe is how this came to be splashed all over your news media at all.

There's been absolutely nothing in the media over here as far as I can tell, literally nothing.

One would have thought that if it was that important a revelation, then it would have made the news all over the world. So why is it, apparently, only America that's latched on?

Could it be that the country that circumcises anyway, but has the developed worlds biggest AIDS problem, feels a need to justify?

Maybe. Perhaps.

But I'm more inclined to put this together with the ongoing flap over here about stem cell research and the several articles prior to this about how the male neonatal prepuce is one of the few remaining "acceptable" sources of stem cells for such research.

A + B = $

I think that's what's really going on. I think they're trying to sell the continued "acceptability" of routine and ritual male genital mutilation in order to protect all the second-order profits to be made from the illegally consent-free harvesting of healthy, functional, nonpathological human tissue.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by Acksiom

I think that's what's really going on. I think they're trying to sell the continued "acceptability" of routine and ritual male genital mutilation in order to protect all the second-order profits to be made from the illegally consent-free harvesting of healthy, functional, nonpathological human tissue.

Interesting point. Not only for stem-cell research (hadn't heard that one before) but also for skin grafts, cosmetic testing, and anti-wrinkle creams!!!!!!!!

[Frankly Speaking]

I also heard that infant foreskin derivatives are now being used for penis enlargement procedures for adult men. How odd, take it off of one and put it on another. The money flows for both procedures to the medical profession. The price for the adult male procedure started at $7,000.00 and went up rapidly from there.

It was on a show on The Discovery Channel.



Frank

[channelofpeace]

Originally Posted by callumsmom2001

IMO, let my sons think that their intact status puts them at a higher risk for contracting AIDS.....Anything to make them think twice and take more precautions when choosing to engage in sexual activity.

I would rather have it be that way instead of having had them circed and be thinking, "well, I am circumcised, so I don't have to be as careful because of that".

Just another reason on the plus side for leaving my guys alone. Damn that list just keeps getting longer.....and longer.... :

Take acare,
Tara

I couldn't have said it better myself

[Arduinna]

bumping