BABYTALK MAG reports HIV/Circ study - Page 2

[AntoninBeGonin]

Originally Posted by Galatea

Crap, I gave this issue away to a pregnant friend, but in the letters to the editor, someone wrote in to say, "Why didn't you report that circumcision prevents aids?" and they had a doctor reply, and he debunked the study in many ways, but basically what you said. Maybe someone has the issue sitting around and can type his response here?

Looks like me and Anton are going to Borders today and pick up a Mothering issue.

~Nay

[Frankly Speaking]

Jodi:

There are two things in your posts that bothered me.

The first, I probably should have addressed earlier. It was that 3 grandfathers had circumcision for cancer management. Normally, we would assume that these three different men had penile cancer but I suspect this is not the case. That's because the generally accepted risk of penile cancer in America is 1 in 110,000. For 3 men from different blood lines to come together in an extended family and suffer penile cancer is almost unfathomable. The risk would be 1 chance in 1,331,000,000,000,000. (That's quadrillion) That is essentially the same as the odds of winning the Power Ball Lottery in 3 consecutive weeks or basically, impossible. Second, penile cancers (Squamous cell carcinoma in situ) are appropriately treated and managed with simple excision just as a cancerous spot on the face or arms are treated and managed. If you got a skin cancer on your nose, you wouldn't cut your entire nose off.

Those astronomical odds lead me to believe there was something else and the only something else that comes to mind is that these men lived in the same geographical area and were attended to by the same physician. I also suspect that these men either tested positive for prostate cancer or had prostate cancer which is common in elderly men. One researcher has concluded that the reason all men don't get prostate cancer is because they simply don't live long enough. There was a belief among a very small group of researchers for a very short time that the foreskin was complicit in prostate cancer and there are still a few doctors still around that believe this. However, it is now well established that the foreskin has no influence in prostate cancer.

If there is anything wrong with my assumptions, I would appreciate your bringing it to the table just in case my education has missed something. I would like to investigate it.

The second thing is that after I posted about Gardisil for virtually 100% complete protection from penile cancer, you stated that you are stilll undecided. Since Gardisil gives far better protection from penile cancer than circumcision ever has, it leaves me wondering why you are undecided. It seems to me to be a slam-dunk no brainer. Why would you still even be considering surgical amputation of another childs genital parts when a simple vaccination would give better results and would preserve 100% of your child's sexuality?

Maybe with a little clarification, I can provide you with the information you need to make a truly informed decision.




Frank

[momnmidwife]

Frank,
I am new to this message board and to message boards in general...and I am astounded by your information and wisdom on this subject. Wow, I feel so fortunate to have access to educated individuals such as yourself.

I think I'm going to print this stuff out and put it into my circ resource folder...I'm so impressed.

I have always been against circ on a personal level, then I came upon the classic "where is my foreskin" back issue...that made me concerned and I really bean seeking out the truth. This thread has been such a great source of truth regarding this.

After watching the video from the Netherlands, I graduated from against it to devastated...it is so barbaric and you can't ever rationalize it. There is no grey. They should make circ like vasectomies, voluntary.

The urgency and passion I feel about this hurts… I am in nursing school and I am not looking forward to hearing the cries as I walk by the circ room knowing what I know...It feels so good to vent! Thank you

[Frankly Speaking]

Thanks for the kudos Christina. This is an issue I have been interested in since I was very young and I am an information junkie. I read the newspaper every day, cover to cover and my favorite TV channels are Discovery, History and TLC. You get the idea? Like you, when I first discovered the issue on the internet, I instantly became passionate and it hasn't ended. I spent months of 12 -18 hour days researching it just for my own information and then I discovered MDC and saw that the information could be of great benefit to others who didn't have the time resources to give to researching. It has been very rewarding for me although it hasn't put a penny in my pocket. As a matter of fact, it has distracted me from more financially rewarding endeavors but in terms of satisfaction, the missed financial rewards wouldn't have been nearly as satisfying.

You are in an enviable position in that you will be well placed to make personal connections to protect baby boys from this most personal and private invasion of their bodies at the most vulnerable time of their life. I know you will do well.



Frank

[pdx.mothernurture]

momnmidwife,

Please also know that you should not feel obligated to participate in circumcision in any way during your schooling or practice. Check out this link, for more information: http://nurses.cirp.org/

Jen

[Ruthla]

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking

The second thing is that after I posted about Gardisil for virtually 100% complete protection from penile cancer, you stated that you are stilll undecided. Since Gardisil gives far better protection from penile cancer than circumcision ever has, it leaves me wondering why you are undecided. It seems to me to be a slam-dunk no brainer. Why would you still even be considering surgical amputation of another childs genital parts when a simple vaccination would give better results and would preserve 100% of your child's sexuality?

I beleive this vaccine has been discussed on the vaccine board and it may not be as good as it sounds. Vaccination can carry its own risks as well.

[eightyferrettoes]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

I beleive this vaccine has been discussed on the vaccine board and it may not be as good as it sounds. Vaccination can carry its own risks as well.

Man, no kidding; and considering that penile cancer is, AFAIK, vanishingly rare in the first place, I don't see why people would circ OR vaccinate against what amounts to a boogeyman in the closet.

BOO!

[Galatea]

Yeah, it's a tough thing, being anti-vax and anti-circ when this cervical cancer issue comes up. Of course, you could practice safe sex, right?

Also, didn't the circ/cervical cancer connection turn out to be that the women were part of a small population with resistance to cervical cancer and whose men were circ'ed?

[momnmidwife]

Sunflower Mommy,
THANK YOU SO much for that source! It feels so good to not be alone. It can be so exhausting when you are around ignorant "mainstreamers."
I will send it to my other friends who are nurses as well.

I am not "obligated" to attend circs, but I will be on the L&D floor a lot since I will be going onto Midwifery, this moster will be laughing in my face for a while.
However I do have a voice, and I want to do what ever I can to educate parents on this....


Speaking of trash mags (off the topic), got "American Baby" in today and on the cover it said "Comfort me, why I love my binky, my blankie and my bear" What is wrong with these people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

I beleive this vaccine has been discussed on the vaccine board and it may not be as good as it sounds. Vaccination can carry its own risks as well.

I don't know what's being said on the VAX board but everything I have read about it says it is 100% effective with no known side effects. But, that is beside the point. Read on!

Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes

Man, no kidding; and considering that penile cancer is, AFAIK, vanishingly rare in the first place, I don't see why people would circ OR vaccinate against what amounts to a boogeyman in the closet.

But cervical cancer is not rare and it's deadly and also caused by HPV. There is a test to confirm an infection of HPV that is quick, accurate and cheap. I can see that it may replace the pap smear test because it would show infection before there are any symptoms. If a woman tested positive for HPV, it would be reckless to not have the vaccination. It would also seem to be advisable for her partner to recieve the vaccination as well to protect him from penile cancer.

Originally Posted by Galatea

Yeah, it's a tough thing, being anti-vax and anti-circ when this cervical cancer issue comes up. Of course, you could practice safe sex, right?

This is a different issue from infant VAX. It is not for children unless they have been tested and found positive for HPV infection or if the mother tests positive. 97% to 98% of people exposed to and infected by HPV will develop a natural immunity within 2 - 3 years and the HPV infection poses no threat to them. If you consider that there is a very high risk of cervical cancer in those infected who have not developed an immunity, it seems prudent to take the VAX unless devastating complications are found later.

HPV is a highly contagious virus. It can be communicated by simply touching a person who is infected, ie. shaking hands with them. It can also be communicated by touching something they have touched. Condoms offer virtually no protection. The medical profession automatically assumes that you have been infected if you have had 3 or more lovers. Tests of 13 - 15 year old girls showed that 54.6% had already been infected by HPV. The conclusion of the study was that they were infected as they passed through the birth canal. Safe sex is virtually worthless unless you are completely sheathed in rubber head to toe.



Frank

[calngavinsmom]

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking

Posting to add another thought about this study:

This study could be very dangerous. It has also been widely promoted on the African continent as an AIDS prevention. This would give the men a false sense of security and could exacerbate the already horrendous infection rate that is at 38% in some areas.

Ya know Frank, this is exactly what scares me about studies like this. Even here in North America, the false sense of security that comes from information being distributed to laymen who will read no further into it is scary! All some people will see is "CIRCUMCISION PREVENTS AIDS" and they will look no further than that, which could very well lead to more risky behaviour.

Especially so in the teenage population, who think of themselves as invincible anyway. The effects of this kind of partial truth reporting could truely be devestating


Tara

[bubbles]

It is just infuriating when studies like this are released. Not only do many people take this study as THE word but many, many other flawed studies make so many decisions for so many people. It seems you have to be a sleuth to find accurate information about anything. From what people eat, to what people do to their children's bodies are dictated by a bunch of irresponsible garbage published in mainstream literature.

[cottonwood]

What issue of Babytalk was this? I wonder if it's been reported elsewhere in mainstream mags?

[Frankly Speaking]

It appears that the authors have a public relations firm that sends the press releases everywhere. It's been in magazines, newspapers on television and the internet. Even if it were accurate and unbiased and published in a legitimate medical journal, it should not have gotten the publicity that it has. Have you heard anything about the study that was presented at the same conference that showed that circumcised women contract AIDS at a higher rate? Have you heard anything about the African study that showed that circumcised men are at greater risk that was presented at the same conference? You have to ask yourself why this one got so much publicity and the other two got none.


Frank

[roamingfamily]

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking

I did extensive research on this study when it came out. There were warnings that it was coming. In Feb. last year, the first mention was made of it. It announced that the study had been stopped because the circumcised study participants were contracting AIDS at a higher rate than the intact control participants. (That is correct. There was no typo there!) However, they asserted that circumcision could have a positive effect on AIDS transmittal and could be an effective intervention.

Much to my surprise, the next press release was in late July and came to the opposite conclusion, ie. that the circumcised men contracted AIDS at a lower rate. It was not until October that the study was published. (more on that later) The devil was in the details. For the first 4 months, the intact participants did contract AIDS at a much higher rate. It appears that this was while the men who were circumcised for the study were in recovery from their surgery and thus out of action. But, in the period from 4 months to 12 months, the circumcised men were contracting AIDS at a rate 250% higher than the intact men. Only by ending the study at 12 months could they maintain that circumcision was a preventative in contracting AIDS. If they had continued the study for the full time period of the study, the circumcised men who had contracted AIDS would have exceeded the number of intact men who had contracted AIDS.

I
Frank

My son was born at the end of September, so I, of course, ran in to this hoopla while researching circumcision. My question is: How did they control the exposure to HIV? If the study is about the foreskin and transmission of HIV, then the method of transmission that would be of interest to the researchers would be intercourse. So, what, they took a group of guys, cut half of them and then lined them up with HIV positive hookers with precisely the same viral load, put them in the same position and timed the intercourse? Clearly, that's not ethical. So, I just don't get this study. Bunk, I say.

[Frankly Speaking]

Roamingfamily, you bring up some other issues. The men were not controlled at all. I guess they figured with their class size, it would all equal out and wouldn't be a significant factor in the end.

But, as I understand it, they tested all of the men for AIDS at the begining of the study, again at 4 months and again at 12 months. In no cases did they advise the men of their status and for the ones already infected, returned them to their communities to infect the women of the community. When they were tabulating the results, they just tossed the results of those men's tests. However, for the men in the circumcised group, they went ahead and circumcised them anyway. It makes me suspect that they were eager to circumcise men.

This raises some suspicions for me. I remember back in the early or mid 1990's, the tests couldn't detect AIDS until about 6 months after they were infected. Is this still the case? If so, how did they control for this factor? I didn't see anything about it. And if that were the case, with the infection rate in the circumcised group at 250% of the intact group in the second phase of the study, what would it have been if they had tests that would detect infection within just a few days or weeks? Would it have been even higher as it would seem?

BTW, their decision not to inform the men that were already infected raised quite a storm in the research community about the ethics of that decision. Most of the research community felt that it was an unethical action.



Frank

[jmhammond]

You are correct that 2 of 3 had penile cancer; one had skin melanoma, with marks/adhesions on his penis.

The odds of this occuring in 3 people in my immediate family are part of what lead me to circ and not vaccinate; but again, thank you for the info, it will help us in the future face this decision. I know it must be hard to understand, but I really do feel it was the best decision for our son.

[zeldamomma]

Hi,

I've been lurking here (we're expecting our first son shortly, and I'm shoring up my confidence to say no to circumcising him when the time comes).

Anyhow, I did some research on the African study, and there is a terrifying side effect to it: apparently the results are being misunderstood to mean that being circumcised is like a "natural condom" which will protect the man (and I imagine his partner) from getting HIV. So for men who believe the "natural condom" myth, circumcising could be very dangerous.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by jmhammond

You are correct that 2 of 3 had penile cancer; one had skin melanoma, with marks/adhesions on his penis.

Melanoma is in no way related to circumcision status. What kinds of cancer did the other two have?



Frank

[baybee]

Here's a letter that Richard Russel sent to an African newspaper on this subject:

Here is the letter I sent to _Swazi Observer_ about the article on
circumcision to prevent HIV/AIDS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To: [e-mail]

Subject: Circumcision Prevents AIDS?

Editors:

Regarding: What is the fuss on circumcision about? January 31.

Please look into claims that circumcision prevents HIV. Use a critical lens
for the sake of truth, and in the interest of avoiding this catastrophe:
Circumcised men come to believe they are immune and become careless with
measures that really help avoid infecton. Circumcision is not a vaccine, and
may provide no protection at all.

Researchers will not tell you that the United States has the highest rate of
circumcision of industrialized countries, and also the highest rate of AIDS
of industrialized countries. In many countries, including Finland, Germany,
Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, and Taiwan, almost no one is circumcised. Those
countries have extremely low rates of AIDS, much, much lower than the US.

Why might some professionals in the US push circumcision needlessly in other
parts of the world? It is difficult to dig out the truth about such matters,
but consider some possibilities. The effort could lead to wholesale infant
circumcision in other countries, and US manufacturers of the medical tools
needed for that could make big sales in those countries. The circumcision
rate in the US is falling now, and the US will soon join the rest of the
world where 80% of males are not circumcised. (The largest number of Earth's
circumcisions are done on Muslim males; Muslims are 16% of the world
population, thus most of the 20% who are circumcised.) The falling
circumcision rates at home cut into the sales of circumcision tools, and
evidence of "new" places adopting circumcision might boost the rate of
cutting done in the US, as well as creating new markets around the world.

US physicians can add $60,000.-$80,000. USD a year to income doing
circumcisions three hours a week. Naturally, they oppose loss of such easy
money. Sometimes in the rush a baby boy bleeds to death or contracts a lethal
infection through the wound. These things happen in modern hospitals with
experienced circumcisers; such mistakes are not limited to unprofessional
work. It's a very dangerous operation as the male organ is saturated with
blood vessels; it is especially dangerous for small infants who have very
little blood, with none to spare.

Asked to explain the US experience with circumcision and AIDS, articulate
"experts" mumble and speak vaguely about homosexuality and drug use, and how
people are "different" in Africa. Demand that they speak clearly about these
things. Demand that they explain how people in Africa are different. Don't
let them get away with this scam.

Circumcision removes thousands of nerve endings. Adult Jews from Russia,
circumcised in Israel, report that they have sex less often and enjoy it less
when they do. It is not a minor consideration for the marriage bed to lose
the capacity for the pleasure of love, but perhaps minor next to the risk of
AIDS when men believe they are immune to it.

Richard Russell
Moreno Valley, California USA