Health officials back circumcision in AIDS fight - Page 3

[dynamohumm6]

Originally Posted by Dave2GA

Isn't this just a little bit suspcious that they ended these two studies early, just like the Auvert study?

Totally...I wondered the exact same thing. Something fishy.

[dynamohumm6]

Originally Posted by MoonJelly

Did you ask him if he is planning on having risky sex?

:
On another message board (nonparenting) a guy pointed this out to me in the same gleeful manner..I responded by asking him if he'd be willing to stick his penis in an HIV infested woman to prove his point.


He hasn't responded yet.

[nandodianenicole]

I can't stand it!!! Here's the NY Times article (below). What's wrong with these people? Why not spend the money on Safer Sex education? And I love that it doesnt have to be done by a doctor, anyone can be trained...great, so the risk of infection will go up in a continent that probably has little funds for plain 'ol antibiotics. :


Rare Good News About AIDS

402 words
12/14/2006
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
40
English
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.
The announcement yesterday about the results in two African studies of male circumcision may be the most important development in AIDS research since the debut of antiretroviral drugs more than a decade ago. The National Institutes of Health halted studies in Uganda and Kenya when it became overwhelmingly clear that circumcision significantly reduces men's chances of catching H.I.V.

The studies recruited men willing to be circumcised and randomly assigned them to immediate surgery or to a control group. In both studies, the circumcised men acquired half the number of H.I.V. infections as their uncircumcised counterparts did. The studies confirm the results of a trial that ended last year in South Africa, in which circumcision prevented 60 to 70 percent of new AIDS infections.

Until now, efforts at AIDS prevention have largely failed. Little wonder. It requires people to resolve -- every day -- either not to have sex or to use condoms. Circumcision, by contrast, is a one-time procedure. It is familiar and widely accepted all over the world, even by groups who do not practice it. And safe circumcision does not require a doctor. Community workers and traditional healers can be trained to do the operation safely and given the correct tools.

Based on the South African results, groups like the United Nations AIDS program and the World Health Organization were already discussing how they might promote circumcision in countries around the world. They should now move as quickly as possible.

Governments and international donors should also work urgently to provide new financing to help high-risk countries train community workers to do safe circumcision. News of the South African results has already led to a surge in demand for the procedure across Africa, and clinics that now offer it have long waiting lists.

Any campaign will have to be coupled with warnings that circumcision offers only partial protection against H.I.V. and should not become a license for risky sex. Governments must continue to promote condoms and partner reduction.

For years, the holy grail of AIDS prevention has been a vaccine, even one that is only 50 to 60 percent effective. A real vaccine is years away. But as of yesterday, we know its near equivalent exists. International donors and governments should join together to spread the good news about circumcision and make the procedure available everywhere.

[Saara687]

Good news! We just have to make a "little snip" over here & oh! One over there.... Hm.... I know they said that we shouldn't snip her, but while we're at it! Good news!! Woo hoo!! No more AIDS! We're cured!

:

[Lula's Mom]

From the CBC story:

circumcision offers no protection from HIV acquired through anal sex

Why not? If the conclusion the studies drew are correct, why would it matter what orifice the penises were in when they came into contact with HIV? I guess because there is more risk of bleeding with anal sex? But it's just not that easy for the penetrating partner to contract HIV regardless.

That WHO article does make note of the concerns about promoting this, such as reducing safe sex practices... and human rights topped the list of concerns. See, like us, they already know where this is heading. Babies around the world.

WHO, the UNAIDS Secretariat and their partners will review the detailed trial findings and will then define specific policy recommendations for expanding and/or promoting male circumcision. These policy recommendations will need to take into account:

cultural and human rights considerations associated with promoting circumcision;
the risk of complications from the procedure performed in various settings;
the potential to undermine existing protective behaviours and prevention strategies that reduce the risk of HIV infection; and
the observation that the ideal and well-resourced conditions of a randomized trial are often not replicated in other service delivery settings.

And I know I am a third grader, but I just cannot NOT mention the WHO doctor's name:

"It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De Cock of the World Health Organization.

[A&A]

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/cochrane2003/

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by A&A

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/cochrane2003/

A, the 2003 metaanalysis didn't even have any RTC's to use. THESE are the first ever. This trumps all the evidence from the past.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by mamakay

This trumps all the evidence from the past.

It "trumps" nothing. It's a piece of crap, just like the other "studies."

[mamakay]

Well, it is that, but it's solid evidence that circumcision does have some kind of effect there.
The 50% figure is bunk, and I'm sure year by year the rate goes down, but if the Cochrane Collaboration were to do a metaanalysis now, they'd find the 50% figure to be true, since these are the only RTCs that have ever been done, and RTCs are the "best".

The point to argue is that if they hadn't halted the study, they would have found a lower figure, and if they continue observing, it will go down and down over time.
AND that declaring this absurd 50% figure is just going to give people a great excuse to not use condoms, which will definitely increase that rate of transmission.

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Well, it is that, but it's solid evidence that circumcision does have some kind of effect there.

Like they stop having sex during the recovery period?

[mamakay]

They followed them for almost two years. The recovery period was 2 months.
Even if there was pain for a several months, it still wouldn't explain the 50% figure.

But since HIV infection is a one time deal, following them for 2 years isn't really going to tell you how effective circumcision is.
If, say, only 10% in the circed group were infected at that point, who's to say it wouldn't have been 50% within 5 years?
There are lots of factors that could be going on here, and since the actual study isn't out yet, we can't say WHAT they are. But the recovery period alone doesn't explain it.

[anony]

I believe I've also read in some posts that most of these circumcised men in the case study did not have sex with multiple partners because it was part of their religious practice. People will like to point to the AIDS-free areas and religions where circumcision is prevalent but miss out on their sexual practices at the same time. It's goshdarn irritating to have these justifying clowns point to the safety of circumcision while ignoring the circ-happy U.S.A. being the 4th highest AIDS rate in the world. WHY DOESN'T ANYONE EVER BRING THIS POINT UP!!? CIRC HAS NOT PREVENTED ANYTHING OVER HERE!!

Thats cause the majority of American adults do have multiple sex partners in a lifetime, not because they have disease-carrying foreskins. When promiscuous folks learn to practice safe sex, the problems will go away but people are all about magic solutions and not about simple educating. Prediction-AIDS will not improve under this policy and any improvements will come from better sex ed. This logic is making no sense and you could even apply it to female circ. That's not proper at all but does anyone else fear African cultures might take it out of hand and get convinced performing circ on every newborn girl will be ok.

"Oh but it's ok, they don't feel a thing and it's done in a pain-free, sanitary way." See, you can even make female circ sound minor with simple words like that. But it's not... no circ is no matter how extreme or how "minor" the operation. The fact Americans see that routine as some kind of female rape and body violating (which it is) but find male circ to be a necessary snip is the most twisted logic I've ever encountered. In the fight to rid the world of AIDS, they turn a blind eye to the obvious and skeptic facts that put it in broad daylights; it's not about the foreskin, it's about the sexual practices!!!

[phatchristy]

OMG, I can't believe that last NYT article that was quoted : . How biased, how incorrect can you get? After reading that I completely agree with what Dave2GA was stating that circumcised men like this story because it makes them feel good about something having to do with their circumcision. I think, the prospect that there could be*any benifit* no wonder how warped or illogical it is offers the ego some sort of boost. It's far easier to think there must be a reason (right?) rather than deal with the pain that you will never have the chance to know what experiencing being a whole man is like.

And, with that article, you can read what he writes and make the inferences....that the choices were to either "abstain from sex or wear condoms"....well what is the choice now? Yep he infers that the new choice is "get circumcised". So, no more worry about limiting sexual partners or using condoms huh? :

This screams BAD HEALTH POLICY. No doubt in my mind. Already you can read articles shaped by pro-circumcision touting it as the 'don't worry about the condoms' just get cut! :

Interesting to not in conversation about this with a family member they pointed out the idea that 'circumcision could also be seen then as some desperate measure in third world countries to use as the people are so poor and uneducated that they don't use condoms.'

Sarcastically, as he put it..."if you're stupid and you know it get half your penis skin chopped off and you can have a lot of lower sensation sex, and it may delay you from getting HIV for just a little bit longer." What kind of message is this : ?

:

Incidentally, I am waiting for the WHIPLASH of intelligently constructed articles written by people who can see the bigger picture.

(anyhow, just venting)

I think the sad thing here is that the mostly uneducated population here won't think nor reason any of this out and will use it as another reason to justify having their babies cut. They already don't bother to reason it out already, otherwise they wouldn't do it!

[Tinijocaro]

Originally Posted by Pandora114

And ANOTHER reason to go to Linux!

>.> Unfortunately my games dont run on Linux...

Damnit..

Well, then I guess Mac would be a nice compromise!

[mammom]

Follow the money??

I am new to the world of "intactivism" so please forgive me if this is a stupid question, but in the anti-vax world, it is easy for me to see a "follow the money" mentality, as the pharmaceutical companies make billions off vaccines and the problems they cause. But is circumcision really *that* big a money maker? I've seen a few posts with dollar signs suggesting big money, but is a study like this really going to make anyone big bucks?? I'm sure the condom manufacturers aren't too happy with it! Although, if they are owned by companies who have financial ties to anti-AIDS medications, then I guess it doesn't really matter...

I certainly agree with all the other pp's - teach your sons (and daughters!) safe sex!! A chance of reduction in STD infection certainly isn't worth degrading their bodies.

[dynamohumm6]

Originally Posted by mammom

I am new to the world of "intactivism" so please forgive me if this is a stupid question, but in the anti-vax world, it is easy for me to see a "follow the money" mentality, as the pharmaceutical companies make billions off vaccines and the problems they cause. But is circumcision really *that* big a money maker? I've seen a few posts with dollar signs suggesting big money, but is a study like this really going to make anyone big bucks?? I'm sure the condom manufacturers aren't too happy with it! Although, if they are owned by companies who have financial ties to anti-AIDS medications, then I guess it doesn't really matter...

Yep, it sure will, when American parents are scared into circing by this "study" and the rates go back up in the US. Organogenesis and other biogenetics companies will then have a steady supply of "human preputial tissue" for their $1.4 billion/yr business.

[mamaoriana]

I haven't read through the whole thread, so I apologize if my comments are redundant here. I think one of the most frightening implications of this whole thing is the colonialism involved. It's as though the west has this attitude that Africans are "savage" and "unteachable" so we will just mutilate their genitals to "fix" them since they're incapable of thinking for themselves. Conning them into mutilating their penises will not solve the AIDS crisis, and may just make it worse when people are told by doctors that circumcision will prevent them from getting AIDS -- might they then think that safe sex practices are less important when doctors begin touting the miracles of genital mutilation?

It makes me cry.

My dd, 4 yrs, heard my dh & I talking about it, and asked what circ. is. I told her that it is snipping off the tip of a baby's penis. We have a 9 month old boy of whom she is very protective, and she became almost as mad as we are!

I'm ashamed of the US in this matter.

[4chunut1]

Originally Posted by mamakay

They followed them for almost two years. The recovery period was 2 months.
Even if there was pain for a several months, it still wouldn't explain the 50% figure.

But since HIV infection is a one time deal, following them for 2 years isn't really going to tell you how effective circumcision is.
If, say, only 10% in the circed group were infected at that point, who's to say it wouldn't have been 50% within 5 years?
There are lots of factors that could be going on here, and since the actual study isn't out yet, we can't say WHAT they are. But the recovery period alone doesn't explain it.

Yes, it will be interesting to analyze the study once it comes out. But from what we've been told so far, the study reeks of bad science and bad medical research. Studies like this can be designed to give a desired outcome, and this may be one of them. I can design an experiment that will show that people who jump out of airplanes wearing a LIFE JACKET (e.g. circumcised) will have a higher survival rate than those who jump out wearing none (e.g., intact). But statistically an extremely high percentage of BOTH groups will die. Now, let's give another cohort PARACHUTES (e.g. safe sex) and see what the survival rate is. What would be more ethical...to give people jumping out of airplanes life jackets or parachutes..??

If African adult males want to get circumcised, for whatever reason, I have no objection (although I don't want any of my tax money involved), but RIC of African babies will not stop AIDS. Why hasn't a study involving intact vs circumcised males in the U.S. or Canada been conducted..?? Or, maybe it has, but the results did not give the "desired outcome"..:

[shimmerMom]

disgusting :

[13Sandals]

Originally Posted by nandodianenicole

I can't stand it!!! Here's the NY Times article (below). What's wrong with these people? Why not spend the money on Safer Sex education? And I love that it doesnt have to be done by a doctor, anyone can be trained...great, so the risk of infection will go up in a continent that probably has little funds for plain 'ol antibiotics. :


Rare Good News About AIDS

402 words
12/14/2006
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
40
English
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.
The announcement yesterday about the results in two African studies of male circumcision may be the most important development in AIDS research since the debut of antiretroviral drugs more than a decade ago. The National Institutes of Health halted studies in Uganda and Kenya when it became overwhelmingly clear that circumcision significantly reduces men's chances of catching H.I.V.

The studies recruited men willing to be circumcised and randomly assigned them to immediate surgery or to a control group. In both studies, the circumcised men acquired half the number of H.I.V. infections as their uncircumcised counterparts did. The studies confirm the results of a trial that ended last year in South Africa, in which circumcision prevented 60 to 70 percent of new AIDS infections.

Until now, efforts at AIDS prevention have largely failed. Little wonder. It requires people to resolve -- every day -- either not to have sex or to use condoms. Circumcision, by contrast, is a one-time procedure. It is familiar and widely accepted all over the world, even by groups who do not practice it. And safe circumcision does not require a doctor. Community workers and traditional healers can be trained to do the operation safely and given the correct tools.

Based on the South African results, groups like the United Nations AIDS program and the World Health Organization were already discussing how they might promote circumcision in countries around the world. They should now move as quickly as possible.

Governments and international donors should also work urgently to provide new financing to help high-risk countries train community workers to do safe circumcision. News of the South African results has already led to a surge in demand for the procedure across Africa, and clinics that now offer it have long waiting lists.

Any campaign will have to be coupled with warnings that circumcision offers only partial protection against H.I.V. and should not become a license for risky sex. Governments must continue to promote condoms and partner reduction.

For years, the holy grail of AIDS prevention has been a vaccine, even one that is only 50 to 60 percent effective. A real vaccine is years away. But as of yesterday, we know its near equivalent exists. International donors and governments should join together to spread the good news about circumcision and make the procedure available everywhere.

Until now, efforts at AIDS prevention have largely failed. Little wonder. It requires people to resolve -- every day -- either not to have sex or to use condoms. Circumcision, by contrast, is a one-time procedure.

This in the NYT? Oh my god - what are they implying? You need never use condoms again?: