or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Parents Magazine...OH NO!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Parents Magazine...OH NO!

post #1 of 83
Thread Starter 
Letter writing campaign to begin NOW!

http://www.parents.com/parents/story...1552317165.xml

Quote:
Circumcising Your Baby May Help Protect Him from AIDS in Adulthood
New studies out of Africa show that being circumcised cuts a man's risk of
contracting AIDS through heterosexual sex by 50 percent.By Karen Bilich

New research strongly suggests that circumcising your baby may protect him
against AIDS later in life. Two studies followed nearly 8,000 men (half
circumcised, half not). The studies found that circumcised men contracted
AIDS about 50 percent less frequently than those in the uncircumcised
group. (Although the research was conducted in Africa, where the risk of
AIDS is much higher, American experts believe the findings are relevant
for us, too. The major issue is that the foreskin seems to somehow harbor
viruses.) The results from the African studies were so staggering that the
clinical trials were halted by the National Institutes of Health Data
Safety and Monitoring Board, which concluded that not offering
circumcision to every man was unethical and an unnecessary risk to their
lives.

Why Circumcision Lowers the Risk of AIDS

Even though the studies (and circumcisions) were performed on grown men,
the study results are relevant to baby circumcisions since the biology is
the same -- presence of penis foreskin increases the risk of contracting
HIV, whether the circumcision was performed at birth or in adulthood.

Circumcision is the removal of a portion of the foreskin at the end of the
penis. This foreskin is thought to increase a man's risk of HIV
contraction for two reasons. First, the underside of the foreskin contains
immune system cells -- to which HIV cells can easily attach. Second, the
foreskin often suffers small tears during intercourse, allowing the HIV
cells to enter the bloodstream. Circumcising your baby can eliminate these
two risk factors.

"Lower incidence of HIV, lower incidence of urinary tract infections, and
lower incidence of penile cancer" are all proven medical benefits of
circumcision, says Dr. Ari Brown, pediatrician, author of Baby 411 and a
Parents.com advisor. "But thus far, those benefits have not been
significant enough for any major medical organization to advise routine
male circumcision. This new study may have an impact on what is advised in
the future, but remember there are other risk factors and other ways to
prevent HIV transmission. "

How Circumcision Protects Women, Too

Additionally, the studies go on to suggest that circumcised men who are
already infected with HIV were about 30 percent less likely to transmit it
to their female partners. Earlier studies in the United States and Europe,
and published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2002, also showed
that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised
ones to infect a female partner with the human papillomavirus, the virus
that can lead to cervical cancer.

Should You Circumcise Your Baby Boy?

Obviously, the decision about whether or not to circumcise a newborn son
is a personal one that all parents need to make on their own, taking into
account cultural and religious considerations as well as health concerns.
But this latest research may help ambivalent parents reach their
conclusion.
I am so sick of this study...especially this line:
"The results from the African studies were so staggering that the
clinical trials were halted by the National Institutes of Health Data
Safety and Monitoring Board, which concluded that not offering
circumcision to every man was unethical and an unnecessary risk to their
lives."
post #2 of 83
Let's FLOOD them with the MGM bill, the video and other links to let them know this is outrageous! This is like cutting off your ears to prevent possible ear infections!


support@parents.com


I just wrote them about this and the rotovirus vaccine article they have online, sheesh!
post #3 of 83
: Horrible horrible horrible article. They just got many many more baby boys cut.
post #4 of 83
That made my heart hurt.

It's bad enough that people cut their sons because they don't want to teach them how to clean themselves but now we're supposed to cut them because we don't want to teach them to wear a condom?

My son is 11, he knows how to wash his body and he knows that when he is old enough to have sex he must wear a condom. It wasn't that hard to teach him either of those concepts.
:
post #5 of 83
I'm emailing them now, give me some good links to include!!!
post #6 of 83
I think the biggest problem with this "study" is the false sense of security it's giving people. "Well, we circumcised our son, so he won't have to worry about getting AIDs". :crazy: Which is obviously RIDICULOUS.

And, in another vein, my family's got a history of breast cancer. But my mother never asked the doctor to lob off one of my breasts. We've also got a serious history of migraine headaches, but miraculously, no physician ever suggested we chop off any part of our heads.

How ridiculous. :
post #7 of 83
Was that article printed int he magazine, or just online?
I'll write a letter either way, I just want to feel the relief wash over me if it is just online and not in the magazine. Thanks!
post #8 of 83
I just wrote a very angry letter.

Unreal.
post #9 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamohumm6 View Post
I just wrote a very angry letter.

Unreal.

So did I! I am livid.
post #10 of 83
I hope a lot of us will write them. They need to know that there are many of us out there who do not agree with that stupid "study" or circumcsion. I am so F'ing sick of that damn study. It so illogical that if it weren't about circumcising it would be laughed at.
post #11 of 83
Circumcision for women may prevent HIV as well! How about it? And no 'it's completely different', please. Even pharoanic circumcision, the most drastic & uncommon type, does not remove 'the whole clitoris'- two minutes perusing the anatomy of the clitoris on Wiki or in a textbook will disabuse anyone of that notion.

Girls die from circumcision.
Boys die from circumcision.

Langerhans cells, of the 'foreskins harbor infection', are in all mucus membrane, including labia. Imagine that.

Some girls are cut with dirty objects in unsterile surroundings.
Ditto to boys.

It is to remove sexual sensation in both boys & girls. It is a religious ritual for both boys & girls. It is to 'promote cleanliness' in both boys & girls.

The only difference is, it's 'those Africans' who circ girls. Not nice American 'Parents Magazine' reading folks.

By the way, no one would publish that study in any peer-reviewed journal. They stopped because it was too unethical not to offer circumcision to all the men? They stopped because if it had continued, the findings (as the men's penises healed from surgery!) would've evened out.

Microtears (mentioned in the article) are far more attributable to the prevalence of 'dry sex' (Wiki that one too), where women use drying herbs, that wetness is considered unpleasant by the men in those cultures.



Link to World AIDS 2006 conference abstracts
http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2177677

Quote:
Results: By self-report, 17.7 percent of women were circumcised. Circumcision status varied significantly by region, household wealth, age, education, years resident, religion, years sexually active, union status, polygamy, number of recent and lifetime sex partners, recent injection or abnormal discharge, use of alcohol and ability to say no to sex. In the final logistic model, circumcision remained highly significant [OR=0.60; 95% CI 0.41,0.88] while adjusted for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer.

Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.

And finally:

Summary of evidence that the foreskin and
lysozyme may protect against HIV infection
By George Hill


This file contains a summary of the evidence that the foreskin and the sub-preputial wetness under the foreskin (prepuce) may protect against human immunodeficiency virus.
Lysozyme is an enzyme with anti-bacterial action that is found in body fluids. (An enzyme is a protein or conjugated protein produced by a living organism and functions as a biochemical catalyst.1) Lysozyme breaks down cell walls and kills bacteria.

Prakash and others reported in 1983 that sub-preputial wetness contains lysozyme2 and Lee-Huang finds lysozyme in human urine.3 Lee-Huang et al. report that lysozyme is also an effective agent for killing HIV in vitro.3

Laumann et al. report that about 77 percent of adult American males are circumcised. 4 Thus, these circumcised males have no sub-preputial wetness and no lysozyme protection. Laumann finds that circumcised men are slightly more likely to have both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime.4

World Health Organization data show that the incidence of HIV infection in the United States is four or more times greater than in any other advanced industrial nation.5 Other advanced nations either do not circumcise males or have a very low incidence of circumcision compared to the United States.6

Chao reports that a circumcised husband is a risk factor for HIV infection amongst pregnant women in Rwanda.7 Grosskurth et al. find a higher incidence of HIV infection in circumcised men in Tanzania.8

The high incidence of HIV in the United States and its correlation with the high rate of circumcision has been noted by Storms9 and Nicoll. 10 Furthermore, Tanne reports a general epidemic of STD, including chlamydia and HIV, in the United States.11

Moreover, Fleiss and others report that the increased friction and more vigorous and prolonged thrusting required to achieve orgasm with a circumcised penis may be more likely to cause "breaks, tears, microfissures, abrasions, and lacerations through which HIV in semen can enter the receiving partner's bloodstream."12

More research is needed to verify the protective effect of lysozyme and the foreskin in vivo.

References
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston: 1992.

Prakash S, Rao R, Venkatesan K, et al. Sub-preputial wetness--its nature. Ann Nat Med Sci 1982:18:109-112.

Lee-Huang S, Huang PL, Sun Y, et al. Lysozyme and RNases as anti-HIV components in beta-core preparations of human chorionic gonadotropin. Proc Natl Acad Sci (U S A) 1999 (Mar 16);96(6):2678-2681.

Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual pratice. JAMA 1997;277:1052-1057.

World Health Organization. The Current Situation of the HIV/AIDS Pandemic, Quarterly Report. World Health Organization, Geneva: July 3, 1995.

Wallerstein, E. Circumcision: the uniquely American medical enigma. Urologic Clinics of North America 1985;12(1)-132.

Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, et al. Risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23:371-380.

Grosskurth H., Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact of improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in rural Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9(8):927-934.

Storms MR. AAFP fact sheet: a need for updating. Am Fam Physician 1996;54:1216,1218.

Nicoll A. Routine male neonatal circumcision and risk of infection with HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted diseases. Archives of Disease in Childhood (London) 1997;77(3):194-195.

Tanne JH. U.S. has epidemic of sexually transmitted disease. BMJ 1998;317:1616.

Fleiss P, Hodges FM, Van Howe RS. Immunological functions of the human prepuce. Sex Trans Inf 1998;74(5):364-367.
19 March 1999

Your editors need to have more stringent standards. Please feature a factual rebuttal in a subsequent issue (or start telling people to have their newborn girls circumcised to prevent HIV as well. Oh wait, that's illegal here. Because it's cruel & no one has the right to alter someone else's genitals.)

It's a personal choice- of the person, not their parents. Whether they are girls or boys.

Sincerely, (TT)
post #12 of 83
Oh damn I forgot to say something about it being a personal choice (the boys).
Good letter TigerTail.
post #13 of 83
Thread Starter 
OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!

Did anybody else see the advertisement at the right side of that stupid article.

Here it is!
http://www.myskinclamp.com/?gclid=CP...FQx1VAodVFq2uQ

Stupid stupid stupid people.

: : : : : : : : : :
post #14 of 83
I THINK that addy goes to web support, not the editors... Anybody?
post #15 of 83
It's online cutsomer service, crap.
post #16 of 83
My heart aches at all the good this 'study' is undoing everytime it's misused to advocate forced circumcision of children.

Jen
post #17 of 83
I can't find an email address for comments , does anyone here get this mag and help us out with an email addy? I want to send my email to the right place.
post #18 of 83
Thread Starter 

Correct Address For Letters

Here is correct addy. I just called.

mailbag@parentsmagazine.com

Let them know what is on your mind! :
post #19 of 83
Maybe calling the sales reps will do more, kwim?
http://www.meredith.com/mediakit/par...ontact-us.html

Here is the link to the other email addy's
http://www.parents.com/parents/file....equestid=73093
post #20 of 83
Well I did find this so maybe it is the right addy.
If you have questions or comments about Parents magazine, contact us at

support @ parents.com
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Parents Magazine...OH NO!