or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › New UN Recommendations....not good...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New UN Recommendations....not good...

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/...s_circumcision
post #2 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amydoula View Post
Well, if anything shows that the UN is up it's own a$$ and under American control, that does.

Shameful.
post #3 of 48
That's f'd up.
post #4 of 48
WTF is wrong with people are most people just f'ing idiots?!
post #5 of 48
OI! Still on with that stupid African study that proves NOTHING!
post #6 of 48
Umm . . . so did the recent research regarding Langerhans cells just get swept into a dimensional vortex?

Julia
dd 1 year old
post #7 of 48
Wait, you actually expected the UN to actually be "up to date" with recent events?
post #8 of 48
Not that it makes a difference, but it does say over and over that only heterosexual males should be circumcised, so since you can't tell if an infant is going to gay, you shouldn't circ infants right? But, I doubt they are really saying that. And it's stupid anyway.

I did have to laugh at the name of the director of WHO's HIV/AIDS department though, Dr. Kevin De Cock.
post #9 of 48
Ug.

Jen
post #10 of 48
I posted this in another forum:

Quote:
The (flawed) studies in Africa presumed that the reason circumcision seemed to reduce HIV risk was...

A.) Langerhans Cells are highly susceptible to HIV invasion and are the primary entry point for infection.
B.) Calloused, keratinized genitals are less thin, sensitive, delicate, mucousal and that thick skin is a barrier against HIV.

The UN sadly missed the latest research regarding Langerhans Cells---which the foreskin and labia are full of---destroying HIV like pacman.

Quote:
Scientists Discover 'Natural Barrier' to HIV
By E.J. Mundell
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, March 5 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers have discovered that cells in the mucosal lining of human genitalia produce a protein that "eats up" invading HIV -- possibly keeping the spread of the AIDS more contained than it might otherwise be.

...

When HIV comes in contact with genital mucosa, its ultimate target -- the cells it seeks to hijack and destroy -- are immune system T-cells. But T-cells are relatively far away (in lymph tissues), so HIV uses nearby Langerhans cells as "vehicles" to migrate to T-cells.

For decades, the common wisdom was that HIV easily enters and infects Langerhans cells. Geijtenbeek's team has now cast doubt on that notion.

Looking closely at the interaction of HIV and Langerhans cells, they found that the cells "do not become infected by HIV-1, because the cells have the protein Langerin on their cell surface," Geijtenbeek said. "Langerin captures HIV-1 very efficiently, and this Langerin-bound HIV-1 is taken up (a bit like eating) by the Langerhans cells and destroyed."

In essence, Geijtenbeek said, "Langerhans cells act more like a virus vacuum cleaner."


"We are currently investigating whether we can enhance Langerin function by increasing the amount of Langerin on the cell surface of Langerhans cells," he said. "This might be a real possibility, but it will take time. I am also confident that other researchers will now also start exploring this possibility."

The discovery might also help explain differences in vulnerability to HIV infection among people.

"It is known that the Langerin gene is different in some individuals," Geijtenbeek noted. "These differences could affect the function of Langerin. Thus, Langerhans cells with a less functional Langerin might be more susceptible to HIV-1, and these individuals are more prone to infection.
We are currently investigating this."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20070305...albarriertohiv
It's quite possible these limited studies in certain high-risk adult male populations in Africa have more to do with genetic predisposition/poorly functioning langerhans cells as opposed to the presence/absence of the foreskin.
Jen
post #11 of 48
From the article where it says: "Still, men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method need to continue using other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, abstinence, delaying the start of sexual activity and reducing the number of sexual partners, she said."


So basically, the article is admitting that all of the EXACT same precautions need to be taken to avoid contracting HIV. So what is the point of circing then?! :

So, it's not like being circ'd gives men any sort of advantage. Not only can they *still* not indulge in high risk behaviors, they will be missing part of their penis too. How many people will take this information and blow it out of proportion? I think this article is dangerous because it may imply that if you are circ'd, you can toss your pack of Trojans into the trash. Ugh.
post #12 of 48
And where in the world is the money to come from to provide cheap/free sanitary circumcisions when there isn't even enough funding to provide everyone with enough condoms?

ETA- meaning in Africa.
post #13 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice View Post
And where in the world is the money to come from to provide cheap/free sanitary circumcisions when there isn't even enough funding to provide everyone with enough condoms?

ETA- meaning in Africa.
Exactly.

How many condoms would the cost of a single adult circumcision buy?

Previous, related thread about the condom situation in Africa: Africa & Condom Access Appalling.

Jen
post #14 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauren82 View Post
From the article where it says: "Still, men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method need to continue using other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, abstinence, delaying the start of sexual activity and reducing the number of sexual partners, she said."


So basically, the article is admitting that all of the EXACT same precautions need to be taken to avoid contracting HIV. So what is the point of circing then?! :

So, it's not like being circ'd gives men any sort of advantage. Not only can they *still* not indulge in high risk behaviors, they will be missing part of their penis too. How many people will take this information and blow it out of proportion? I think this article is dangerous because it may imply that if you are circ'd, you can toss your pack of Trojans into the trash. Ugh.
: I just heard the guy from th UN on the radio saying exactly this "Other precautionary methods are required"

My head is spinning at this madness. How long will it take to start collecting data on the numbers of Aids related deaths of circumcised men? Or will they ever publish those stats?
post #15 of 48
Instead of circing like it will be some sort of "cure all", more effort needs to be put into STD education and prevention. People cannot be expected to protect themselves from HIV if they are not properly informed about how it is transmitted and given access to condoms.

Since another poster brought up the issue of cost of circs, it makes me wonder if Africa will start seeing a rise in "back alley" circs done similar to FGM with things like broken glass/cans. *sigh*
post #16 of 48
"The agencies said much depends on the situation in a given country, and little general benefit will result in countries where the HIV epidemic is concentrated among sex workers, injecting drug users or men who have sex with men."

That's the most reasonable statement in the whole article.
post #17 of 48
Friends: I have believed for a long time that this is really all about finding a medical reason to continue circing so it cannot be outlawed on the basis of harm to the infant. Circ has always been a mutilation looking for a justification. It goes deep, deep into the human psyche. Once any genital cutting has been established in a society it is very hard to root out. There is only so much reason can do. But that is no reason not to be reasonable. We just have to keep on plugging along, pointing out the fallacies of faulty reasoning and poorly designed studies. At least you can point out the the UN agrees circ would have little effect in the US.
post #18 of 48
Pure insanity.

You can circumcise a man for probably about what the cost of condoms would cost for his lifetime (I'm guessing $500 here), THEN still have to pay for the condoms?

I agree with Dave2GA- it's mutilation looking for justification.
post #19 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2GA View Post
At least you can point out the the UN agrees circ would have little effect in the US.
I believe that it would have little effect in Africa too. It amazes me how so many things are allowed to be put in print as "factual". In fact, that statement really doesn't make much sense. Do we not have a fairly high rate of HIV in the US? Do we not also have a fairly high rate of circ'ing too...(certainly higher than the circing rate in Africa)? But I suppose in Africa, their penises will be magical and block HIV.

The so called "logic" behind that article is disgusting.
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by krankedyann View Post

I agree with Dave2GA- it's mutilation looking for justification.
Same here. What's really scary is that articles like that are more ammunition and justification for pro circ doctors and mothers/fathers. I've already seen it in mainstream forums/DDCs.
:
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › New UN Recommendations....not good...