Article: Catholics Against Circumcision says: Circumcision not the key - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-04-2007, 08:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
Microsoap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Circumcision not the key
published: Friday | May 4, 2007

The Editor, Sir:

the recommendation for male circumcision to prevent HIV is ill-advised, not only because circumcision increases HIV risk in women, but also because circumcision removes the langerhans cells of the foreskin that express langerin, a natural barrier to HIV. (Nature Medicine, March 4, 2007).

A study in the 'Annals of Epidemiology' (March 2007) found that circumcision is 'likely to spread' HIV. A preliminary Malawi study reveals that HIV incidence is highest where male circumcision is highest.

The NIH stopped the African studies early before long-term results could be obtained. In the Ugandan study, 98.15 per cent of the non-circumcised males did not acquire HIV, and 22 of the circumcised men did acquire HIV. Circumcision does not prevent HIV, but it could give circumcised men a false sense of security. Behaviour is the key component in preventing HIV, not circumcision!

Sharp contrast

The U.S. has circumcised millions of men over the past century and has one of the highest HIV rates in the developed world. This is in sharp contrast to European countries where male circumcision is rare and HIV rates are low.

Since the late 1800s, medical luminaries have promoted circumcision to prevent a variety of diseases - masturbation, epilepsy, spinal paralysis, curvature of the spine, clubfoot, rectal prolapse, malnutrition, cancer, eye problems, tuberculosis, and now HIV.

I am, etc.,

PETRINA FADEL

Director, Catholics Against

Circumcision

www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org

New York, USA

Via Go-Jamaica

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/glean.../letters2.html
Microsoap is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-04-2007, 08:32 PM
 
Papai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Good. We need more letters like this in the news.

Sidenote: Is Jamaica a predominantly pro-circ country?
Papai is offline  
Old 05-04-2007, 08:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
Microsoap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I don't believe so. I believe the Island (Black) males over there are intact, based on what I have seen from an armature Black male picture posting forum I frequent.

This intrigues me. In the region of Africa, the males there have a sky-high HIV rate, but in Jamaica and other Caribbean countries, they have a high intact rate and I believe a low HIV rate, too.
Microsoap is offline  
Old 05-04-2007, 08:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
Microsoap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,350
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
This article mentions that:

"The first trial, funded by the French Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA, was carried out in Gauteng province in South Africa among men aged 18 to 24 years. The findings, reported in July 2005, showed a reduction of 60 per cent or more in the risk of acquiring HIV infection among circumcised men.

The other two trials, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, in Rakai District, Uganda, and in Kismu, Kenya, were scheduled to end in July and September 2007 respectively"

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/glean...h/health1.html

Wait. Are they saying that they ended the study 2 years earlier than expected? Then, how do they know the long-term results? It sounds like they got a positive possibly (but not probably) good results and closed up shop and called it a day.

"were" scheduled to, not "will" be scheduled to end
Microsoap is offline  
Old 05-04-2007, 10:25 PM
 
Papai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Microsoap View Post
Wait. Are they saying that they ended the study 2 years earlier than expected? Then, how do they know the long-term results? It sounds like they got a positive possibly (but not probably) good results and closed up shop and called it a day.
That's precisely what happened. Although they claimed that the reason they stopped the trials early was because the results were so "compelling" that it would unethical to not stop them and offer the uncirced men circumcision. Biggest pile of horseshit I've heard in my life.
Papai is offline  
Old 05-05-2007, 08:30 AM
 
Daisyuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 929
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yep, they got the "result" they wanted and then stopped the trials before it could change any.

They've done this before, anyone remember the AZT trials?

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/azt/ethics/home.html

They so don't care about lives, if they did, they (a) wouldn't have been giving out placebos and (b) would have funded the proper regimen rather than sacrificing lives to give something less effective. The WHO and the US were responsible for that too.

It's a salutory tale that they are doing exactly the same thing all over again. Why supply adequate numbers of condoms and education when you can just cut off part of their genitalia (and you prefer funding abstinence and mutilation over condoms and education culturally anyway)? Even the American researchers, under the best of conditions and twisting the results can't show it being as effective as condoms, but this is what they want to do. It seems that African lives count for very little.
Daisyuk is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off