Not enough foreskin being removed in South Africa - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 14 Old 02-10-2008, 10:55 AM - Thread Starter
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=702569

Apparently only "clincal" circumcision prevents AIDS because every one else doesn't take off enough foreskin.

And, apparently, if you are not "clinically circumcised" then you are "completely intact"

Read more of the madness in the article. Here are a few quotes:

Quote:
French researcher Dr Bertran Auvert of Versailles University suggested this week that 40% to 50% of circumcisions in Southern Africa were only “ritual” or “partial” circumcisions — where the foreskin was not completely removed.

HIV trials conducted in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda showed that only clinical circumcision could reduce the risk of males getting HIV, said Auvert.

“What I know is that not all who say that they call themselves ‘circumcised’ are clinically circumcised,” he said. “In fact their penises are completely intact.”

As a side note, I wonder why, if supposedly these studies show "only clinical circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS", do groups who support ritual circumcision blatantly use the HIV thing in their defense (see the brief in the oregon case for an example of this)

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#2 of 14 Old 02-10-2008, 11:23 AM
 
Fellow Traveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Formerly JWhispers
Posts: 1,987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=702569

Apparently only "clincal" circumcision prevents AIDS because every one else doesn't take off enough foreskin.

And, apparently, if you are not "clinically circumcised" then you are "completely intact"

Read more of the madness in the article. Here are a few quotes:


As a side note, I wonder why, if supposedly these studies show "only clinical circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS", do groups who support ritual circumcision blatantly use the HIV thing in their defense (see the brief in the oregon case for an example of this)
This has interesting implications even for the US. Consider the fact that when done many are trending toward loser circumcisions possibly leaving too much of that nasty foreskin. Even in a clinical setting no circumcision will be the same sounds like he is saying that unless you skin off enough to result in a leathery dried out phallus that is snare drum tight before and during erection you're going to get HIV. Maybe we should just be handing out condoms, you think?

For what it's worth Carriebft, I found it interesting that Avert called the men "completely intact"
Fellow Traveler is offline  
#3 of 14 Old 02-10-2008, 11:28 AM - Thread Starter
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That really caught my attention, too. It seems our vocab is really getting out there....or at least the intactivist movement is preying on Auvert's mind.

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#4 of 14 Old 02-10-2008, 12:01 PM
 
perspective's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwhispers View Post
For what it's worth Carriebft, I found it interesting that Avert called the men "completely intact"
I found this quote interesting for different reasons. That they consider anything thats not a full circumcision as completely intact. I think the only way a person could make a comment like that and actually believe it, would have to be someone who really believes that the foreskin is just a flap of skin, and just a flap of skin. In their minds there are no medical descriptions to intact, just that your circumcised once all that "extra skin" is gone.

All these studies are so stupid. I bet if they did a study with men whose penises had been cut off entirely they would have an even lower HIV rates. YAY! Tell Africa we just found the cure for AIDS!

Even IF these studies were true, cutting off parts of someones body with the hope that it might limit their "percentage" of infection, is kinda crazy. Especially when you have a device that can reduce it by nearly 100%. Any man who is willing to cut off his foreskin as an adult, is pretty serious about having safe sex, and are more then likely going to use condoms anyway.
perspective is offline  
#5 of 14 Old 02-10-2008, 12:32 PM
 
Papai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Money, money, mon-ay!

Wow, I'm not surprised.

So, first, researchers claim that the reason West Africa has lower rates of HIV is because they're circumcised, now, they're saying that only circumcisions done in the hospital protect against HIV. That would mean, the original hypothesis was false.
Papai is offline  
#6 of 14 Old 02-10-2008, 01:49 PM
 
thixle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai View Post
So, first, researchers claim that the reason West Africa has lower rates of HIV is because they're circumcised, now, they're saying that only circumcisions done in the hospital protect against HIV. That would mean, the original hypothesis was false.
That's exactly what I was thinking-- and yet all of these guys in the US were circ'ed "clinically" and still contracted AIDS... hmmmm

---feeling like an emu on acid---
thixle is offline  
#7 of 14 Old 02-10-2008, 02:19 PM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This just reeks of circumfetishists description of the only proper circumcision as "high and tight." It's obvious they are reading what we write.

.
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#8 of 14 Old 02-10-2008, 07:46 PM
 
Microsoap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
They're scrambling. They KNOW that men are STILL getting HIV/AIDS even _after_ a circumcision and they need to justify their faulty snap-judgement findings and recomendations.

Why? Because these ignorant men think being circumcised is like having an 'invisible condom', so they're out tom-catting around spreading the virus. IF ONLY they had just done better safer sex practices, they wouldn't have had these mass mutilations and _could_ _have_ saved lives w/out pain!!!!

Where's that brick wall you need it???
Microsoap is offline  
#9 of 14 Old 02-10-2008, 11:18 PM
 
tammyswanson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Soutwestern Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 1,546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wonder if these evil people, er I mean 'researchers' are doing this because they want to cause genocide in Africa....one way to kill them is to mutilate them and then make them think that they are 'immune' to AIDS...so then they are even less cautious....

Circ doesn't work! Stop the violence of circumcison. Had another UP/UC/HB in August!
tammyswanson is offline  
#10 of 14 Old 02-11-2008, 03:17 AM
 
Jasmyn's Mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: In the Canadian Rockies
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My friend was talking about the S Africa study today. I didn't know what to say to that. I haven't read the study. It doesn't sound right. Could you please enlighten me here. I am an intactivist. I am the only one in my family who wouldn't circ. They are fairly religious.

Is this about $$? It usually is but is this the case here?
Jasmyn's Mum is offline  
#11 of 14 Old 02-12-2008, 05:14 AM
 
00646's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Microsoap View Post
They're scrambling. They KNOW that men are STILL getting HIV/AIDS even _after_ a circumcision and they need to justify their faulty snap-judgement findings and recomendations.

Why? Because these ignorant men think being circumcised is like having an 'invisible condom', so they're out tom-catting around spreading the virus. IF ONLY they had just done better safer sex practices, they wouldn't have had these mass mutilations and _could_ _have_ saved lives w/out pain!!!!

Where's that brick wall you need it???
Dito
00646 is offline  
#12 of 14 Old 02-12-2008, 05:14 AM
 
00646's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tammyswanson View Post
I wonder if these evil people, er I mean 'researchers' are doing this because they want to cause genocide in Africa....one way to kill them is to mutilate them and then make them think that they are 'immune' to AIDS...so then they are even less cautious....
That is one way. Next is America...
00646 is offline  
#13 of 14 Old 02-12-2008, 11:00 AM
 
Frankly Speaking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: North Atlanta
Posts: 5,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmyn's Mum View Post
My friend was talking about the S Africa study today. I didn't know what to say to that. I haven't read the study. It doesn't sound right. Could you please enlighten me here. I am an intactivist. I am the only one in my family who wouldn't circ. They are fairly religious.

Is this about $$? It usually is but is this the case here?
I think this is more about setting up a plausible explanation for when the HIV rates don't fall. Money doesn't appear to be a factor. There are teams of doctors coming into Africa to provide the circumcisions at little or no cost. The last one I heard about came from Israel. Even when they are done by local doctors, they are done for the equivalent of $20 or $25.

For the plausible explanation, in Uganda in the mid 1990's for example, the HIV acquisition rate was 29% but by 2007, it had fallen to 6%. Further reducing the rate is going to be increasingly difficult and the best they can hope for is another percent or two or even keeping it where it is. But, studies in Australia and The US have shown that there is no difference in the HIV acquisition rate among circumcised and intact men. What if that happens in Africa? How will they explain that? This is setting up an explanation for future use! When the HIV rate does not change or does not change significantly, they can say "The infected men were not properly circumcised and are the same as intact men with the same risk." If they succeed in getting all the men circumcised drum tight and there is still no change, I wonder what they will say then?

They are certainly watching forums such as this one as a guide for press releases as evidenced by their term "intact." I have seen this in other issues with the studies. They blamed the langerhans cells in the foreskin as the cause of the infections but it was pointed out that in all circumcisions, there is remnant inner foreskin that contains these langerhans cells. Within a couple of weeks, they issued press releases saying that the remaining foreskin cornified or toughened to present a barrier. When it was pointed out that this cornification would take months, they issued press releases saying that the circumcised men should use condoms for the first 6 months after their circumcisions until healing was complete. Now, they are blaming the incomplete healing on new HIV infections. This is just more deceit. If the HIV acquisition rate does not drop among the circumcised men, they can blame it on the "improper circumcisions."

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

.
Frankly Speaking is offline  
#14 of 14 Old 02-12-2008, 12:21 PM
 
glongley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 1,072
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"HIV trials conducted in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda showed that only clinical circumcision could reduce the risk of males getting HIV, said Auvert."

The African trials were not designed to show that a "clinical" circumcision produced more HIV reduction than traditional circumcision. No such comparison was made. No study has been done to compare the effects of various methods of circumcision on HIV acquisition - some of which remove more mucous membrane than others, or remove more Langerhans cells than others, or result on more remaining overhang than others (several of the factors hypothesized to increase HIV uptake). Auvert's claim seems to be based on these hypothethical factors rather than any actual research evidence.

Gillian
glongley is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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