Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A heated debate is going on at a local board regarding circ. the latest is this article. I know you really smart moms and dads can help me out with this one. I have seen it mentioned and heard about it on this board and cannot recall what the information to rebut this article is:<br><br><a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2006-07-11T000623Z_01_N10391567_RTRUKOC_0_US-AIDS-CIRCUMCISION.xml&src=rss&rpc=22" target="_blank">http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...src=rss&rpc=22</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
304 Posts
Can I assume that we women also have those special cells in our genitals that make HIV easier to get, and aren't our genitals in a warm, moist environment? I suppose that means that women should be circumcised too??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
Reuters hauls out study to justify circ<br><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...1-ArticlePage2" target="_blank">http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...1-ArticlePage2</a><br><br>
Circumcision may stop millions of HIV deaths-study<br><br>
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Circumcising men routinely across Africa could prevent millions of deaths from AIDS, World Health Organization researchers and colleagues reported on Monday.<br><br>
They analyzed data from trials that showed men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections and around 300,000 deaths could be avoided.<br><br>
Researchers believe circumcision helps cut infection risk because the foreskin is covered in cells the virus seems able to easily infect. The virus may also survive better in a warm, wet environment like that found beneath a foreskin.<br><br>
**** I find this particularly offensive as many so called AIDS cases in Africa may not be in fact AIDS. They don't routinely test for it to make that determination. Secondly the most frequent transmission of AIDS W.H.O has admitted in documents that can be found on their website is reused one time use medical equipment like the needles used for vaccination. Third it targets African men.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
I'm sorry I don't have the rebuttal handy, but I would like to make one point...<br><br>
If a man <i>chooses</i> to have <i>himself</i> circ'd before he has sex, based on this flawed study or whatever else, that is <i>his</i> business. To say that all baby boys should be circ'd at birth to prevent STD's is similar to saying all baby girls should get the HPV vax at birth. That particular issue (HPV vax) has the conservatives up in arms, so I don't see how STD prevention would be a viable excuse for circ for similarly minded people.<br><br>
But the article you are looking for talks about how the intact group was not given any "safer sex" literature, the cut group's infection rate was analyzed from the moment of circ, when clearly they weren't having sex for the first month, and the study was halted due to the fact that the numbers were sliding in favor of a neutral or pro-intact outcome.<br><br>
ETA: If circ prevents AIDS, why do we have AIDS in America???<br><br>
Here are some: <a href="http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298" target="_blank">http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0020298</a><br><br><a href="http://www.nocirc.org/statements/hiv2003.php" target="_blank">http://www.nocirc.org/statements/hiv2003.php</a><br><br><a href="http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/pressrelease07-31-05.html" target="_blank">http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...e07-31-05.html</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,757 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>christifav</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">If a man <i>chooses</i> to have <i>himself</i> circ'd before he has sex, based on this flawed study or whatever else, that is <i>his</i> business.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I disagree - If a man chooses to be circ'd based on this flawed study then it is not informed consent since it's incorrect info. I agree with the other things you said though.<br><br>
love and peace. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/love.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="love">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
Well, I see your point about him not being fully informed b/c he was given misinformation. Thanks for bringing that up. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile"><br><br>
I guess the bigger point for me is that it is up to the individual to do the research. But of course, how can we do that adequately when we are presented with misleading "science"??? Sigh....why isn't everyone just HONEST. I mean, really, that would make this whole green earth a much better place, I tell you! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/winky.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Wink">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,757 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>christifav</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Well, I see your point about him not being fully informed b/c he was given misinformation. Thanks for bringing that up. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile"><br><br>
I guess the bigger point for me is that it is up to the individual to do the research. But of course, how can we do that adequately when we are presented with misleading "science"??? Sigh....why isn't everyone just HONEST. I mean, really, that would make this whole green earth a much better place, I tell you! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/winky.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Wink"></div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Seriously! Honesty is so underrated... <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad"><br><br>
love and peace. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/love.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="love">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,037 Posts
It seriously makes me wonder what is going on when I read these articles <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/dizzy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Dizzy">: . This is the same study from last year that was published in PLOS. There is no new news there. It appears as if the researchers in that study are putting out multiple press releases in hopes that some major newspapers will take ahold of it and write articles/advocate circumcision.<br><br>
However, this is the SAME highly flawed study which was denied publishment by EVERY reputable scientific journal for good reason.<br><br>
Frankly speaking, here is a quote from the past history of this:<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;"><br>
The authors of the study have a long history of advocating circumcision and such a professional investment in it that not finding a correlation between HIV/AIDS would have amounted to professional suicide. There is also an apparent religious motivation behind this. Dr. Dean Edell noted in an on-the-air interview with radio personality Bill Handel that there was a significant Jewish influence among the researchers.<br><br>
The first I heard of the study was in Feb. 2005 when there was a news article that the project had been discontinued in the 12th month of what was to be a 2 year study because the infection rate among the circumcised participants was greater that the rate among the uncircumcised participants. None-the-less, the authors were stating that circumcision may be an effective intervention in the battle against AIDS. That was a ridiculous statement based on the stated results.<br><br>
Later in July, it was announced that the study was presented orally at the 3rd IAS conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and that it showed that circumcision reduced the transmission rate 60%. Suddenly, there was a complete change of the results of the study. How could that possibly be? Well, we were to find out later that this was nothing more than deception.<br><br>
In August, word leaked out that the prestigious medical journal of the British Medical Association, The Lancet, had refused to publish the study. The Lancet does not make public the reasons they decline publishing a study but the authors of this study released a 3rd press release giving some very weak excuse as second hand information. We still don’t know the real reason it was declined. However, the authors soldiered on searching for a publication that would publish the study and apparently found no respectable publication that would take it. In the mean time, it is apparent that they were monitoring internet chat and were responding to criticism by issuing more and more press releases. This type of publicity seeking is highly frowned on in the research community, yet these people have issued about 7 or 8 rounds of press releases thus far. In contrast, a study presented at the same IAS conference in Rio that shows that circumcised men are at greater risk of infection (<a href="http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2176002" target="_blank">http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2176002</a> ) and another that shows female circumcision (<a href="http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138" target="_blank">http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138</a> ) has a protective effect have generated virtually none of this breathless media hype.<br><br>
In October, another press release announced that the study had been peer reviewed and published in The Public Library of Science. (PLoS) Any neophyte journalist would have checked out PLoS and would have found that PLoS was just established in October a year ago as an on-line only journal and that their mission statement is to publish research of dubious value. Furthermore, respected medical journals are constantly on the search for content and will publish at no charge to the author. To the contrary, PLoS charges the author to have their studies published. PLoS has no standing and no respect in the scientific community and certainly no where near the respect that a journal like The Lancet would have. It is apparent that the authors shopped the study to all of the respected journals of the English speaking world and found no takers. Normally, this would have been the end of this study but not for these people. They had big money behind them. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided the money for the study and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides the funding for PLoS.<br><br>
Now, if you get into the research, it becomes more interesting. The men for the circumcised group were circumcised at the beginning of the study. In most cases, the men are warned to avoid sexual intercourse for 6 – 8 weeks post operative and are given injections that prevent erections to prevent pulling stitches or freshly healed wounds. In the first 4 months, the uncircumcised men were contracting AIDS at a much higher rate as could be expected. Between months 4 and 12 though, the circumcised men were contracting AIDS at a rate 250% higher than the uncircumcised men. If the study had not been stopped in the 12th month, the infection rate of the circumcised men would have exceeded the infection rate of the uncircumcised men by a wide margin. By mere extrapolation of the results, this can be clearly seen.<br><br>
The authors also place blame on the langerhans cells present in the inner mucosal foreskin. These are the cells that give the foreskin exquisite sensitivity in the sexual act. These are the exact same cells that give the lips exquisite sensitivity These authors and none of the authors of previous attempts to show a correlation between AIDS transmission and circumcision have been able to explain how if you still have langerhans cells after circumcision, they are not also receptive to the AIDS virus. All circumcised men retain 2/3 to 1/2 of the inner mucosal foreskin after curcumcision and that remnant foreskin contains 10’s of thousands of langerhans cells that would be just as susceptible to infection as those that were cut off. This is nothing more than the muddled thinking of someone pressed for an answer.<br><br>
Finally, you have to look at the applicability of this study to the US population. Here is one take on it <a href="http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=529" target="_blank">http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=529</a>. With the known risks of circumcision and the number of dead babies and the number of sexually maimed men walking around in America, it just doesn’t make sense. Add to that the fact that there is a cure for AIDS going into the testing phase that shows great promise and could be on the market as early as late 2007, it is definitely premature to advocate the sexual violation of millions of men for the possible slight reduction in the number of AIDS cases. With the current population of American adult men 85% circumcised, it makes no sense that The US has the highest AIDS infection rate of any industrialized country in the world. Why the hell haven’t our circumcisions protected us as the authors promise? Their lies out them on just a cursory inspection. In Africa as well as here, the authors have stated that “Circumcision is like a vaccine against AIIDS.” This is overstatement to the extreme. I know many Americans have fallen for it but I can not imagine how many uneducated and unsophisticated African have fallen prey to that statement but it is hideously dangerous. It could wipe out entire African tribal populations in one of the most culturally diverse areas of the world. Many of these populations are tiny and are already at risk. We should not export American trickery to them to further our own agendas. That’s exactly what this study is all about, reviving the cultural practice of circumcision in America with false studies in Africa and trying to force the results on Americans.<br><br>
The American Academy of Pediatrics Taskforce on Circumcision has visited this issue before. At their last general meeting, they reviewed 671 research projects and found that prophylactic infant circumcision has no medical value at all and that there is no conclusive evidence that it has any medical benefit. As late as last year, they reviewed all current information and found no reason to change the policy statement that has been in effect for more that 35 years and re-affirmed their previous policy statement. These are medical professionals and their policy certainly supercedes that of any newspaper editorial board. The editorial board of the L.A. Times should stay in an arena where they are qualified to make recommendations and out of making broad and sweeping recommendations in the medical field. Every year, innocent boys die from complications of their circumcision procedure and hundreds of thousands of men walk the streets with mangled and non-functional genitals because of a purely esoteric and needless procedure performed on them at the most vulnerable time of their life and on their most personal and private parts at the behest of parents who are woefully uneducated and ignorant of the perils and by medical professionals who are willing to violate these children for the almighty dollar.<br><br>
I expect you to publish a retraction of this editorial stating that current scientific evidence does not support the routine circumcision of infants and that on second inspection of this African study, that you have withdrawn your recommendation and support of circumcision until further scientific evidence warrants a change in your policy statement. Unless you do, you have the blood of dead infants on your hands and you are just as guilty as the authors of this piece of rubbish dressed up in gift wrap.<br><br><br><br>
Frank</td>
</tr></table></div>
Here are some other perspectives I found as well.<br><br><a href="http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2176002" target="_blank">http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2176002</a><br><br><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20051121.html" target="_blank">http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_.../20051121.html</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,457 Posts
phatchristy the first link isn't working for me -- and thank you for the frank comments <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/wink1.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="wink1">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
262 Posts
If you go to the PLoS website and find the original Auvert article, you will find excellent criticism of it by Michel Garrenne, a researcher at the Pasteur Institute.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
The world is feeling AIDS hysteria. They are desparate for a cure...grasping at straws.<br><br>
The studies out of Africa are highly questionable. I would really like to see the hard data which to my knowledge hasn't been made public. I would like to know if the circ'd men who were studied were less promiscuous then the intact men who were studied. I would like to know if each man had the exact same number of sexual partners during the 'study'. i would like to know if any of the men were gay or had slept with partners who were gay. I have many more questions too...all of which could influence the 'conclusions'.<br><br>
If these findings are so conclusive, please explain why we here in the US, with one of the highest circ rates, also have one of the highest AIDS rates?<br><br>
1 little study done in one 3rd world country...and the whole world wants to cut their boys. This is surreal. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/dizzy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Dizzy">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Well how I feel about the aids thing is. If you have sex once with a infect partner whether your circumcised or not your infected to then. That is what should be assumed. But instead they are teaching these men that they are protected with circumcision so once doesn’t hurt any. Then they go around spreading the disease to new partners causing aids to spread faster. Whether this is true or not. So they are causing more harm by trying to justify there decision to circumcise. So in the end they are the reason for aids being the way it is today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
Ok, that last post got me thinking (and I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist anyway! LOL)<br><br>
Are "they" trying to claim circ prevents AIDS so African men STOP wearing condoms and CONTINUE to spread the virus? That is f-ed up, but it sounds like there could be an ulterior (sp?) motive to actually proliferate AIDS, not stop it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,300 Posts
is getting coverage on MSNBC now<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/hopmad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="hopping mad"><br><br>
time to send a nasty e-mail
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,097 Posts
I can't say I've researched this particular study or is the same one they seem to re-release over and over again? (any why would they do that?)<br><br>
But why would I have something so invasive and permanent done when I can just teach my son to use a condom? Why do we jump to surgery and dangeous medications in the US when there are less dangerous and invasive things that we can do?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>mamao'two</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I can't say I've researched this particular study or is the same one they seem to re-release over and over again? (any why would they do that?)</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
New study.<br><br>
Extrapolates from the old, flawed one. Basically no new actual research, just a bunch of deductions.<br><br>
Mathematically it is totally sound but it is impossible to build a palace out of shit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,622 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Tinijocaro</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Can I assume that we women also have those special cells in our genitals that make HIV easier to get, and aren't our genitals in a warm, moist environment? I suppose that means that women should be circumcised too??</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Women DO catch HIV easier than men (circumcised) do. That's a fact. Also all the other darned diseases. Anytime you are dealing with a mucous membrane you're increasing the odds of catching a disease. Reality. Hence anal sex is more risky than vaginal sex due to the fact that those membranes don't stretch as easily. Hence it seems logical to me (who doesn't have a baby boy and doesn't have an opinion on this yet) that leaving a mucous membrane on a penis might increase their odds of getting a disease. And the inside of a foreskin IS a mucous membrane. (Thin, easily damaged, etc.)<br><br>
I have no clue about the validity of this study, however; sexual studies are very difficult to do accurately on humans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Thanks for all the help. The thread got locked anyway b/c the "other" side was feeling "attacked" and "defensive"...whatever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>2crazykids</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Thanks for all the help. The thread got locked anyway b/c the "other" side was feeling "attacked" and "defensive"...whatever.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Those in denial have highly adverse reactions to those which challenge it.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top