Question about the HIV link

550 Views 11 Replies 10 Participants Last post by baybee, Aug 10, 2006

kittywitty

Discussion Starter · Aug 9, 2006

In my moms group, they are circulating a study about how circ cuts risk of HIV by 60%. Here is part of it:

Male circumcision 'lowers risk of HIV infection by 60%'

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

Published: 09 August 2006

Richard Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, said research revealing the protective effect of circumcision against HIV was set to change parental expectations and medical practice across the world. Instead of viewing the operation as an assault on the male sex, it was increasingly being seen as a lifesaving procedure which every parent would want for their sons.

Removing the foreskin is thought to harden the glans (head) of the penis, making it less permeable to viruses. Research conducted in 2005 showed the transmission of HIV from women to men during sex was reduced by 60 per cent if the men were circumcised.

A study published last month calculated that if all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised, it would prevent almost six million new cases of HIV infection and save three million lives over the next 20 years.

Dr Feachem said the finding was one of the most significant in the battle against Aids and offered real hope of slowing the spread of the virus. The issue is to be debated at the World Aids Congress, which opens in Toronto next week...

Dr Feachem said: "We know the factors that cause HIV to spread rapidly in a country - the number of concurrent sexual partners, the use of condoms, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and male circumcision. Other things being equal, in a circumcised population you have a low and slowly developing epidemic and in an uncircumcised population you have a high and fast developing epidemic."
....
"Circumcision fell out of favour in North America and the UK as an unnecessary operation. Following this research, I think it extremely probable that parental demand for infant male circumcision will grow as a consequence."

How should I respond to this? I don't believe it.

See less See more

Save

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

Ruthla

· #2 · Aug 9, 2006

Do they have links to the actual article?

Are they basing all this on the article that included post-op time in the study? (ie, men were not sexually active for a while because they were recovering from the circ, so HIV transmission was lower because they were having less sex.)

Save

kxsiven

· #3 · Aug 9, 2006

Check out the world's HIV stats. USA is leading in HIV infections in western world eventhough it circumcise.

Intact Europe has very low HIV infection rates compared to USA. And my 'own area', Scandinavia, has lowest in Western world eventhough we practise lot of sex

and leave our men intact.

There are other, much more effective ways, to fight against HIV than cutting innocent babies.

How many parents advice their sons; "well, honey, we got you circumcised so you do not need to worry about condoms or safe sex".

or.

How many parents advice their daughters; Sugar, just make sure your new boyfriend is circumcised then you can just use birthcontrol pills, no need to fuss with condoms.

See less See more

Save

kittywitty

Discussion Starter · #4 · Aug 9, 2006

Thanks. They didn't give a link. It was just one of those things people forward to everyone.

I found some more info that one of the other members forwarded in response to that article.

1) Chao et al. reported that a circumcised partner is a risk factor for
male-to-female transmission of HIV infection.

2) The Rakai project in Uganda has studied the heterosexual
transmission/reception of HIV. Viral load, not circumcision status, was
reported to be the most important determining factor.5 The Rakai project
determined that studies of HIV infection and circumcision status are
confounded by religion and cultural practices6 and that, when these are
properly controlled, circumcision status is not a significant factor in
preventing HIV transmission or reception amongst discordant couples (one
partner is HIV-positive, the other HIV-negative).

3) An Australian study found no relationship between circumcision status and
HIV infection in men who have sex with men.

And here's what the major medical associations say:

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS)
examined the data (1996) but refrained from recommending circumcision to
prevent HIV transmission because it believed that further study was
necessary. The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision
(March 1999) also examined the data and concluded that the evidence was
conflicting and behavioral factors are more important than circumcision
status. The American Medical Association (December 1999) has examined the
data and concluded that "circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as
'protecting' against such infections."

See less See more

Save

LizaBear

· #5 · Aug 9, 2006

Is this the article ?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle1217831.ece

Save

4chunut1

· #6 · Aug 9, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by LizaBear
Is this the article ?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle1217831.ece

I think that must be the one... That article was mentioned in the DrudgeReport today...(a popular news blog site...more than 14 million hits the last 24 hours...)

Interesting that the last sentence in the article stated ..."People who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms." That sentence should have LED the article..!

I believe the study is probably flawed, and erroneous conclusions drawn...

Too bad this article is getting the play that it is...Certainly giving a false sense of security...

See less See more

Save

Lula's Mom

· #7 · Aug 9, 2006

The Useless Study That Would Not DIE!!!!!!!!!

See less See more

Save

arlecchina

· #8 · Aug 10, 2006

it cuts female to male transmssion by 60%. female to male is very rare anyways, and is usually preceeded by open wounds on the male. they forget to mention THAT little gem.

Save

baybee

· #9 · Aug 10, 2006

<<<Deborah Jack, chief executive of the UK-based National Aids Trust, said the research findings were encouraging.

"It is clear the promotion of voluntary circumcision can play an important role in reducing the risk of HIV transmission," she said. But she warned: "People who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms." >>>

Can someone please explain to me how Deborah Jack gets her 5 mins of fame by saying the above?

findings encouraging
she warned
she said
suggest

I'm no Rhodes scholar but I don't see any hard science that you can actually get a grip on anywhere in these articles. Very slippery P.R. work and like a previous poster expressed so well "WHEN WILL IT DIE?" I think this AIDS nonsense is the last tail lashing death throes of a dinosaur that's going down for the count.
Baybee

See less See more

Save

Islay

· #10 · Aug 10, 2006

1. The WHO has clearly stated that until and unless the tests are completed, it will not make a definitive statement. (The tests have all but ground to a halt.)

2. South Africa has introduced a limited BAN on circumcision. As I write, I cannot recall the specific details or provide a link - but it's out there somewhere.

3. The BBC headlined the intial report for about half a day, then dropped it. The British public barely gave it a second thought. There is no way we will be introducing RIC again!

Christopher

Save

Galatea

· #11 · Aug 10, 2006

It is b/c people are looking for medical reasons for or against circ, when it should really be a knee-jerk, common-sense thing - you could remove a lot of body parts and prevent a lot of diseases, but we only do this to penises. Why are a boy's genitals worth any less than a girl's? That is the real question.

Save

baybee

· #12 · Aug 10, 2006

Here's a news release about African AIDS that makes sense. No circ here.

N. Y. Times--cheap solutions curb AIDs in Kenya (no circ)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/wo...ca/06aids.html
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/world/africa/06aids.html>

Quote:
In Kenya, where poverty drives some girls to sleep with older men for
money or gifts, teenage girls are seven times more likely to be H.I.V.
positive than boys the same age.

The new study found that when informed that older men are much likelier
to be infected, teenage girls were far less likely to become pregnant by
so-called sugar daddies.

The $1 million study, financed by the Partnership for Child Development,
a London-based nonprofit group, did not seek blood tests for H.I.V.,
since its subjects were minors. Instead, it relied on pregnancy as
evidence of unprotected sex.

The study found that when girls in impoverished rural areas were given
free school uniforms instead of having to pay $6 for them -- the
principal remaining economic barrier to education in Kenya -- they were
significantly less likely to drop out and become pregnant.

Researchers also found that classroom debates and essay-writing contests
on whether students should be taught about condoms to prevent the spread
of H.I.V. increased the use of condoms without increasing sexual activity.

See less See more

Save

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month