Mothering Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...mcision_hiv_dc

Quote:
Uncircumcised Men Have Higher HIV Risk - StudyThursday, Oct. 9, 4:03 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Uncircumcised men are eight times as likely to become infected with HIV (news - web sites) than circumcised men, according to a study of nearly 2,300 men in India released on Thursday.

A researcher at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine suggested that the inner surface of the foreskin does not have the same protective layer as the outside, and is potentially more vulnerable to HIV.

Male circumcision is common in North America and elsewhere for religious and cultural reasons and to help prevent urinary tract infections and penile cancer.

The procedure involves removal of the foreskin, which covers the tip of the penis, and is typically done shortly after birth.

In the United States, some two-thirds of male infants are circumcised annually. Worldwide, the rates vary widely, depending on culture and religion. In many countries, including India, circumcision is uncommon.

"It's important that we offer measures to help curb the spread of AIDS particularly in developing countries, where it continues to grow at an alarming rate," Dr. Steven Reynolds, post-doctoral fellow in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins and a study investigator said in a statement.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has said it no longer recommends routine circumcision because -- despite some medical benefit -- there can be complications.

Johns Hopkins also studied the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases among circumcised and uncircumcised men. Although the incidence of diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea and genital herpes was slightly higher among uncircumcised men, the difference was not statistically significant.

The research was part of a larger study investigating risk factors for HIV infection based on men attending one of three sexually transmitted disease clinics in Pune, India between 1993 and 2000.

Demographics, sexual risk behaviors -- including having sex with a prostitute -- and condom use were similar between both groups, Reynolds said.

He added that there are methods uncircumcised men may be able to use to protect themselves against HIV, including condoms and, in the future, a potential topical microbicide product that might be applied to the foreskin before sex. "Circumcision as a potential prevention strategy requires confirmation by randomized clinical trials," Reynolds said. There currently are clinical trials underway in Uganda, Kenya and South Africa.

Results of the study were presented at a San Diego meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Saw that last night on Yahoo.
I was waiting for someone else to post it. I wonder how many parent-to-be saw it and thought "we NEED to circumcise!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,928 Posts
Full of misrepresentations and lies! This was written by a man who knows this would be challenged and heavily criticized if it were a paper written for a college course. It is very obvious that he has an agenda to promote circumcision and doesn't mind trashing his ethics to do so. Shameful!

Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,139 Posts
I hate it when they announce "conclusions" long in advance of making the specifics of the study available. By the time they actually publish the full findings the bold claim is cemented in public opinion and no one cares that it's a load of dog poo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,930 Posts
If the article wasn't so full of horse-pooky -

it'd be laughable (almost).

What's Next?

"Based on womyn with a sexually transmitted disease,

Who:

Are questionably promiscuous,

And:

Don't use condoms,

We Should Remove . . . ? "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
Well, my thinking in response to these 'studies' is. . . "So what?!"

If 101 studies 'proved' that circumcision would reduce my daughter's susceptibility to yeast infections, chlamydia and h.i.v., I still wouldn't do it.
Why would it be any different with a son?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,984 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Teresa
Well, my thinking in response to these 'studies' is. . . "So what?!"

If 101 studies 'proved' that circumcision would reduce my daughter's susceptibility to yeast infections, chlamydia and h.i.v., I still wouldn't do it.
Why would it be any different with a son?
Because people who already want to circ (like my DH)
need an excuse/reason to do it.

"A-ha!!! See?!?! It does help!" There was a study posted on yahoo by the New England Journal of Medicine a few months back and DH pointed it out to me
and said that since a respectable medical journal printed it, so it must be true.


Why does (did) my DH want to circ? Because he is circ'd and he grew up believing it was more "sanitary." Studies like this
just "prove" that point. It's what some people need to hear to go ahead. Typical new parents won't delve deeper, or question it too much, unless they don't want to circ.

Time - you are probably right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,488 Posts
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

The debate over circumcision status and HIV in the medical literature was started in 1986, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a letter from the late Aaron J. Fink, MD.
Fink was a California urologist, an outspoken advocate of circumcision who had self-published a book to promote his ideas about circumcision.
Fink maintained that the foreskin "increased infection by HIV." Fink claimed that the keratinization of the penis of the circumcised male reduced the chance of HIV penetration. There is no direct evidence to support this claim.

When you read the whole report, pay special attention as to where the study was conducted and who the subjects were.

When we compare circumcised males to intact males from Europe, who have a similar life style to ours, the intact come out way ahead in regards to having much less HIV/AIDS and other venereal diseases. That is the most reliable evidence because it is simply the way it is, it was not found due to a study looking for a certain outcome.

Such a publication as the Lancet has accepted several times is irresponsible. Besides promoting circumcisions it sanctions unprotected sex which is the real culprit in venereal diseases.
 
1 - 9 of 9 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