Mothering Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
United Nations health agencies recommended that heterosexual men be circumcised because of compelling evidence it reduces their chances of contracting HIV — the virus that causes AIDS — by up to 60 percent.<br><br>
I believe this more of a third world directive, due to lack of access to condoms.<br><br>
Has anyone heard anything more on this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 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>Moose</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7993596"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">United Nations health agencies recommended that heterosexual men be circumcised because of compelling evidence it reduces their chances of contracting HIV — the virus that causes AIDS — by up to 60 percent.<br><br>
I believe this more of a third world directive, due to lack of access to condoms.<br><br>
Has anyone heard anything more on this?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
We've had so many threads on this thing.<br><br>
The 60 percent is VERY, VERY misleading.<br><br>
Basically, in that study 20 something circed men got HIV and 40 something uncirced men got HIV. These were out of <b>thousands</b>. I believe the numbers for circed men were 1.5% got HIV and for intact men 3.1% got HIV, so the absolute difference between the two groups was less than 2 percent!<br><br>
So how did they arrive at that 60 percent number you say? By comparing the 20 HIV-infected circed men to the 40 HIV-infected intact men. While it's "technically" true that between the two groups, there's 60 percent difference, the absolute percentages are small. Plus, the study went on for 21 months. People have sex for life! If you continually have unprotected sex with HIV women there is no way you have a 60% "protection" rate. Very misleading.<br><br>
Also, there have been several studies that found no correlation between circ and HIV infection and there was a recent study published that the Langerin found in the foreskin could be a natural "barrier" to HIV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
These studies are a classic case of scientists with an agenda pushing it and manipulating the stats for their own benefit. The media have then jumped all over it an publicised it <i>before it was even published or peer reviewed</i>. It wouldn't have mattered if the studies confirmed that the moon was made of green cheese, the public have just seen the headlines that the culturally biased press published.<br><br>
What nobody seems to have noticed about this WHO recommendation is that it ONLY applies to countries where there is a very high proportion of the adult population infected by HIV, where the predominant method of transmission is female to male transmission, and where the current rate of circumcision is less than 15%. This applies to absolutely NOWHERE in the Western World - but you wouldn't think that by the hysteria that the cutting countries are generating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,658 Posts
Don't forget the dry sex, daisy. What percentages of what group copulated with women using drying pessaries? What percentage had concurrent infections of other stds compromising the protection of unbroken skin?<br><br>
This study would be a joke, if the results weren't going to be... circumcised men having promiscuous unprotected sex thinking they are 'safe'. Oh yeah. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/shrug.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="shrug"> But what's a little genocide as long as we can harvest foreskins for profit while making ourselves feel better about our own 'reduced state'?<br><br>
What are they going to do, make the people with the agenda account for the deaths & misery twenty years down the line? "Ooh, we didn't <i>know</i>." Well, we told you, so ignorance isn't such a stellar excuse anymore, is it? (I expect unbiased researchers using the scientific method can follow a logcal thought to its conclusion.)
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top