Circumcision May Cut Risk Of HIV

Circumcising adult men may reduce by half their risk of getting
the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse, the U.S.
government announced Wednesday, as it shut down two studies
in Africa testing the link.

The National Institutes of Health closed the studies in Kenya and
Uganda early, when safety monitors took a look at initial results
this week and spotted the protection.
The studies' uncircumcised men are being offered the chance to
undergo the procedure.

The link between male circumcision and HIV prevention was
noted as long ago as the late 1980s.
The first major clinical trial, of 3,000 men in South Africa, found
last year that circumcision cut the HIV risk by 60 percent.


SOURCE:
LiveScience.com

This was very interesting news to me, I had heard that
circumcision helped to prevent cancer, because the
foreskin had a higher chance of cancer than the rest of
the genital skin, but the news that it may help preven
HIV is even more interesting.


Comments, Opinions?

[edit on 12/14/2006 by iori_komei]

I always believed circumsicion was a valid and generally beneficial medical procedure.

It is also deep rooted in the the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and Judaism, Im not sure about islam).

Circumcision is a barbaric custom that is a poor substitute for proper hygiene. Hello little baby boy, welcome to the world, now, this will hurt just a bit as I cut you where the sun don't shine. Nice way to bring a child into the world by adding significantly to the trauma.

Proper hygiene will eliminate any increased AIDS risk Vs. circumcised. Penile cancer is quite rare in civilizations where good hygiene is observed.

Circumcision arose long ago in cultures where hygiene was lacking and germs unknown. Remember that cervical cancer can be linked to prior cervical infections. Circumcision also results in significant loss of feeling due to nerve over stimulation.

Wear a condom, wash regularly, and stay away from the knife. If the foreskin is so evil, why haven't we evolved without one???

My understanding is that the difference in risk between circumcised and uncircumcised contracting HIV isn't that great (ie the risk isn't reduced anywhere near the point where you would go "Hey, I'm circumcised baby, it's all good!"). As Terrapin points out, condoms provide the best protection beyond abstination.

They're not saying that being circumcised will mean that you
have a large percent less of a chance of getting it, they're
saying tha it adds a level of protection during vaginal sex.

The OP says that it reduces by half the risk of contracting HIV, so 50%ish. According to Wiki, the per act exposure risk for acquisition of HIV-1 by insertive penile-vaginal intercourse is 5 infections per 10 000 exposures to an affected source. So even if we breakdown the study presented, and assuming a proportional number of circumcised/uncircumcised test subjects, then for circumcised men the infection rate would be around 2 to 2.5 per 10 000 exposures. So not a lot of difference realistically, but there still a slightly reduced chance of acquiring HIV, which is good. But proper condom use can almost completely (note I say almost) remove the risk. If you want to totally remove the risk, then cold showers are in order! The Wiki article is quite interesting, for those who want to read more.

HIV on Wiki

As an aside Iori, did you notice that the WHO Doctor talking about the circumcision study is the unfortunately named Dr. Kevin De Cock

Originally posted by Willard856
The OP says that it reduces by half the risk of contracting HIV, so 50%ish.

Er, I am the original poster, and I never said that.

As an aside Iori, did you notice that the WHO Doctor talking about the circumcision study is the unfortunately named Dr. Kevin De Cock

No, I had not realized that.

Yeah, but who's the most valuable guy in the car if the fan belt breaks...

[edit on 14-12-2006 by Slaine01]

OP, as in original post, as opposed to poster. And from the quote you provided:

Circumcising adult men may reduce by half their risk of getting the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse

Do you disagree with this?

[edit on 14-12-2006 by Willard856]

Originally posted by Willard856
OP, as in original post, as opposed to poster. And from the quote you provided:

Circumcising adult men may reduce by half their risk of getting the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse

Do you disagree with this?

Oh, ok, sorry acronyms throw me off sometimes.

If that's what the study finds, than yes I agree with it.

So you have unprotected sex with a HIV+ female. Assuming that there is no wash up afterwards, the circumcised male will fair better as exposure to air helps kill off HIV. The uncircumcised male will fair worse as the area under the foreskin is a warm cozy spot and it gives the virus more of a chance of working it's way into the blood stream. That's the reason behind the percentile difference. More or less. With a condom there is no difference other than the fact that the circumcised male has fewer functioning nerve endings to enjoy the moment with.

Stay safe.

Originally posted by Terapin
So you have unprotected sex with a HIV+ female. Assuming that there is no wash up afterwards, the circumcised male will fair better as exposure to air helps kill off HIV. The uncircumcised male will fair worse as the area under the foreskin is a warm cozy spot and it gives the virus more of a chance of working it's way into the blood stream. That's the reason behind the percentile difference. More or less. With a condom there is no difference other than the fact that the circumcised male has fewer functioning nerve endings to enjoy the moment with.

Stay safe.

Yes, but condoms are'nt going to be as available to men in
Africa as they are in the Western world, so it prevents the
amount of HIV spread in those who don't have access to
condoms.

Add to that that condoms are'nt 100% reliable, so it adds
another level of protection when you are practicing safe sex.

Spending money on Social Education would be far more effective than spending it on circumcising all the men in Africa.

Circumcision does not prevent HIV transmission. Circumcision has other medical risks when performed on adult males particularly in a society with limited medical facilities. The logistics alone of trying to get all the men to show up for circumcision would be problematic to say the least. Women are not going to deny sex to men simply because they are not circumcised.

It is a mediocre study that is of little practical use in the short term. It may lead to an increase in natal circumcision, but there is no certainty of that. It is also not new news as the HIV/Circumsision factor has been understood for quite some time.

Circumcision is still only ritual mutilation for virtually no gain. The American Academy of Pediatrics has come out saying that it is unnecessary.

.......pfft, tell this one to all the thousands of circumcised men who died of AIDS or are HIV+.

This is a load of crap that will lead many men into HIV infection thinking they'll be safer because they're "cut". The majority of men who get infected with HIV through male/female sexual contact get infected by the virus entering their urethra during vaginal intercourse. Not by being absorbed through their skin. It doesn't matter if you're circumcised or not, the AIDS virus knows no boundary during unsafe sex. Use a condom and it will save your life.....

Could just be that the circumcised are engaging in things a slightly different way.

I would be interested to know if the incidence in circumsised homosexual activity is reduced also.

I wash every part of my anatomy and after the vag act I will wash the old fellah off, I have always felt more comfortable doing this. The reduction of smeg is evident, the lady finds a clean member.

As I understand it the circumcised feel no real need to wash up after use.
It looks clean but is it?

Iwill keep mine with its Polo neck jumper for now

Originally posted by something smells
I would be interested to know if the incidence in circumsised homosexual activity is reduced also.

No, it says that it only helps with vaginal intercourse.

As I understand it the circumcised feel no real need to wash up after use.
It looks clean but is it?

I can't say that the majority do, but I would expect that most men, regardless of circumcision, wash in some way after any kind of sex.

Ack! I hate this. I don't agree with circumcision in babies because I believe it should be the decision of the person whether he's circumcised or not. Reading over the article, I see that supposedly the cells in the foreskin are particularly susceptible to the HIV virus... I guess that's possible. I'm just not sure I trust this and I'm not sure the benefit is worth the procedure. I think condoms are a much better way to go. If condoms were used all the time, it wouldn't matter if he were circumcised or not.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Ack! I hate this. I don't agree with circumcision in babies because I believe it should be the decision of the person whether he's circumcised or not.

I agree, I just have to think that it probably does'nt hurt as much,
or atleast you don't remember it, like you would as an adult.

If condoms were used all the time, it wouldn't matter if he were circumcised or not.

Well not all of them have access to condoms, and like I said,
condoms are'nt 100% reliable.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I just have to think that it probably does'nt hurt as much,
or atleast you don't remember it, like you would as an adult.

True, but there's no getting it back once it's gone, and there are advantages to NOT being circumcised.

condoms are'nt 100% reliable.

Yeah, I know. Neither is circumcision.

I just see it as mutilation without consent and other avenues need to be explored. If they can get circumcision materials and instruments to them, surely they can get condoms to them...

Actually I posted this topic two days back albeit in the wrong forum on the wrong side of these boards :

politics.abovetopsecret.com...'

Where it died.

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

It is also deep rooted in the the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and Judaism, Im not sure about islam).

It's the same in Islam. I'm was circumcised, at age 10.

Originally posted by Willard856
[...]did you notice that the WHO Doctor talking about the circumcision study is the unfortunately named Dr. Kevin De Cock

I noticed that too, I thought it was a joke when the news was first published.

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Ack! I hate this. I don't agree with circumcision in babies because I believe it should be the decision of the person whether he's circumcised or not.

I agree, I just have to think that it probably does'nt hurt as much,
or atleast you don't remember it, like you would as an adult.

That is very true. My lucky cousins didn't have to go through the embarrassment of having to reveal your still developing manhood for the procedure to hot nurses who kept giggling the redder your face gets... just at around the time you hit puberty and girls become interesting no less... :shk:

...plus the cousins didn't remember any pain. How could they have?