Male Circumcision - Hiv Prevention

[LevelHead]

Given the extreme lack of awareness that circumcision greatly reduces the potential of male HIV infection, and thefore by reducing male infection reducing the infection rates of females, why oh why is circumcision not become more popular in Thailand ?

I quote from the BMJ, and there are massive amounts of proven clinical evidence to support this, just do a google search. :

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592?ck=nck

How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?

Robert Szabo, medical resident ^a, Roger V Short, professor ^b.

Faculty of Medicine, Monash University, Wellington Road, Melbourne 3168, Australia,

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Royal Women's Hospital, 132 Grattan Street, Melbourne 3053, Australia

Correspondence to: R V Short

In his otherwise excellent review of the AIDS epidemic in the 21st century, Fauci presented no new strategies for preventingthe spread of the disease.¹ He made no mention of male circumcision,yet there is now compelling epidemiological evidence from over40 studies which shows that male circumcision provides significantprotection against HIV infection; circumcised males are two toeight times less likely to become infected with HIV.² Furthermore,circumcision also protects against other sexually transmittedinfections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, ^{3 4} and sincepeople who have a sexually transmitted infection are two to fivetimes more likely to become infected with HIV,⁵ circumcisionmay be even more protective. The most dramatic evidence of theprotective effect of circumcision comes from a new study of couplesin Uganda who had discordant HIV status; in this study the womanwas HIV positive and her male partner was not.⁶ No new infectionsoccurred among any of the 50 circumcised men over 30 months, whereas40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected during this time.Both groups had been given free access to HIV testing, intensiveinstruction about preventing infection, and free condoms (whichwere continuously available), but 89% of the men never used condoms,and condom use did not seem to influence the rate of transmissionof HIV. These findings should focus the spotlight of scientificattention onto the foreskin. Why does its removal reduce a man'ssusceptibility to HIV infection? <a href="http://" target="_blank"></a>

Summary points

The majority of men who are HIV positive have been infected through the penis

There is conclusive epidemiological evidence to show that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men

The inner surface of the foreskin contains Langerhans' cells with HIV receptors; these cells are likely to be the primary point of viral entry into the penis of an uncircumcised man

Male circumcision should be seriously considered as an additional means of preventing HIV in all countries with a high prevalence of infection

The development of HIV receptor blockers, which could be applied to the penis or vagina before intercourse, might provide a new form of HIV prevention

.

Edited January 3, 2009 by LevelHead

[LevelHead]

As far as I am aware, the reasons this is not "broadcast from the rooftops" around the world are :

1/ Religious. Although all Jews and Muslims are invariably circumcised, Christianity never called for it, and so over the years it has been made into a religious tool, which is quite stupid as it started in fact over 4000 years ago by the ancient Egyptions and predates all religions.

2/ Misinformation, a lot of people spout misinformation about reduced sexual feelings, performance etc... this is all debunkable.

3/ Peer pressure. Too many uncircumcised men out there will fight this new evidence to the death, simply as they are uncut and do not want to be classed into a "high risk category". If all working girls became aware that an uncut man was far more likely to have HIV than a circumcised man, then the chances are they would all prefer to be with circumcised men, and things like "no condom for oral sex" would become a thing of the past for any man not circumcised.

There are more.

Anyway, its a proven fact now that with the removal of the foreskin and therefore the HIV receptors which form part of it, the risk of catching HIV is massively reduced........so why in Thailand is there minimal awareness of this ? and no action plan to get it introduced ?

Discuss.

[dotcom]

Maybe because circumcision has nothing whatever to do with HIV/AIDS transmission?

[LevelHead]

It is clinically proven to nearly prevent male infection from normal vaginal sex with females.

FACT.

PROVEN.

[LevelHead]

PROOF :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6502855.stm

http://www.medpagetoday.com/HIVAIDS/HIVAIDS/12227

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top...1690372,00.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/133875.php

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=44354

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/95096.php

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=2159

[mommysboy]

I'm fairly sure the studies were discredited.

[LevelHead]

Look at the dates.

2007 and 2008.

WHO and UN "approve" of it. There are more and more compelling reports to back it up. Why did the WHO approve of it ? Why does the UN agree with it ?

The issue is per post 2...........misinformation being spread due to 3 reasons...............Religion, Misinformation, Peer Pressure.

[dotcom]

GARBAGE.

Transmitted by blood.

Wake TF up.

[Jingthing]

The last I heard the uncut/HIV link is well established and policies are changing in Africa in response. Anyone have a very recent SCIENTIFIC link refuting that, bring it on.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Jingthing

[jumnien]

While it may be true that cutting a small part of the penis off slightly reduces the sexual transmission of the HIV virus, it is far more effective to remove the entire penis!

[Jingthing]

While it may be true that cutting a small part of the penis off slightly reduces the sexual transmission of the HIV virus, it is far more effective to remove the entire penis!

That would be too radical.

Better idea to drill out the part of the brain that controls sex drive ...

[wensiensheng]

While it may be true that cutting a small part of the penis off slightly reduces the sexual transmission of the HIV virus, it is far more effective to remove the entire penis!

All irrelevant if you receive tainted blood, via whatever means, or semen via your.... some means

[LevelHead]

GARBAGE.

Transmitted by blood.

Wake TF up.

Sad to see a response like this.

When the WHO (thats the World Health Orgainisation) and the UN (thats the United Nations) agree's with the medical findings that circumcision greatly reduces the chances of male infection from normal vaginal sex - you get some Internet hero who thinks they know better and that the world medical community is wrong.

LOL - see post 2 - the three reasons why this news is NOT SPREAD around the world in the way IT SHOULD BE.

[jumnien]

Having blue eyes also reduces the risk of HIV transmission. Most of the HIV positive people in the world have brown eyes. It's a simple fact. Beware of simple facts and be highly suspect of studies and statistics.

[473geo]

So rather than provide drugs and sex education, the WHO and UN have decided that it is a good idea to inflict circumcision on innocent male babies in Africa who may or may not later life have unprotected sex. Why...well probably due to the cost of the drugs and education. Why not go back to the chastity belt....also a cheap and efficient option.....might be occasionally painful for the females to wear....but surely what is good for one sex!!!

[jumnien]

There will always be those of the Judeo-Christo-Islam persuasion who feel that some sort of genital mutilation in the service of the Lord will somehow prevent HIV transmission. Just use common sense!

[LevelHead]

I suppose at the end of the day the question should be put to a particular group.

Find the uncircumcised men who proclaim to have had "just that one time with a prositute and yes I do not wear a condom", or the uncircumcised men who "had sex with a girl just that one time with no condomc" and say to them :

"Well chaps, you now have HIV and are going to die from it. Did you know that if you were circumcised you likely now would not have it, a very good chance you would never have caught it, and so you would be HIV free and not going to die.

What are you views now on circumcision ?"

I wonder what they would say ?????

Edited January 3, 2009 by LevelHead

[Jingthing]

Some interesting, very emotional responses to a purely scientific issue. I guess some people's attachment to their "hoodies" is very intense.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Jingthing

[jumnien]

I was de-hooded in 1958. I just think that telling poor Africans and Asians that if they cut off their foreskin or perform clitorectomies they won't get AIDS is a very poor idea based on very shoddy science.

[473geo]

I suppose at the end of the day the question should be put to a particular group.

Find the uncircumcised men who proclaim to have had "just that one time with a prositute and yes I do not wear a condom", or the uncircumcised men who "had sex with a girl just that one time with no condomc" and say to them :

"Well chaps, you now have HIV and are going to die from it. Did you know that if you were circumcised you likely now would not have it, a very good chance you would never have caught it, and so you would be HIV free and not going to die.

What are you views now on circumcision ?"

I wonder what they would say ?????

Same as a murderer who if you told him he wouldn't be serving 20 years if he'd got circumcised!!

Edited January 3, 2009 by 473geo

[LevelHead]

There will always be those of the Judeo-Christo-Islam persuasion who feel that some sort of genital mutilation in the service of the Lord will somehow prevent HIV transmission. Just use common sense!

Sorry, its medically proven and accepted by the WHO and UN.

Should we therefore say, "there will always be those uncut who after knowing that being cut can reduce the chance of getting HIV will try their very best to debunk it, even in the face of overwhelming medical evidence due to the reasons in post 2 on this thread".

LOL

[LevelHead]

I was de-hooded in 1958. I just think that telling poor Africans and Asians that if they cut off their foreskin or perform clitorectomies they won't get AIDS is a very poor idea based on very shoddy science.

DO NOT CONFUSE THE ISSUE.

THE ISSUE IS

MALE CIRCUMCISION.

Do not bring female circumcision into this, this is very wrong, and does nothing.

And who are you to go against the WHO and UN and say its "shoddy science". - LOL

[jumnien]

My dear, if you spent as much time as I did in San Francisco in the 1980's and 90's I'd think you'd be less confident in your circumcision theories. I buried many a circumcized friend, a victim of the AIDS epidemic. I highly suspect that when babies born today are of sexual age that AIDS will not be among the top killers. Now malaria and cholera, I'm afraid they will be around for awhile.

[Jingthing]

My dear, if you spent as much time as I did in San Francisco in the 1980's and 90's I'd think you'd be less confident in your circumcision theories. I buried many a circumcized friend, a victim of the AIDS epidemic. I highly suspect that when babies born today are of sexual age that AIDS will not be among the top killers. Now malaria and cholera, I'm afraid they will be around for awhile.

My impression is that the link to male circumcision is about HETEROSEXUAL penile-vaginal sex female to male transmission. You and I know that most of the deaths in San Francisco were anal sex related.

[473geo]

Some interesting, very emotional responses to a purely scientific issue. I guess some people's attachment to their "hoodies" is very intense.

I doubt most people are differing with the scientific evidence as such. Most will accept circumcision as a benefit, if of course you are stupid enough to wander about without using a condom. This being the case you are, circumcised or not, taking a big risk. Now if circumcision was enforced say in the USA, on males at birth, perhaps these scientific findings and the whole thought process around freedom of choice would sit a little more comfortably.

[LevelHead]

My dear, if you spent as much time as I did in San Francisco in the 1980's and 90's I'd think you'd be less confident in your circumcision theories. I buried many a circumcized friend, a victim of the AIDS epidemic. I highly suspect that when babies born today are of sexual age that AIDS will not be among the top killers. Now malaria and cholera, I'm afraid they will be around for awhile.

Again you are off on the wrong route.

Nobody is claiming any effectiveness of this for "gay sex" or "anal sex between man and woman".

The effective area of this is the reduction, by a large amount, of reducing the transfer to a male through normal vaginal sex.

This is the topic, as clearly laid out in the posts.

[LevelHead]

Some interesting, very emotional responses to a purely scientific issue. I guess some people's attachment to their "hoodies" is very intense.

The thread is serving its purpose and that is to highlight the "resistance" to circumcision IN SPITE OF all the medical evidence to support its protection against HIV transmission into males from normal vaginal sex.

It is very clear to see that most "uncut" men are very very defensive of their postion and hate the fact that its been medically proven "cut" men are much less likely to catch HIV through normal penis to vagina sex, as the HIV receptors in the foreskin have been cut off.

In the most this can be put down to probably the "scare factor" that they do not want to be seen as a "higher risk" group and therefore become "less wanted".

This is quite easy to understand, however people should have free access to the information, and make their own minds up about their children. All "new to be" potential parents in Thailand should be told of this, and they can make a decision to not do it, or do it.

Ask most Thai's about this and they are completely in the dark about the FACT that it is a very effective part of the prevention of the spread of HIV from woman to man through vaginal sex.

Edited January 3, 2009 by LevelHead

[jumnien]

My dear, if you spent as much time as I did in San Francisco in the 1980's and 90's I'd think you'd be less confident in your circumcision theories. I buried many a circumcized friend, a victim of the AIDS epidemic. I highly suspect that when babies born today are of sexual age that AIDS will not be among the top killers. Now malaria and cholera, I'm afraid they will be around for awhile.

My impression is that the link to male circumcision is about HETEROSEXUAL penile-vaginal sex female to male transmission. You and I know that most of the deaths in San Francisco were anal sex related.

Unfortunately, how true. The evils of crystal meth and other drugs took their toll as well; and I rarely knew of anyone who did not think their infection took place while well "lubricated" by alcohol.

[edwardandtubs]

It isn't medically proven at all. Some studies in Africa have supported the theory (it remains just that) but there's not nearly enough evidence to call it medically proven.

Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Is There Really Enough of the Right Kind of Evidence?

[jumnien]

Most of the medical researchers tend to belong to these Judeo-Christo-Islamo tribes and would love to enforce their ideals on the masses. To say to a new parent that their baby will difinitely have a smaller chance of getting HIV from male-female vaginal contact is just criminal and wrong. To present various theories and possibilities that don't eminate from religious conditioning is another story.