2
0

Can you lower HIV infection risk? Yes, with a simple procedure


 invite response                
2012 Nov 12, 11:54pm   35,432 views  107 comments

by MisdemeanorRebel   ➕follow (13)   💰tip   ignore  

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/

Study after Study after Study shows Circumcised Males have 42%+ reduction in HIV infection versus the non-circumcised groups. For high-risk groups: Those who have multiple partners, have been treated for other STDs, etc. the reduction was ~70%.

Wow, if you knew that a two-minute, largely painless (but only on infants with less developed nerves) operation could reduce your child's chances getting HIV by nearly 50%, you'd be nuts not to do it.

Furthermore, being circumcised almost completely eliminates the risk of Penile Cancer. Almost all cases of penile cancer in the USA are in uncircumcised males. Studies show that the chances getting and spreading other STDs, and it is now believed, HPV (a large factor in Ovarian Cancer) is also greatly retarded by circumcision.

Tell Rabbi Tuckman, lose the bacteria/virus breeding chamber skin flap.

"If a vaccine was available that reduced HIV risk by 60 percent, genital herpes risk by 30 percent and HR-HPV [cervical cancer virus] risk by 35 percent, the medical community would rally behind the immunization, and it would be promoted as a game-changing public health intervention," study author Dr. Aaron Tobian, epidemiologist and pathologist at Hopkins, told MSNBC.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20115905-10391704.html

« First        Comments 41 - 80 of 107       Last »     Search these comments

41   Robber Baron Elite Scum   2012 Nov 13, 2:19pm  

The mass murder of jews during the Holocaust by Adolf Hitler... Was also the mass murder of child sexual abusers and mutilators.

Adolf Hitler was a hero. Fuck the "victims" of the holocaust... They are child abusing sympathy-seeking bastards.

DIE DIE DIE....

42   Robber Baron Elite Scum   2012 Nov 13, 2:36pm  

curious2 says

Vaccines and fluoridated water are perhaps the best public health measures ever,

Google "Flouride Harmful"

Google "Vacccine Harmful"

Hitler polluted the drinking water of the nazi prisoners with flouride to make them into docile cockroach serfs and peasants.

Flouride is a neuro-toxin and lowers IQ. Extremely nasty harmful stuff.

Vaccines contain many harmful toxins. One of it being mercury. Flu shots are also dangerous.

43   Ceffer   2012 Nov 13, 3:04pm  

Robber Baron, you are becoming an old softie. If you wanted everybody to die painful deaths for your pleasure, wouldn't you WANT them to drink flouride and be vaccinated?

44   Robber Baron Elite Scum   2012 Nov 13, 3:05pm  

http://www.youtube.com/embed/RWoJanKCVDw

This entire orginal thread post is propgating more than 1 myth and has no factual value whatsoever.

45   Robber Baron Elite Scum   2012 Nov 13, 3:16pm  

Ceffer says

Robber Baron, you are becoming an old softie. If you wanted everybody to die painful deaths for your pleasure, wouldn't you WANT them to drink flouride and be vaccinated?

The more you tell sheep not do to something. The more they do it.

When you warn people and tell them the truth, 99.99% turn a blind eye.

I have no fear of you fucking peons... I can always hire a firing squad if you worthless cockroaches get out of line.

Everybody knows that Mcdonald's will kill you... But why are cockroaches still eating that pesticide?

Why is Mcdonald's still a billion dollar business? Because the sheep want to be killed.

The peasants and serfs may vehemently deny that they hate to be slaughtered by white collar criminal financial scumfucks...

But their actions prove to say that they want to DIE.

That's one reason why I have no problem spilling the truth and beans.

But another good reason... Is I love and get just as much pleasure out of killing you than I get out of making cockroaches feel like the dumb fucking worthless idiots that they are...

You are serfs and peasants. It's my job to show you.

46   curious2   2012 Nov 13, 4:35pm  

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

Google "Flouride Harmful"

Google "Vacccine Harmful"

Wow you managed to misspell both fluoride and vaccine! Way to enhance your credibility, Robber!

Anyway I am aware of the controversies, but just to clear up a point of fact, mercury is no longer used in making vaccines. There were never any proven injuries from it, but due to the controversy it was discontinued. Every medical procedure involves risks, but vaccines carry comparatively low risk and high reward. If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice, but you still benefit if other people get vaccinated, and I'm happy to volunteer.

47   Tenpoundbass   2012 Nov 13, 10:18pm  

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

Hitler polluted the drinking water of the nazi prisoners with flouride to make them into docile cockroach serfs and peasants.

Flouride is a neuro-toxin and lowers IQ. Extremely nasty harmful stuff.

Well that must explain my low IQ, I've been drinking tap water all of my life.

48   MisdemeanorRebel   2012 Nov 13, 11:35pm  

leo707 says

Well, at least one kid died in 2010 from circumcision:
http://www.pregnancyandbaby.com/the-hatch-blog/articles/935637/pushing-your-parenting-agenda-how-far-is-too-far

A cardiac arrest after a circumcision?

And here is the underlying cause, actually from an anti-circ site:
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Baby Joshua was born with major congenitive heart problems. If it hadn't been the circumcision, it could have been a vaccination.

Dan8267 says

Penn and Teller had an episode on circumcision on Bullshit! Season 3 Episode 1 where they went into details about how bad it was.

Since that season there's been a ton of randomized studies showing the HIV/HPV prevention powers of circumcision. Also, even the Euros now admit it reduces UTIs by to a fraction of what it is in the "uncirced".

Dan8267 says

The case the opposition made was that male circumcision causes extreme pain for the baby who often passes out as a result and causes a loss of sensitivity when sexual maturity is reached.

I could believe it. The APA and other groups recommend topical anaethesia, which often isn't done in "Community" Circumcisions. But it's still believed that adults experience far more pain than babies during the process.

49   Robber Baron Elite Scum   2012 Nov 14, 12:48am  

Watch out it's the grammar and spelling police!

I already knew before I posted that I switch the u and o... Out of order in fluoride and put a extra c in vaccine. I spelled vaccine correctly though in that post the second time.

It's called a keyboard typo and a miss-hit on a god damn button.

Do not drink public water even if it contains no fluoride. It still contains chlorine & all kinds of chemical & pharmaceutical waste. Public water is from the sewer.

You degenerate cockroaches are drinking your own waste!

50   Dan8267   2012 Nov 14, 1:25am  

Bap33 says

left/liberal/sodomite/pro-abortion crowd

WTF does sodomy have to do with abortion? Bap, you can't get pregnant from butt sex.

51   Dan8267   2012 Nov 14, 1:31am  

Bap33 says

At [TIME FRAME "X"] before birth the left/liberal/sodomite/pro-abortion crowd has no problem with dick flaps getting tossed away with the destroyed baby. But, at [TIME FRAME "X"] after birth, the same crowd has all these deep reasons to save the dick flaps (and the baby) from any and all harm. How's that?

This is you two months after birth.

This is you nine months before birth

Can you see the difference? Yes, the very atoms that made up you developing body were in fact part of a hamburger your mom ate. Those atoms did not constitute a person until they were assembled into -- you know what, I'm going make you wait for the answer because I want to do this proper. Otherwise, it would just go over your head.

For now, know that it is not the timeframe before birth that matters but rather the timeframe, and what happens during that timeframe, after conception that matters.

I'll make time this weekend to answer the whole abortion issue once and for all. Well, there goes my weekend. And I was really hoping to catch up on the Vampire Diaries.

52   Dan8267   2012 Nov 14, 1:43am  

thunderlips11 says

Since that season there's been a ton of randomized studies showing the HIV/HPV prevention powers of circumcision

So it seems. I think we can accept that circumcision has a moderate effect on lowering transmission rates of HIV to men. However, the procedure is certainly an invasive one, so I don't think we can justify it on the basis of lowering HIV transmissions when wearing a condom is far, far less evasive and less permanent and far, far more effective in the prevention of AIDS. This is especially true since the babies don't have the ability to decide or consent to the medical procedure.

The episode of Bullshit was inconclusive on the HIV prevention but did make the case that condoms are really the solution to AIDS prevention anyway. In that episode, Penn also showed numerous other negative effects of circumcision. I don't know whether or not these effects are real as claimed in the episode, but Penn did make a convincing case.

Whenever it comes to having a medical procedure performed, the burden of proof is on those advocating that procedure. The advocates must show that the advantages outweigh the risks and disadvantages. As the only known advantage is a highly unreliable way of preventing HIV transmission, I cannot yet conclude that circumcision is a good idea. The removal of body parts is certainly an invasive enough medical procedure to warrant far better cause.

53   Bap33   2012 Nov 14, 2:01am  

Dan8267 says

The removal of body parts is certainly an invasive enough medical procedure to warrant far better cause.

brains and limbs are body parts, and are cells, and are atoms, and are matter. Right?

My mention of the Sodomite Nation is only because they came out against flap removal, that was mentioned early on. No need to hinge so much upon that portion of this discussion. Deviant male's mounting other males and using them as one uses a whore is not part of this discussion.

Liberal/progressive/intrustive/controlling/nanny-stater/leftist ... these are interchangable in my vocabulary on this subject. Feel free to lable the anti-circ army with any name you enjoy. Sorry for any confusion.

54   Dan8267   2012 Nov 14, 3:23am  

Bap33 says

Deviant male's mounting other males and using them as one uses a whore is not part of this discussion.

Are you as uptight about heterosexual sex as you are about homosexual sex? In either case, this isn't the thread to discuss that in. So, I'll open another.

55   Dan8267   2012 Nov 14, 3:25am  

Bap33 says

Feel free to lable the anti-circ army with any name you enjoy. Sorry for any confusion.

Not sure if he meant label or liable. Doesn't make sense either way.

I'm open to either the pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision camp, but I need hard core evidence to decide, and the default position is anti-circumcision as one doesn't perform medical procedures unless there is a good reason to do so.

56   MisdemeanorRebel   2012 Nov 14, 3:57am  

Dan8267 says

I'm open to either the pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision camp, but I need hard core evidence to decide, and the default position is anti-circumcision as one doesn't perform medical procedures unless there is a good reason to do so.

I respect that position. My beef is not with those who do not want it to be routine, although I feel it should be, but with those with an emotional reaction against it, even in cases where the patient's history (say, multiple UTI events in infancy) recommends it.

57   Bap33   2012 Nov 14, 5:37am  

label -- don't be a butt munch.

the cutting of the cord ... and an epesiotomy(sp) ... are both surgical procedures, aint they?

I am pro-trim. Two reasons. Hygene and Health. I shared a hospital room with an old old man while I was recovering from knee surgery when I was a teenager. THe dude was near 80. He was there to have his flap removed due to complications from the flap getting less flexible and getting infected. So, this dude went through the trimming as an adult, and I got the joy of sharing his experience. Only the freakiest of freaks would think it makes sense for a grown male to get trimmed, when trimming a new born is much less trouble and avoids a major hardship later in life.

Personal experience, and reaction from females, suggests that trimmed is the way to go.

58   Dan8267   2012 Nov 14, 6:59am  

thunderlips11 says

I respect that position

More important than the conclusion is the line of thought that leads to it. I think we're using the same line of thought.

The question of whether or not circumcisions should be performed, and if so how they should be performed, should be determined by objective, verifiable medical evidence that the procedure is overall beneficial.

The origins of circumcision are religious as shown in Bullshit. First it was a sacrifice to an imaginary god. Then it was an ineffective means of trying to prevent masturbation. Finally arguments were made for the sake of hygiene and health.

It's quite possible that the arguments regarding hygiene and health are valid, but it's a heck of a coincidence that something that started as an arbitrary religious ceremony and then became part of an anti-masturbation crusade just happens to be also good medical practice. Hence my skepticism.

Of course a skeptic is willing to be convinced. That's what separates skepticism from denial, a trademark of religion and politics. My main concern is that the procedure is still being done simply because it's another way for hospitals to bring in cash, and clearly that's not a good reason to perform a medical procedure.

I'd like to see a reputable organization like the World Heath Organization publish an in-depth study on the positive and negative effects of circumcision as well as the anesthetic needs and risks for babies receiving this procedure. Only when one is armed with accurate information, can one make a good decision about this procedure. Personally, I don't see why it would be difficult for the WHO to perform such a definitive study. Seems like it should be easy to do compared to many of the other things they do.

59   Bap33   2012 Nov 14, 1:25pm  

Dan8267 says

Only when one is armed with accurate information, can one make a good decision about this procedure

abortion stops a beating heart. you have now been informed.

60   Dan8267   2012 Nov 14, 1:34pm  

Melmakian says

So says the God-hater who can't prove that God doesn't exist but wants everyone to believe in Global Warming despite it hasn't been proven to exist either.

Do I have to open a thread on that too?

61   Dan8267   2012 Nov 14, 1:36pm  

Bap33 says

abortion stops a beating heart. you have now been informed.

So if the abortion happens before the heart is formed, you are okay with it then?

How the Morning After Pill Works

62   Bap33   2012 Nov 14, 1:57pm  

I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.

63   Dan8267   2012 Nov 14, 2:06pm  

Bap33 says

I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.

The same can be said about every sperm cell in the world. Are you against sperm going to waste by not being used to impregnate everything in sight?

64   MisdemeanorRebel   2012 Nov 14, 11:12pm  

Dan8267 says

More important than the conclusion is the line of thought that leads to it. I think we're using the same line of thought.

Word. I see your and Leo's point, in my father's day, tonsil removal was routine for most children; today the consensus is the drawbacks negate the benefits and that tonsils should only be removed when there are problems. I imagine the circumcision debate will go through the same process as the science develops and the consensus changes either way in reaction to new research.

Dan8267 says

I'd like to see a reputable organization like the World Heath Organization publish an in-depth study on the positive and negative effects of circumcision as well as the anesthetic needs and risks for babies receiving this procedure. Only when one is armed with accurate information, can one make a good decision about this procedure. Personally, I don't see why it would be difficult for the WHO to perform such a definitive study. Seems like it should be easy to do compared to many of the other things they do.

Lots of stuff from WHO:

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/fact_sheet/en/


Medical male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by approximately 60%.
Since 2007, WHO and UNAIDS have recommended voluntary medical male circumcision as an additional important strategy for HIV prevention, particularly in settings with high HIV prevalence and low levels of male circumcision, where the public health benefits will be maximized. Fourteen countries in eastern and southern Africa with this profile have initiated programmes to expand male circumcision.
Medical male circumcision offers excellent value for money in such settings. It saves costs by averting new HIV infections and reducing the number of people needing HIV treatment and care.
A one-time intervention, medical male circumcision provides men life-long partial protection against HIV as well as other sexually transmitted infections. It should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package of services and be used in conjunction with other methods of prevention, such as female and male condoms.

Here's some WHO documents from their website which comprehensively lay out their position, including the most recent, most comprehensive studies on circumcision and HIV. :
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/research_implications/en/index.html

An age old religious routine might have hit on something by accident. Just like some of the herbs used in medieval times actually did something like what they were claimed, and allowed us to synthesize the chemicals within into better and powerful medicine. Most of herb-use was quackery, but a fraction of it was legit.

One of the explanations for circumcision is that when you live the the desert, sand gets trapped into your foreskin, and scratches everything to all hell, causing cuts and infections. It may have been later subject to mythological explanation after the original purpose was forgotten. So instead of "We semites remove our foreskins so as not to have sand up our wang" it became "The King of the Mountain told us we're his people who should mark ourselves by removing this skin flap."

On the summary page, it goes on to talk about the randomized control studies done by the US NIH and a French Organization, which are the sources for the 53-60% number (it varies).

This is why I compare circumcision to Gardasil (HPV Vaccine) - Gardasil does not prevent all or even almost all of the HPV varieties linked to cervical cancer, but is recommended anyway.

This campaign to circumcise by WHO/UNICEF/UNAIDS and other NGOs acting in concert has their own site dedicated to male circumcision:
http://www.malecircumcision.org/about/male_circumcision_about_us.html

The first link of the Tools and Programmes links to the use of Local Anaesthetics when performing circumcision:
http://www.malecircumcision.org/programs/tools_guidelines.html

There are also papers about which devices are best used, how to train personnel, funding for it, etc.

65   Bap33   2012 Nov 15, 5:09am  

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says



I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.


The same can be said about every sperm cell in the world. Are you against sperm going to waste by not being used to impregnate everything in sight?

nope, in natural conditions a sperm cell dies if it does not find a female egg. A female egg dies in natural conditions if a sperm does not breach the cell wall. Once those two individual cells join, they become a whole new cell with matched DNA .... and that cell splits and splits and splits and continues on for 80 years or so with the exact same DNA it started with. Start from the 80 year old guy, no wait, start from your age and use you for the example, going backwards in your life time, tell me when you stop being the cell cluster that we all call Dan. Thanks.

66   Dan8267   2012 Nov 15, 7:19am  

thunderlips11 says

Lots of stuff from WHO:

Good find. The WHO I trust. They don't have religious or cultural agendas and have to work across many cultures. As such, they really have to be culture neutral and stick to the facts. They also have accomplished a lot in protecting the world from disease.

Plus they rock epically.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/BfuWXRZe9yA

67   Dan8267   2012 Nov 15, 7:22am  

Bap33 says

nope, in natural conditions a sperm cell dies if it does not find a female egg. A female egg dies in natural conditions if a sperm does not breach the cell wall.

Still don't get the concept of natural selection, do ya?

Bap33 says

, tell me when you stop being the cell cluster that we all call Dan.

Finally, you get close to the issue. It's rare moments like this that I have hope for you.

I'll address this very issue and many others when I write my weekend rant. Can't get enough free time during the week to do it.

68   Bap33   2012 Nov 15, 10:47am  

you have an odd way of telling me I am right. Is it that tuff to do? lol

69   Dan8267   2012 Nov 15, 12:46pm  

Bap33 says

you have an odd way of telling me I am right. Is it that tuff to do? lol

I will gladly say you are right should that ever happen.

70   Dan8267   2012 Nov 21, 8:47am  

Bap33 says

I say liberalism is a mental disorder.

And that is why your opinion on what constitutes a mental disorder carries no weight. In fact, this lack of grasp on reality is why your opinions on issues in general carries no weight.

71   MisdemeanorRebel   2013 Apr 17, 5:33am  

New Evidence: Circumcision changes bacterial composition of foreskin area; reduces overall bacterial load; increases number of Langerhans cells (Immunity Boosters), may explain reduction in HIV among circumcised men vs. uncircumcised men.

http://news.discovery.com/health/circumcision-alters-penis-bacteria-130416.htm

72   finehoe   2013 Apr 17, 6:24am  

I bet this works too:

Female infibulation is the removal of the labia minora (inner lips) and labia majora (outer lips). When the labial tissue heals, it forms a wall of skin and flesh across the vagina and the rest of the pubic area. By inserting a twig or similar before the wound heals, a small hole is created for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. The procedure is usually accompanied by the removal of the clitoris. The legs are bound together for two to four weeks to allow the labia to heal into a barrier. The procedure is usually carried out on young girls before the onset of puberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infibulation

73   Dan8267   2013 Apr 17, 6:42am  

thunderlips11 says

New Evidence: Circumcision changes bacterial composition of foreskin area; reduces overall bacterial load; increases number of Langerhans cells (Immunity Boosters), may explain reduction in HIV among circumcised men vs. uncircumcised men.

Unless the effect is highly significant like 90% or more effective, I don't think it's wise to consider circumcision a good way to prevent AIDS. Better off sticking with condoms given the significance of being "unfortunate".

74   MisdemeanorRebel   2013 Apr 17, 6:44am  

False equivalency. What are the scientifically proven health benefits to female infibulation, again? None.

Also, men circumcised in adulthood report "little to no difference" in sensation or ability to orgasm. Some even report better orgasms. I wonder what that would be for female mutilation.

75   finehoe   2013 Apr 17, 6:47am  

Chop the end of your own dick off all you want honey, just don't be so keen on foisting it on others.

76   MisdemeanorRebel   2013 Apr 17, 6:48am  

finehoe says

Chop the end of your own dick off all you want honey, just don't be so keen on foisting it on others.

Ah, excellent, rational, reasoned argument.

Circumcision is more complicated and painful in adulthood, and waiting until over 18 doesn't prevent HIV transmission, UTIs, non-retractable foreskins (most common in prepubescent boys), and the transmission of HPV before then. Most people screw around long before 18.

The recovery time for infant circumcision is less than 24 hours. After the onset of puberty, it is 10-14 days.

77   curious2   2013 Apr 17, 6:56am  

Multiplying thunderlips11 says

"If a vaccine was available....

it would be cheaper and less invasive than surgery. The best prevention technologies available currently are (a) condoms, which have been around for centuries at least, and (b) circumcision, which has been around for millenia. That fact should tell you something. Since drug companies began advertising DTC and PhRMA's political influence began to dominate the evening news and federal policy (e.g. Medicare D, Obamacare), research $ has gone primarily to daily pills that PhRMA can advertise on TV. For a small fraction of that cost, we could have vaccines that would end these diseases, and probably end many cancers as well. It is shocking how ignorant some people (e.g. Homefool) are about vaccines, many do not even understand what a vaccine is and how it works. Vaccines work by improving the immune system to prevent or cure disease. Some vaccines do both, e.g. the smallpox vaccine can prevent smallpox and it can cure smallpox in people recently infected. (Homefool tried to deny that by saying it won't cure them after the disease has already run its course, and I must acknowledge dead people are very difficult to treat.) That is how smallpox was eradicated, and the cost of treating smallpox has dropped to zero because nobody gets smallpox anymore. Many people assume that prices and medical costs must always increase, but that is not true. CPI did not increase overall in the century prior to the advent of the Federal Reserve, and medical costs could actually fall if instead of revenue-maximizing PhRMA-driven public policy we had public policy in the public interest, reducing costs. For an interesting popular article on vaccine research, you can read more here.

78   finehoe   2013 Apr 17, 7:14am  

"While the “gold standard” for medical trials is the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the African trials suffered [a number of serious problems] including problematic randomisation and selection bias, inadequate blinding, lack of placebo-control (male circumcision could not be concealed), inadequate equipoise, experimenter bias, attrition (673 drop-outs in female-to-male trials), not investigating male circumcision as a vector for HIV transmission, not investigating non-sexual HIV transmission, as well as lead-time bias, supportive bias (circumcised men received additional counselling sessions), participant expectation bias, and time-out discrepancy (restraint from sexual activity only by circumcised men)."

http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

79   MisdemeanorRebel   2013 Sep 18, 5:34am  

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announced an early end to two clinical trials of adult male circumcision because an interim review of trial data revealed that medically performed circumcision significantly reduces a man's risk of acquiring HIV through heterosexual intercourse. The trial in Kisumu, Kenya, of 2,784 HIV-negative men showed a 53 percent reduction of HIV acquisition in circumcised men relative to uncircumcised men, while a trial of 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, showed that HIV acquisition was reduced by 48 percent in circumcised men.

"These findings are of great interest to public health policy makers who are developing and implementing comprehensive HIV prevention programs,"says NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. "Male circumcision performed safely in a medical environment complements other HIV prevention strategies and could lessen the burden of HIV/AIDS, especially in countries in sub-Saharan Africa where, according to the 2006 estimates from UNAIDS, 2.8 million new infections occurred in a single year."

Above PDF claims trials not randomized, controlled, etc. The DIrector of National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases disagrees:

"Many studies have suggested that male circumcision plays a role in protecting against HIV acquisition," notes NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "We now have confirmation — from large, carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials — showing definitively that medically performed circumcision can significantly lower the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse. While the initial benefit will be fewer HIV infections in men, ultimately adult male circumcision could lead to fewer infections in women in those areas of the world where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual intercourse."

The findings from the African studies may have less impact on the epidemic in the United States for several reasons. In the United States, most men have been circumcised. Also, there is a lower prevalence of HIV. Moreover, most infections among men in the United States are in men who have sex with men, for whom the amount of benefit provided by circumcision is unknown. Nonetheless, the overall findings of the African studies are likely to be broadly relevant regardless of geographic location: a man at sexual risk who is uncircumcised is more likely than a man who is circumcised to become infected with HIV. Still, circumcision is only part of a broader HIV prevention strategy that includes limiting the number of sexual partners and using condoms during intercourse.

The co-principal investigators of the Kenyan trial are Robert Bailey, Ph.D., M.P.H., of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Stephen Moses, M.D., M.P.H., University of Manitoba, Canada. In addition to NIAID support, the Kenyan trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and included Kenyan researchers Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, M.B.Ch.B., and Kawango Agot, Ph.D., M.P.H. The Ugandan trial is led by Ronald Gray, M.B.B.S., M.Sc., of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. Additional collaborators in the Ugandan trial were David Serwadda, M.Med., M.Sc., M.P.H., Nelson Sewankambo, M.B.Ch.B., M.Med.M.Sc., Stephen Watya, M.B.Ch.B., M.Med., and Godfrey Kigozi, M.B.Ch.B., M.P.H.

Both trials involved adult, HIV-negative heterosexual male volunteers assigned at random to either intervention (circumcision performed by trained medical professionals in a clinic setting) or no intervention (no circumcision). All participants were extensively counseled in HIV prevention and risk reduction techniques.

The above PDF claims that only the circumcised were counseled; this is not the case.

Both trials reached their enrollment targets by September 2005 and were originally designed to continue follow-up until mid-2007. However, at the regularly scheduled meeting of the NIAID Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) on December 12, 2006, reviewers assessed the interim data and deemed medically performed circumcision safe and effective in reducing HIV acquisition in both trials. They therefore recommended the two studies be halted early. All men who were randomized into the non-intervention arms will now be offered circumcision.

"It is critical to emphasize that these clinical trials demonstrated that medical circumcision is safe and effective when the procedure is performed by medically trained professionals and when patients receive appropriate care during the healing period following surgery," notes Dr. Fauci.

Researchers have noted significant variations in HIV prevalence that seemed, at least in certain African and Asian countries, to be associated with levels of male circumcision in the community. In areas where circumcision is common, HIV prevalence tends to be lower; conversely, areas of higher HIV prevalence overlapped with regions where male circumcision is not commonly practiced.

Results of the first randomized clinical trial assessing the protective value of male circumcision against HIV infection, conducted by a team of French and South African researchers in South Africa, were reported in 2005. That trial of more than 3,000 HIV-negative men showed that circumcision reduced the risk of acquiring HIV by 60 percent. The trial was funded by the French Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida (ANRS) (see http://www.anrs.fr/).

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2006/niaid-13.htm

Multiple long term, large sample sized research efforts - BOTH actual trials AND statistical surveys of infection rates among various populations - have shown that circumcision carries substantial anti-HIV benefits.

80   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2013 Sep 18, 6:07am  

Is it really that difficult to get the dude to put on a condom before he jabs his penis into your rectum?

« First        Comments 41 - 80 of 107       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions