patrick.net

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

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.

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.

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

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

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".

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.

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

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.

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.

"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

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.

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

Wow, so those crazy Jews had it right all along! :-)

CaptainShuddup says

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

Let's just consider it one of the reasons.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Wanna stop AIDS? Quit begging strangers to stuff their dicks in your ass!

I did lol at this one.

Did the study include a statistically significant sample of skullisexuals?

thunderlips11 says

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

take a cold shower.. yep pretty simple ! no point getting infected or dealing with a pregnancy.

Have your asshole sewn shut...that'll do it on the cheap!

Sperm by itself does not have potential to cure jackshit.
Union of sperm and egg, resulting in human baby, does have potential to cure cancer.
Uncle Dan: FAIL.

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.

freak80 says

Wow, so those crazy Jews had it right all along! :-)

and 2 billion muslims.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

accidentally cured with stem cell treatments.

studies have shown that strangers sticking dicks in your ass is not related to the spread of HIV. Get your facts straight. STOP THE HATE!!!!!!!!

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Wanna stop AIDS? Quit begging strangers to stuff their dicks in your ass!

The real question we must axe here is this:

"How can we reduce the incidence of HIV infection when skullfucking banksters?"

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Wanna stop AIDS? Quit begging strangers to stuff their dicks in your ass!

NEVER!

SoftShell says

Sperm by itself does not have potential to cure jackshit.

Union of sperm and egg, resulting in human baby, does have potential to cure cancer.

Uncle Dan: FAIL.

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.

It turns out that sperm has low levels of vitamins. So I'm sure the vast quantities of sperm you swallow can cure scurvy.

Pure balderdash. Genital mutilation advocacy - why is this needed here? Why don't we remove the brain, most organs and let the body grow in a Matrix-bath. It drastically reduces the risks of dying of cancer, or even exhibiting risky behaviors.

You know maybe just maybe some of these studies need to be examined more closely. I did the research a while back and the pro genital mutilation research was relatively easy to debunk.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Wanna stop AIDS? Quit begging strangers to stuff their dicks in your ass!

This would be more helpful as a mug or refrigerator magnet.

So based on best estimates and statistics to hand (rates of infection in the US, condom use, penile infection incidence), how many genitals have to be sliced up to stop one contraction of HIV? one case of penile cancer? And is that a number which justifies the procedure?

AussieGothamite says

So based on best estimates and statistics to hand (rates of infection in the US, condom use, penile infection incidence), how many genitals have to be sliced up to stop one contraction of HIV? one case of penile cancer? And is that a number which justifies the procedure?

Strange Question. How many needles are poked into asses to cause a decline in polio or smallpox?

Search the thread: The research is growing that exposing the surface of your wang to air cuts down on the dark, warm and often moist environment where bacteria likes to breed and viruses can survive longer out of the body.

It's not a strange question at all. It's a question medicine asks all the time. Is the risk/cost of the treatment worth the benefit? If the risk of vaccine side-effects were bigger than they are, if vaccination were more invasive, they might come to a different result re the contraindication for it. We don't tend to vaccinate against yellow fever in the US or Australia because the risk of contracting it doesn't warrant the financial cost or the risk of possible side effects.

I'm not questioning the mode of protection. I'm asking a standard medical question. And it stands, as yet unanswered.

We're talking about a surgical procedure. What is the quantifiable benefit based on a thousand of these operations? To people in the developed world? Is it this operation the best, safest, most cost effective way to produce that benefit?

AussieGothamite says

We're talking about a surgical procedure. What is the quantifiable benefit based on a thousand of these operations? To people in the developed world? Is it this operation the best, safest, most cost effective way to produce that benefit?

It's in the OP, and elsewhere in the thread.

The best way to avoid STDs is to be a lifelong celibate person, including oral sex (HPV).

I always wonder why circumcision is such a big deal. I believe I read it causes less harm than ear piercings in the USA, which nobody is in a rush to ban.

http://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20120828aap-circumcision.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4277517/

So, indulge me. Based on a thousand operations on first world babies, what's the number of HIV infections fewer than would otherwise have occurred?

It's probably a big deal because it's an elective surgery without a pressing direct and immediate medical benefit. Which the medical community has more or less allowed to be grandfathered in because it's a cultural practice. Most people piercing ears aren't medical professionals, but that's probably another debate we could have.

This is a particularly weird quote, no?

"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine
circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are
sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and
to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It
is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health
benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and
accurate manner.
Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the
best interests of their male child. They will need to weigh medical
information in the context of their own religious, ethical, and
cultural beliefs and practices. The
medical benefits alone may not
outweigh these other considerations
for individual families."

Most strange indeed. What other medical procedures come with such an odd caveat?

AussieGothamite says

Most strange indeed. What other medical procedures come with such an odd caveat?

Ones that aren't as Culturally controversial.

Name two.

I'm not a pediatrician - and I suspect neither are you - but I do know of a few other instances of hemming/hawing on controversial positions of the AAP:

Gun Control and Violence in Media (which encourages Pediatricians to 'discuss' firearms with parents at check ups, but is generally wishy-washy to step around US Cultural Norms)
Female Genital Cutting (where the AAP had previously suggested doctors make a "brief nick" to the clitoris in order to attempt to satisfy the parents and hopefully top them from getting it done in Barbarian Places -- then dropped it later)

The current policy is considered "Pro-Circ" - the old policy was "Neutral". The CDC is solidly Pro, probably because if the recent studies continue to pan out as they have so far, mandatory universal neonatal circumcision would be a public health breakthrough:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf

I note that this Maternal Child Nursing Care texbook comes with warnings about "unscientific" anti-circ sites.

There's been a revolution in Data Science over the past 20 years that's really coming into fruition, which is why all these new studies are coming out showing a host of mild benefits not only to the possessor of the penis, but to public health generally.

Nothing you've yet posted seems to fit this situation particularly well. The nicking was proposed to stop female circumcision, and rejected as an assault on bodily integrity deemed unnecessary (very much unlike the current situation). And so far as I know, the gun violence discussion was never going to suggest that having a gun in the home had "some benefits, but should be considered in light of your cultural beliefs". I'm all in favour of new medical research. I'm not so in favour of mild benefits being held up as justification.

If there were no cultural baggage associated with this practice, there's no way you could get this procedure accepted. The benefits are minor and insufficient studies have been done to ensure they translate across societies with varying hygiene practices. On principle, it wouldn't be approved. But it does have cultural and religious resonance. It would be difficult to unpick that peculiar freedom which has been offered to parents, and I don't think anybody has the interest or the stamina to do it. So this study, and a couple of others which more or less say, "Offers some benefits, probably safe enough when done in a medical setting." will be used to avoid questioning it. I'd question your description as pro-circ. The draft recommendations ride a pretty fine line.

But at least we have an answer:

300 surgeries on child genitals to prevent one case of HIV. (But only one case per 1230 white genitals, according to the report.)

I don't think the acceptability of circumcision is going to change any time soon.
The development of Gardasil, and future advances in penile cancer prevention might once again bring the practice into question, but these are challenges for the future.

I'm sure you'll come up with something.

AussieGothamite says

300 surgeries on child genitals to prevent one case of HIV. (But only one case per 1230 white genitals, according to the report.)

Wow - that's awesome! And reduces the chances and/or spread of HPV, UTIs, Penile Cancer, etc.

Like I said - a host of small benefits.

It's not rocket science - eliminate a dark, warm, often moist pocket of bacterial/viral breeding grounds, reduce the transmission of those bacteria/viruses.

AussieGothamite says

If there were no cultural baggage associated with this practice, there's no way you could get this procedure accepted.

This argument can easily be turned on it's head: Europeans (esp. Non-Anglo) whose cultural identity is predicated on NOT having this procedure are more skeptical than the evidence warrants.

The US and UK performed tens of thousands of adult circumcisions during the North African Campaign and during the Iraq War. Soldiers in warfare can't take daily showers, the nasty dirty dirt gets trapped, and it's health problems galore. An adult circumcision is a much bigger deal, and requires weeks of recovery as opposed to hours for neonatal circumcision. That's soldiers who get taken off the front in the face of the enemy.

AussieGothamite says

If there were no cultural baggage associated with this practice, there's no way you could get this procedure accepted.

I think it should not be covered as other insured have to pay for this. There may be exceptional situations were it could be covered, such as if a kid has a really large foreskin where it definitely would make sense, but that should become obvious later in life, not after birth. Some countries banned it, I think that may be taking it too far as it is vastly different from practices of mutilation of female genitalia, but each country/state should have the right to do so.

AussieGothamite says

The development of Gardasil, and future advances in penile cancer prevention might once again bring the practice into question, but these are challenges for the future.

Gardasil and the role of HPV or herpes viruses are both very controversial, but in any case, as nasty as STDs or other illnesses of the genitalia are, they do not matter much in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of chronical (and fatal) diseases of today are not much influenced by STDs or their respective viruses (if at all). Also preventing early infection with some viruses may even have a net negative effect such as reduced bacterial resistance or increased allergies.

mell says

The vast majority of chronical (and fatal) diseases of today are not much influenced by STDs or their respective viruses (if at all).

Isn't cervical and larynx cancer linked to HPV?

Though I agree with you that Gardasil is controversial. I believe it doesn't protect against some high risk/high frequency types of HPV?

thunderlips11 says

mell says

The vast majority of chronical (and fatal) diseases of today are not much influenced by STDs or their respective viruses (if at all).

Isn't cervical and larynx cancer linked to HPV?

It is. Especially for women it could make sense to vaccinate, but there are many strains and some hpv strains protect against those that are assumed to play a a role in cervical cancer (via competition among strains) and it is hard to quantify any benefit vs risks. I guess now that many have been vaccinated we should see a drop in cervical cancer esp. due to these vaccinations decades from now, my guess is it will be hard to detect, esp. if matched against the success of preventative check-ups. If a woman does routine check-ups, pretty much all of those cases can be avoided as it is fairly easy to detect and fix. Throat and larynx cancer are linked as well, however I have never seen any details with numbers and how they compare against re usual suspects of big risk factors such as smoking etc. I would not vaccinate a daughter at this point, but leave her the choice. I'm not opposed to that vaccine or vaccines in general but that one needs more data, with regards to benefit and risks, just IMO.