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".
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.
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)."
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/).
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.
If I recall correctly they also cured a girl of Leukemia with a genetically modified HIV virus. Unless it mutates significantly to the more virulent side HIV may become a non-issue within a decade or two. In fact they may find more uses to genetically modify it to cure other diseases due to its very interesting properties (e.g. very target selection of cells and controllable pace). Also, a certain percentage of Caucasians are already immune (they can still transmit it though), I don't recall the exact number, but somewhere around 5% I think.
Of course, running around bent over inviting people to stick their dicks in your ass bloody and blasting HIVed spooge all over the broken blood vessels in your ass has nothing to do with AIDS. It's just that gay guys go to the zoo a lot where they are exposed to monkey bites from heroine addicted monkeys with AIDS. More bum blasts for everyone!
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.
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?