There have been at least a few threads debating the pros and cons of circumcision, and its been argued (amongst other points) whether or not circumcision reduces the risk of contracting STDs. Well, heres a little to add to that:
" Circumcision 'cuts' HIV infection Infected cell Foreskin cells are thought to be more vulnerable to HIV infection Circumcision can cut the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 50%, results from two African trials show.
The findings are so striking, the US National Institutes of Health decided it would be unethical to continue and stopped the trials early.
It supports a previous South African study which reported similar results.
Experts said it was a significant breakthrough but could not replace standard methods of preventing infection such as condoms.
These findings are of great interest to public health policy makers who are developing and implementing comprehensive HIV prevention programmes Dr Elias Zerhouni US National Institutes of Health
The two trials of around 8,000 men took place in Uganda and Kenya were due to finish in July and September 2007 respectively.
But after an interim review of the data by the NIH Data and Safety Monitoring Board decided to halt the trials as it was unethical not to offer circumcision in the men who were acting as controls.
Bleeding less likely
The trial in Kenya found a 53% reduction in new HIV infections in heterosexual men who were circumcised while the Ugandan study reported a drop of 48%.
Men must not consider themselves protected Dr Kevin De Cock World Health Organization
Results last year from a study in 3,280 heterosexual men in South Africa, which was also stopped early, showed a 60% drop in the incidence of new infections in men who had been circumcised.
There are several reasons why circumcision may protect against HIV infection.
Specific cells in the foreskin may be potential targets for HIV infection and also the skin under the foreskin becomes less sensitive and is less likely to bleed reducing risk of infection following circumcision.
When Aids first began to emerge in Africa, researchers noted that men who were circumcised seemed to be less at risk of infection but it was unclear whether this was due to differences in sexual behaviour.
A modelling study done by international Aids experts earlier this year showed that male circumcision could avert about six million HIV infections and three million deaths in sub-Saharan Africa.
A further trial in Uganda to assess the risk of HIV transmission to female partners is due to report in 2008 but the effect among men who have sex with men has not yet been studied.
Implementation
Dr Kevin De Cock, director of the HIV/Aids department of the World Health Organization told the BBC the results were a "significant scientific advance" but were not a magic bullet and would never replace existing prevention strategies.
"We will have to convene a meeting which we hope will happen quite soon to review the data in more detail and have discussions about the implications.
"This is an intervention that must be embedded with all the other interventions and precautions we have. Men must not consider themselves protected. It's a very important intervention to add to our prevention armamentarium."
Dr De Cock said that countries in Africa who wanted to use this approach would still have to decide what age groups to target and there would have to be training and hygienic practices in place.
"This is about as good epidemiological data as we can request. There will be many other research questions about implementation but this is very persuasive."
NIH director Dr Elias Zerhouni said: "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."
Dr Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, co-principal investigator at the University of Nairobi, Kenya said: "The Ministry of Health of the Kenyan government is already holding discussions about how this can be made available. It will need a certain amount of improvement to existing facilities."
But Tom Elkins, Senior Policy Officer at the National AIDS Trust warned: "There is a real danger in sending out a message that circumcision can protect against HIV. This is not the case and could lead to an increase in unprotected sex.
"There is still a long way to go in providing comprehensive prevention programmes in many countries, and resources should go into normalising the use of condoms, which are the most effective method currently available for preventing HIV."
i think it sounds like hogwash, and as you say, condoms > all... But to repeat my inquiry from this summer on this most eminent topic: How do circumsized guys jerk off?
We don't. We concentrate real hard and ejaculate from our ears. The girls have to be extremely skilled in catching that shit because it cums out a strange angle.
On December 13 2006 11:55 WOstick wrote: How do circumsized guys jerk off?
We devise objects of pleasure to wrap around our genitals. Then we go on a quest for gold and silver, give it to the pleasure deity, bark 3 times at the moon, then do a somersault.
..or we do the exact same thing uncircumsized guys do. Rubbing, lots of it.
well considering wearing a condom for an uncircumsized male removes about as much pleasure as being circumsized does, it doesnt really add anything to the debate. as long as we, that being those of us without molested penises, avoid having sex without condom with dirty girls, we're better off no matter what.
That is some wierd-ass bullshit "Foreskin cells are thought to be more vulnerable to HIV infection" ROFLL yeah right, uncircumsized also have that skin sOOOOOO (its not like the foreskin cells are different from the rest of the dicks cells) ?? ? ?? ? ?
so its like playing HIV russian roullete, only circumcised guys get a +50% upgrade of not catching it.... what the fuck?
I really dont see how circumcised guys can avoid HIV... i mean heck if they havent been wearing boxers and wear jeans all day so their penis has the rough hide of an elephants elbow, then yea no shit but im guessing no one IS like that.
but then 50% sounds really really like bs. i mean that makes HIV sound like the cold or something.
I love it when people are like "i want my son to make the choice himself" Which basically means he wont have a choice till after he moves out, which is long after it starts affecting you.
What 13 year old kid is gonna be like "hey mom, i've been thinking about it and i'd like to go get circumsized"
On December 13 2006 13:35 decafchicken wrote: I love it when people are like "i want my son to make the choice himself" Which basically means he wont have a choice till after he moves out, which is long after it starts affecting you.
What 13 year old kid is gonna be like "hey mom, i've been thinking about it and i'd like to go get circumsized"
Who in his right mind would like to get circumsized if he had the choice?
Well even if it does reduce the chances of catching the dirty by a whooping 50% it will still be an epidemic until people start to use condoms, people develop imunnity, someone finds a cure/vaccine for it. Also I saw the "Bullshit!" episode on the matter and wow was the "cutscenes" disturbing.
EDIT: "Dr Kevin De Cock, director of the HIV/Aids department of the World Health Organization" I call shenanigans due to that name. Honestly.
I don't know how accurate the numbers are in the articles but circumcision is DEFINITELY safer in terms of protection against infection etc. That being said, as long as you're careful and clean your dick well regardless of its being circumsized or not, you should be fine. CLEAN YOUR DICK
EPT
