Study: circumcision reduces AIDS risk 70%....

[Dr Mordrid]

which is even better than the 30% protection predicted for an AIDS vaccine.

Article....

Some doctors on the scene in Africa reported this years ago, but of course the medical establishment turned their collective noses up on reading their reports

Dr. Mordrid

[J1NG]

Not to bash their efforts. But IMO when word of this gets out to those in the region that there is this 70% greater chance of not getting AIDS, there'll probably be a lot more promiscious activity going on. Especially amoung the men. Which will make this extra 70% a bit trite.

Now note, I'm not saying this WILL be the case. But generally from how people behave when they hear they have this extra immunity (resistance, whatever, chance is better for us, can be seen as immunity of sorts). I mean, lets face it, how many of us after going to the Dentist and hearing everythings OK will go and eat a weeks worth of sweets in less then an hour later?

J1NG

[Dr Mordrid]

Given the rate of AIDS in many parts of the world I didn't think there could be more promiscuous activity than there already is.

Dr. Mordrid

[J1NG]

Given the rate of AIDS in many parts of the world I didn't think there could be more promiscuous activity than there already is.

Dr. Mordrid

Whilst true, the fact that it doesn't seem like it could get any worse, doesn't mean it can't now can it? (Let's face it, some of us have been in the deep end of the crapper, and somehow the sh!t that we ended up facing somehow got worse.)

Also, although common everywhere, in a region where education isn't as thorough as others, the general populace usually gets certain ideas in their heads and stick to that. And what we don't want is people maniupulating the regional populace into believing that cicumcised guys are less likely to carry AIDS and any girl can be freely promiscious with them as they please, so they can get their kicks. Or any other type of similiar maniupulation.

And as we know, a person is clever and intelligent, but a people is dumb and stupid. Once an idea is in their heads, if others have the same view, it's gonna be hard to get it out of their heads.

J1NG

[Sasq]

Where are the full stats? 70% reduced out of what actual primary infection rate?
percentage of total new HIV infections out of both groups.
Other vectors, how many of the men had other std's in each group, were their IV drug users? were all men hetrosexual.

Example, I have a 70% reduced risk of being hit by a bus because I am sitting.

What I haven't told you is I am sitting at my desk on the second floor.

[Gurm]

Of course there are other factors... for example the fact that the Roman Catholic Bishops in Africa are telling their entire parishes that condoms CAUSE AIDS.

Now let's see the correlation on Catholic vs. non-Catholic circumcisions...

My point here is NOT just Catholic-bashing. It's that while the simple data ALWAYS seem to support the "circumcision is healthier" argument, it isn't always so cut and dried.

But the simple EMPIRICAL data ALWAYS supports circumcision.

[Dr Mordrid]

In most of Africa the infection rate from non-sexual contact is very low...lower than in most developed countries. In fact the vast majority of infections are from heterosexual contact.

The reduced rate is because their are tissues on the inside of the foreskin that let in pathogens so as to let the immune system develop immunity to them. In most cases this strategy works, but as we all know with AIDS this is definitely the wrong thing to do. By removing the foreskin, and with it these tissues, much of the risk goes with them.

The vast majority of the remaining risk from sexual contact now are HIV viruses that enter through the urethra, minor abraisions on the glans and/or the shaft of the penis or by way of anal intromission.

Gurm:

Why did I just KNOW that you'd bash Catholics or Christians in some form or another?

Please do your homework. The fact is that far more Africans have been told by their shamen and elders that HIV is caused by witchcraft than anything the Catholics may or may not have done.

Thank God education in places like Uganda and Senegal has changed this and now their rates are dropping. Unfortunately a lot of this reduction is because hundred of thousands of previously infected pershos have died, but even so other indicators show great advances among the young and other groups.

As for your circumcision arguement:

I might agree with you if the discussion were about any other environment but those parts of the world where HIV is running rampant. In some of those locales the infection rate has been as high as 50% of the adult populating.

In those environments the risk from HIV infection is therefore far greater than any negatives iimposed by circumcision.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

This is an old belief that bears no statistical relevance, in reality. If you Google AIDS circumcision, you will find zillions of responses, some like this, others taking exactly the opposite view. In fact, there is one glaring item missing from the article: the fact that the majority of Africans ARE circumcised, if not in infancy, then as a rite of passage into adulthood. I briefly tried to get statistics but found nothing reliable, but it would seem that the figure is about 60% ± 15%, synthesising from several sites. Interestingly, most of the tribes from Kenya to Zimbabwe practise it, although Zulus in S. Africa don't (other S. African tribes do: one estimate for S. Africa, as a whole, black, white and coloured populations together, is 70 - 80%).

This would seem to belie the theory. Anyway, I'm damned if I would rely on circumcision as a means of propylaxis.

[Kurt]

BS study, wasted money.

If you want to get better odds against AIDS, just try to be born caucasian and blond.

[UtwigMU]

Circumcision = genital mutilation practiced by backwards religions. I only support circumcision in cases when the skin cannot be retracted.

[Sasq]

I disagree Utwig, there are many locations on earth, where it is a viable option, in specific tropical places, where hygene is difficult enough as it is.

[Kurt]

ppl do what they want with their d*cks. it's not nearly as bad as what they do to girls. in fact, there isn't much against it, except the conditions in which it is performed at times.

[UtwigMU]

So you think there isn't much agianst cutting the clitoris of from girls?

Also there are cases of girl circumcisionin EU !! among certain groups (Africa, Middle East).

[Kurt]

of course I'm against:

it's not nearly as bad as what they do to girls.

never heard of girl circumcision, so that's news (just found out it was a muslim practice). I was thinking more about clitoris excision (clitoris removal).

[Gurm]

"Female Circumcision" almost NEVER refers to trimming of skin, and almost ALWAYS refers to removal of the clitoris - which is clearly "female genital mutilation" and not circumcision.

Circumcision is still practiced by an overwhelming majority of the USA, regardless of religious affiliation. Doctors are still split on its benefits. Whether or not you think it's barbaric, it is a religious requirement for both Jew and Muslim alike... and those of us that have been have no real complaint about functionality afterwards.