Circumcision cuts HIV infection rate by 50%

mzkhadir

Diamond Member
Mar 6, 2003
9,509
1
76
BBC News

Circumcision 'cuts' 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

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%.

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."


 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
My main question is *why*?

They just say that it reduces risk but not how. Does it change sexual habits? Does it encourage uses of protection?

Is it some external factor that can be changed without circumcision that is somehow caused, as an unintended consquence, by circumcision.

How could foreskin *cause* aids?

Correlation != causation. External independant variables with some type of correlation to the dependant variable does not neccessarily cause the dependant variable to change. There could be other variables that cause the change but isn't taken into account in the study.

Just because the NFC wins the superbowl does not mean the stock market will go down, even though this has been highly correlated.

This is what frustrates me about this situation. If I cut my nose off and look like an ugly moron, then I won't have sex, which dramatically decreases my chances of getting aids. However, does cutting off noses actually directly cause a reduction in aids? No.
 

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,332
249
106
Dr Kevin De Cock, director of the HIV/Aids department of the World Health Organization


Great name. :thumbsup:
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,457
19,926
146
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My main question is *why*?

They just say that it reduces risk but not how. Does it change sexual habits? Does it encourage uses of protection?

Is it some external factor that can be changed without circumcision that is somehow caused, as an unintended consquence, by circumcision.

How could foreskin *cause* aids?

Um, read the article?
 

moshquerade

No Lifer
Nov 1, 2001
61,504
12
56
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My main question is *why*?

They just say that it reduces risk but not how. Does it change sexual habits? Does it encourage uses of protection?

Is it some external factor that can be changed without circumcision that is somehow caused, as an unintended consquence, by circumcision.

How could foreskin *cause* aids?

foreskin keeps the area moist which encourages viral habitation.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My main question is *why*?

They just say that it reduces risk but not how. Does it change sexual habits? Does it encourage uses of protection?

Is it some external factor that can be changed without circumcision that is somehow caused, as an unintended consquence, by circumcision.

How could foreskin *cause* aids?

foreskin keeps the area moist which encourages viral habitation.


So it really doesn't have much to do with the circumcision as much as it has to do with hygeine. To me, this has little to no affect on the decision to circumcize in a modern society.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,457
19,926
146
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My main question is *why*?

They just say that it reduces risk but not how. Does it change sexual habits? Does it encourage uses of protection?

Is it some external factor that can be changed without circumcision that is somehow caused, as an unintended consquence, by circumcision.

How could foreskin *cause* aids?

foreskin keeps the area moist which encourages viral habitation.


So it really doesn't have much to do with the circumcision as much as it has to do with hygeine. To me, this has little to no affect on the decision to circumcize in a modern society.

Sigh...

Would you READ the article???

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.


In female to male infection, there needs to be a direct route to the blood of the male. Uncircumcised men are more prone to "rug burns" on the glans of the penis than circumcised men, thus opening a vector for the virus to be introduced to the blood.
 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My main question is *why*?

They just say that it reduces risk but not how. Does it change sexual habits? Does it encourage uses of protection?

Is it some external factor that can be changed without circumcision that is somehow caused, as an unintended consquence, by circumcision.

How could foreskin *cause* aids?

foreskin keeps the area moist which encourages viral habitation.


So it really doesn't have much to do with the circumcision as much as it has to do with hygeine. To me, this has little to no affect on the decision to circumcize in a modern society.



[lumberg] yea, I'm going to need you to go ahead and read the article this time.[/lumberg]
 

cjchaps

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2000
3,013
1
81
Uncircumsized men may have a higher infection rate but at least they are feeling more!
 

mchammer187

Diamond Member
Nov 26, 2000
9,114
0
76
So if you are going to have unprotected sex with someone that has HIV/AIDs its better if you are circumised

good to know
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My main question is *why*?

They just say that it reduces risk but not how. Does it change sexual habits? Does it encourage uses of protection?

Is it some external factor that can be changed without circumcision that is somehow caused, as an unintended consquence, by circumcision.

How could foreskin *cause* aids?

foreskin keeps the area moist which encourages viral habitation.


So it really doesn't have much to do with the circumcision as much as it has to do with hygeine. To me, this has little to no affect on the decision to circumcize in a modern society.

Sigh...

Would you READ the article???

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.


In female to male infection, there needs to be a direct route to the blood of the male. Uncircumcised men are more prone to "rug burns" on the glans of the penis than circumcised men, thus opening a vector for the virus to be introduced to the blood.
And why are circumcised men at a smaller risk? - because the head of their penis, and the immediate surrounding tissue becomes calloused from constant exposure.

Great - now you can not get aids, but we're going to have to compromise the way your penis feels pleasure (Don't take my word for it - just ask that dude who had his circumcised on these forums - can't remember his name...). I would take my chances and wrap my wang (not that I have a decision: like many, my parents thought it would be better to practice cultural mutilation - lol).
 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Gah! Round 165414651635867496131.4 of the GREAT CIRCUMCISION DEBATE has begun!




I swear, they need to make a circumcision, airplane, .999 = 1 forum.


 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,457
19,926
146
Originally posted by: Ryan
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My main question is *why*?

They just say that it reduces risk but not how. Does it change sexual habits? Does it encourage uses of protection?

Is it some external factor that can be changed without circumcision that is somehow caused, as an unintended consquence, by circumcision.

How could foreskin *cause* aids?

foreskin keeps the area moist which encourages viral habitation.


So it really doesn't have much to do with the circumcision as much as it has to do with hygeine. To me, this has little to no affect on the decision to circumcize in a modern society.

Sigh...

Would you READ the article???

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.


In female to male infection, there needs to be a direct route to the blood of the male. Uncircumcised men are more prone to "rug burns" on the glans of the penis than circumcised men, thus opening a vector for the virus to be introduced to the blood.
And why are circumcised men at a smaller risk? - because the head of their penis, and the immediate surrounding tissue becomes calloused from constant exposure.

Great - not you can not get aids, but we're going to have to compromise the way your penis feels pleasure (Don't take my word for it - just ask that dude who had his circumcised on these forums - can't remember his name...). I would take my chances and wrap my wang.

Fine, go cure the epidemic in Africa with this exciting revelation...

Oh, wait...

And "calloused" is such an activist word. There are no callouses on the head of my circumcised penis.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Ryan
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My main question is *why*?

They just say that it reduces risk but not how. Does it change sexual habits? Does it encourage uses of protection?

Is it some external factor that can be changed without circumcision that is somehow caused, as an unintended consquence, by circumcision.

How could foreskin *cause* aids?

foreskin keeps the area moist which encourages viral habitation.


So it really doesn't have much to do with the circumcision as much as it has to do with hygeine. To me, this has little to no affect on the decision to circumcize in a modern society.

Sigh...

Would you READ the article???

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.


In female to male infection, there needs to be a direct route to the blood of the male. Uncircumcised men are more prone to "rug burns" on the glans of the penis than circumcised men, thus opening a vector for the virus to be introduced to the blood.
And why are circumcised men at a smaller risk? - because the head of their penis, and the immediate surrounding tissue becomes calloused from constant exposure.

Great - not you can not get aids, but we're going to have to compromise the way your penis feels pleasure (Don't take my word for it - just ask that dude who had his circumcised on these forums - can't remember his name...). I would take my chances and wrap my wang.

Fine, go cure the epidemic in Africa with this exciting revelation...

Oh, wait...

And "calloused" is such an activist word. There are no callouses on the head of my circumcised penis.

An activist word? Calloused means a thickening of the skin due to exposure. If your penis is circumcised, there is no doubt that the skin on the head of it is much thicker than that of a man who's penis has not been circumcised.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,457
19,926
146
Originally posted by: Ryan
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Ryan
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: moshquerade
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
My main question is *why*?

They just say that it reduces risk but not how. Does it change sexual habits? Does it encourage uses of protection?

Is it some external factor that can be changed without circumcision that is somehow caused, as an unintended consquence, by circumcision.

How could foreskin *cause* aids?

foreskin keeps the area moist which encourages viral habitation.


So it really doesn't have much to do with the circumcision as much as it has to do with hygeine. To me, this has little to no affect on the decision to circumcize in a modern society.

Sigh...

Would you READ the article???

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.


In female to male infection, there needs to be a direct route to the blood of the male. Uncircumcised men are more prone to "rug burns" on the glans of the penis than circumcised men, thus opening a vector for the virus to be introduced to the blood.
And why are circumcised men at a smaller risk? - because the head of their penis, and the immediate surrounding tissue becomes calloused from constant exposure.

Great - not you can not get aids, but we're going to have to compromise the way your penis feels pleasure (Don't take my word for it - just ask that dude who had his circumcised on these forums - can't remember his name...). I would take my chances and wrap my wang.

Fine, go cure the epidemic in Africa with this exciting revelation...

Oh, wait...

And "calloused" is such an activist word. There are no callouses on the head of my circumcised penis.

An activist word? Calloused means a thickening of the skin due to exposure. If your penis is circumcised, there is no doubt that the skin on the head of it is much thicker than that of a man who's penis has not been circumcised.

That's cool. I still get off when blown. Which brings me to another point (punny, huh?): Women hate going down on slimy uncircumcised men. :p