• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Circumcision reduces HIV infection sevenfold

K

Kenazo

Lifer
Interesting... From the Jerusalem Post of all places.
Circumcision reduces by sevenfold the incidence of infection with the HIV virus, according to new research to be published this week in Uruguay, Dr. Yinon Shenkar informed the Knesset Committee for the Advancement of the Status of Women on Monday.

Shenkar warned, however, that Israel should not be complacent about risks of AIDS as a result of the research, noting that a certain percentage of new immigrants are not circumcised and do not undergo the procedure
Click to expand...

The article is much longer, and you have to register (free) to read it, so I added the highlites. Time for everyone to nip the tip.
 
No thanks.

This is a poor reason to support circumcision, IMO.

Education is the key.

It is interesting none the less, though. The foreskin must offer protection for the virus, until it can make its way inside you...
 
That wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with economic conditions would it? It just so happens that third world countries (mainly Africa) do not practice circumcision as much and they are plagued with AIDS. The correlation is definately not because of circumcision.

 
Originally posted by: edro13
That wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with economic conditions would it? It just so happens that third world countries (mainly Africa) do not practice circumcision as much and they are plagued with AIDS. The correlation is definately not because of circumcision.
Click to expand...
This is the media we're talking about. They wouldn't understand causality if I beat them to within an inch of their life with a causality stick.

That article won't load, and I sure as sh*t ain't joining the J post. I'd hope they were not simply watching correlational patterns but had instead done a proper scientific study. Heck, perhaps people without circumcized penises can't get laid 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Neat, but you know what decreases it to an infinite amount? Not putting your dick where it shouldn't go.
Click to expand...

You win post of the day award. Couple that with the worthless bump of the day award(longhorn) and you come out even 😉
 
Originally posted by: edro13
That wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with economic conditions would it? It just so happens that third world countries (mainly Africa) do not practice circumcision as much and they are plagued with AIDS. The correlation is definately not because of circumcision.
Click to expand...

No clue, the results of the study were given, not the methods to the results. It does come from the Jerusalem Post, so I'm sure they would never say it's better not to be circumcised. 🙂

The problem in africa is that there are way to many multi-partner sexual relationships taking place, which compounds the spread of aids. If one man is having sex with 20 different women in a year, it wouldn't take long to spread aids throughout the continent. Perhaps the study was stating that of these men, the ones that are circumcised, but follow the same sexual habits are 7x less likely to have an HIV infection.
 
I call BS on this one. Exposure of direct tissue to me would seem to support HIV infection more than deter it.
 
Originally posted by: SunnyD
I call BS on this one. Exposure of direct tissue to me would seem to support HIV infection more than deter it.
Click to expand...

So when an uncircumsized erect penis is inserted into the vagina, the foreskin is permanently sealed around the head? 😕

It is easier for HIV to transfer between microtears in membranes. When the foreskin is removed, the usually moist membrane like part of the shaft dries up and the head becomes more leather-like. It makes logical sense to me. 😛
 
I call BS on this one. Exposure of direct tissue to me would seem to support HIV infection more than deter it.
Click to expand...

The chance of men getting aids from a woman is a lot lower than the chance of a woman getting aids from a man. I read an article once about a married couple, she had aids and didn't know it until about 4 years into the marriage (she had contacted it before she got married). Turns out they'd been having unprotected sex the whole time, and he never picked it up.
The reason women get it from men so much more often is b/c the fluids are kind of deposited inside of her, are trapped there, thus giving the aids virus a lot more time to do its thing. Where as for men, there needs to be small tears, or the fluid needs to be going up the penis. If you are uncircumcised, the fluid and the virus will be trapped (unless perhaps you disenfect within seconds of having sex), thus giving the virus much more time to find an opening.
 
There is some scientific basis for this, it is sort of what SagaLore said, however there is no doubt that there are other mitigating circumstances rolled into that statistic presented.

Presentation of statistics like this is such crap, it is just looking for a headline and sensationalism. You can just as easily say there is a very strong correlation between shoe size and IQ. The reason? Adults have larger feet and higher IQ's than children, for the most part. Shoe size has nothing to do with intelligence, it is age and experience/learning, however the correlation is correct, but inferring that shoe size causes higher intelligence is not.
 
another article on the topic

Reading this article, they seem to think there is a scientific basis for the decreased chances, among circumcised men, but it is in countries where low higene is the norm. I'm assuming that is b/c the aids virus is trapped between the foreskin and the glans for a longer period of time. He says in this article that in 1st world countries there is little correlation between circumcision and lower chances of getting aids, or at least that's what i understand the article to say.
 
My trick works the best, whenever I pick up male protitutes in Haiti I super glue my winkie hole shut and then just dip it in nail polish remover afterword. No muss, no fuss.
 
Originally posted by: Kenazo
another article on the topic

Reading this article, they seem to think there is a scientific basis for the decreased chances, among circumcised men, but it is in countries where low higene is the norm. I'm assuming that is b/c the aids virus is trapped between the foreskin and the glans for a longer period of time. He says in this article that in 1st world countries there is little correlation between circumcision and lower chances of getting aids, or at least that's what i understand the article to say.
Click to expand...
Another benefit of circumcision is to avoid getting SMEGMA.

 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Kenazo
another article on the topic

Reading this article, they seem to think there is a scientific basis for the decreased chances, among circumcised men, but it is in countries where low higene is the norm. I'm assuming that is b/c the aids virus is trapped between the foreskin and the glans for a longer period of time. He says in this article that in 1st world countries there is little correlation between circumcision and lower chances of getting aids, or at least that's what i understand the article to say.
Click to expand...
Another benefit of circumcision is to avoid getting SMEGMA.
Click to expand...

Whichever doctor came up with that word must have had a sense of humor. SMEGMA.. ha haa.
 
Originally posted by: ChurchOfSubgenius
My trick works the best, whenever I pick up male protitutes in Haiti I super glue my winkie hole shut and then just dip it in nail polish remover afterword. No muss, no fuss.
Click to expand...

:Q
 
Originally posted by: ChurchOfSubgenius
My trick works the best, whenever I pick up male protitutes in Haiti I super glue my winkie hole shut and then just dip it in nail polish remover afterword. No muss, no fuss.
Click to expand...

😕
 
It may be true that being circumcised, you are less apt to spread the virus. But unless you were circumcised at birth, why would anyone want to do it to themselves? It would make a lot more sense to practice safe sex using birth control, or just keeping yourself out of where you shouldn't belong.
 
Originally posted by: Kenazo
another article on the topic

Reading this article, they seem to think there is a scientific basis for the decreased chances, among circumcised men, but it is in countries where low higene is the norm. I'm assuming that is b/c the aids virus is trapped between the foreskin and the glans for a longer period of time. He says in this article that in 1st world countries there is little correlation between circumcision and lower chances of getting aids, or at least that's what i understand the article to say.
Click to expand...
A reader comment (not mine) appearing below the article destroys the position of Dr. Grulich:
Submitted 10/11/2003 9:29:33 AM

Below are critical comments from AIDS expert Dr Daniel Halperin on errors in recent article about foreskin as source of HIV infection during sexual intercourse (Dr Grulich's flawed commentary on recent research findings and the work of Prof Roger Short).

Dr Halperin is a leading researcher with USAID in Washington, DC, USA. Dr Halperin writes: There are a couple studies from the US showing increased risk of HIV infection in non-circumcised men. One was a prospective study in NY City among mainly heterosexuals, and there are three studies among gay men as well...

Also, one of Grulich's statements is incredibly inaccurate: "...one of the countries with the highest rates of circumcision in the world, the USA, has one of the highest rates of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the world." That is rather bizarre beyond belief. The large majority of HIV infection in the US is from needle sharing and anal sex among MSM.

Nearly all the heterosexual transmission that does exist (which is vastly lower level than in Africa) is male to female (i.e., some of the female partners of drug using or bisexual men are eventually infected as well...) This was discussed by Dr Bob Bailey (Chicago) and I in two paragraphs in the Lancet (http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?doc=2098.4613#cor):

Although he is incorrect in his assertion that North America has "one of the highest" HIV rates in the world (many of the Asian and all of the African countries cited in our article have much higher HIV rates than the 0·76% rate in the US), he is correct to point out that there are higher HIV rates in North America than in most European countries. It is important to recognize that in North America and Europe most HIV infections occur through receptive anal sex and injecting drug use, not through heterosexual transmission...

Lack of male circumcision is expected to contribute most to female-to-male HIV transmission, which is responsible for a very small proportion of infections in Europe and North America. Remarkably, there is consistent evidence that female-to-male HIV transmission, compared with male-to-female transmission, is much higher in Europe than in the USA, just as expected given the greater prevalence of uncircumcised men on that continent.

Data from the European Multicenter Partners Study and comparable research from the USA suggest that the ratio of female-to-male transmission (compared with male to female transmission) is about 10 fold higher in Europe. Although other factors may also be at work, lack of male circumcision is a logical co-factor accounting for such large differences in infectivity."
Click to expand...
Though I would agree with Dr. Lovney's statement that circumcised males should not rely upon protection from circumcision to prevent contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. That would be foolish.
 
I bet you not having sex at all will dramtically increase your chances of not being infected with aids.
 
Originally posted by: edro13
That wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with economic conditions would it? It just so happens that third world countries (mainly Africa) do not practice circumcision as much and they are plagued with AIDS. The correlation is definately not because of circumcision.
Click to expand...
Hmm....
Male Circumcision and HIV Infection: 10 Years and Counting

Daniel T. Halperin, Robert C. Bailey.
The Lancet, 354 (9192): pp. 1813-15.

March 11, 2000

A decade has passed since publication of Cameron and colleagues' prospective study that showed a greater than eight-fold increased risk of HIV-1 infection for uncircumcised men....We argue that since Cameron and colleagues' landmark study, the epidemiological and biological evidence that links lack of circumcision with HIV transmission has become compelling and that lack of male circumcision is one of the main causes of many regional discrepancies in rates of HIV infection.

[....]

Of 38 cross-sectional studies, 27 from eight countries found a significant association between lack of male circumcision and HIV infection, five found a trend towards an association, five found no association, and one reported an increased risk of infection in men who had been circumcised.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top