Circumcision reduces HIV infection sevenfold

[Alex]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Neat, but you know what decreases it to an infinite amount? Not putting your dick where it shouldn't go.

or if you must at least be safe 😉

 

[GasX]

I always believe vague references to research done in Uruguay that I read on the internet...

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Wtf? How can circumcision reduce risk of HIV? I'd like to keep all of my penis kthx.

 

[BullsOnParade]

Yeah i used to think the foreskin offered more protection, however its susceptibility to microtears and the fact that it only increases the area that can be infected make it a greater risk. The skin types of the glans and under foreskin are different, the glans is more hearty and less permeable, and thus less susceptible to infection. The idea has been that the foreskin poses a greater risk of infection and the benefit of its removal out weighs the pros of keeping it.

personally, teaching good hygine and instilling the risks of unprotected sex should be enough. and with regard to sex, its a lot of sensitivity to loose.

 

[xirtam]

Circumcision reduces by sevenfold the incidence of infection with the HIV virus

Reduces the incidence. Right. Doesn't mean you're less susceptible to contracting HIV if you lose your foreskin.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: BullsOnParade
Yeah i used to think the foreskin offered more protection, however its susceptibility to microtears and the fact that it only increases the area that can be infected make it a greater risk. The skin types of the glans and under foreskin are different, the glans is more hearty and less permeable, and thus less susceptible to infection. The idea has been that the foreskin poses a greater risk of infection and the benefit of its removal out weighs the pros of keeping it.

personally, teaching good hygine and instilling the risks of unprotected sex should be enough. and with regard to sex, its a lot of sensitivity to loose.

Americans seem to be susceptible to myths.. And they perpetuate the circumcision practice for no real reason.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: BullsOnParade
Yeah i used to think the foreskin offered more protection, however its susceptibility to microtears and the fact that it only increases the area that can be infected make it a greater risk. The skin types of the glans and under foreskin are different, the glans is more hearty and less permeable, and thus less susceptible to infection. The idea has been that the foreskin poses a greater risk of infection and the benefit of its removal out weighs the pros of keeping it.

personally, teaching good hygine and instilling the risks of unprotected sex should be enough. and with regard to sex, its a lot of sensitivity to loose.

While those are certainly factors that contribute to higher susceptibility for STDs and infections among uncircumsized men, including a higher risk to women of HPV transmission, it has also been found that the mucosal foreskin is relatively dense with epithelial Langerhans cells. Langerhans cells are known to express an abundance of primary HIV receptors and is believed to be the most likely 'first contact' cell in mucosal HIV transmission.

While hygiene can only be a good thing, you can't 'wash off' HIV that has already bound to a highly vulnerable target cell residing one cell-layer deep. It is thought that, if Langerhans is a primary target cell in mucosal HIV transmission, it might already be too late to 'wash'.

 

[tcsenter]

Reduces the incidence. Right. Doesn't mean you're less susceptible to contracting HIV if you lose your foreskin.

Errr...that's exactly what it means. If a study found that wearing a helmet reduced the incidence of bicycle-related head injuries, provided this finding was sound, it means the risk of suffering a head injury in a bicycle accident is reduced by wearing a helmet.

That is not to say a helmet affords enough protection to permit recklessly darting across a busy street with no risk of injury. Similarly, it would be foolish for circumcised men to believe circumcision alone affords them enough protection from HIV that they don't have to take other precautions.

Americans seem to be susceptible to myths.. And they perpetuate the circumcision practice for no real reason.

The potential health advantages of circumcision are beyond dispute and supported by a mountain of evidence with little (I will refrain from saying none only out of politeness) credible evidence to the contrary. The debate among objective medical authorities has not been whether circumcision has any benefits, but whether the potential benefits are considerable enough to justify the potential risks of routine prophylactic circumcision.

While the debate was temporarily derailed by the most bizarre rise of anti-circumcision zealotry, whose inflammatory rhetoric seemed rooted as much in hatred of the United States, Western society, or Christianity than any thing else, the anti-circ extremists have largely petered-out (pun intended) and lost all credibility. The evidence in support of circumcision continues to mount, except now many medical authorities are having to reconsider the previous belief that the benefits of circumcision are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. It may actually save millions of lives.

I guess the pot really is calling the kettle susceptible to myths here. Funny, that.

 

[Argo]

Sweet! I'm curcumcised. I'm gonna go and get me a hooker.

 

[ineedacomputer]

In my opinion you should change your title becuase that is not a fact.
i think you are wrong
ways of getting the disease is not wearing a condom .
does not matter Circumcision or no Circumcision dont wear protection your in very high risk

 

[BullsOnParade]

tcsenter, thanks for that wealth of information. i was merely wagering that foreskin cells were some different type of epithelium from the glans and were at greater risk for infection in general. The bit about the the increased localization of Langerhan's cells and their propensity for binding HIV is intersting to note. Also the fact that a lot of the anti-circumcision campaign going around isn't the result of any medical information rather some all together bogus socially motivated nonsense is distrubing. I think certainly from a public health standpoint advocating circumcision in light of but certainly not on the sole basis of the AIDS epidemic is warranted. i thought that the marginal benefits were cause for its falling out of advocacy by medical professionals coupled with better public awareness and education perhaps, and not some public dis-information, glad to know that now.

and about washing up your willy and some sex ed being the cure-all for HIV, i hope i didn't make it sound like that, i meant that as a counter to the usual argument for circumcision, HIV notwithstanding.