Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Health and Safety



Message

somethndif -> Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/17/2007 9:31:42 AM)

I have seen other threads discussing the pros and cons of male circumcision.   Recent studies show that circumcised men significantly reduce their chances of contracting the HIV virus and, of course, AIDS.
 
I think this is important information.  Here is the first paragraph from a news report and the link to the full story.

Policy Updates - December 2006

National Institutes of Health Halts Two Studies on Male Circumcision and HIV
On Wednesday, December 13, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was stopping two clinical trials in Kenya and Uganda examining potential protective effects of male circumcision against HIV infection.1  According to data released by NIH, male circumcision was found to reduce a man’s risk of acquiring HIV by up to 50%.  Over 6,000 previously uncircumcised men ages 15–49 from Uganda and Kenya were enrolled in the study; half of the participants were randomly assigned to be circumcised and the other half acted as a control group, remaining uncircumcised.  The results of the study were so significant that researchers halted the study early and offered circumcision to all participants.
 
http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/pdate0297.html

Dan



justheather -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/17/2007 9:48:20 AM)

So does using a condom.
So does knowing the HIV status of your partner(s).
So does not using IV drugs or sharing needles with others.

Im certainly not against circumcision. I just dont approve of routinely cutting off parts of an infant's body without his consent.

And let's not forget that plenty of circumcised males are HIV+.
To encourage people to rely on circumcision as a method of prevention would be foolish.



somethndif -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/17/2007 10:01:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: justheather

So does using a condom.
So does knowing the HIV status of your partner(s).
So does not using IV drugs or sharing needles with others.

Im certainly not against circumcision. I just dont approve of routinely cutting off parts of an infant's body without his consent.

And let's not forget that plenty of circumcised males are HIV+.
To encourage people to rely on circumcision as a method of prevention would be foolish.


No one is saying to rely solely on circumcision.  Did you even read the full report? 

It would be foolish to ignore these studies and the fact that circumcision significantly reduces the risk of contracting HIV as well.  The science seems to be very clear.  So clear that the studies were stopped before they were completed and the uncircumcised men were offered circumcision, because it would have been unethical to continue the studies and not offer them the option of circumcision.

As for your point about infants not being able to consent, we vaccinate infants and children all the time to prevent diseases, without asking for their consent.

As but one example, I am going to have my daughter vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, and I am not going to ask her if she consents.  It is the right thing to do.

Dan



aviinterra -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/17/2007 12:41:23 PM)

quote:

No one is saying to rely solely on circumcision


No, nobody is, but that is how a great deal of people will see it. I would not be surprised if men in Africa got circumcised just to prove that they are "safe". These findings could be dangerous when interpreted incorrectly.

quote:

  As but one example, I am going to have my daughter vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, and I am not going to ask her if she consents.  It is the right thing to do.


Sorry, I know this is off topic but there have been instances of vaccines that have gone bad after a few years of actual use. I think I would be on the safe side and wait, she can always get vaccinated, but potentially still unknown side effects could ruin her life. This way you could be sure it is truly safe ( what works in a rat does not always in a human ) and she could later consent to what she wants in her body. Just my opinion. 



somethndif -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/17/2007 4:01:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: aviinterra

quote:

No one is saying to rely solely on circumcision


No, nobody is, but that is how a great deal of people will see it. I would not be surprised if men in Africa got circumcised just to prove that they are "safe". These findings could be dangerous when interpreted incorrectly.

quote:

  As but one example, I am going to have my daughter vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, and I am not going to ask her if she consents.  It is the right thing to do.


Sorry, I know this is off topic but there have been instances of vaccines that have gone bad after a few years of actual use. I think I would be on the safe side and wait, she can always get vaccinated, but potentially still unknown side effects could ruin her life. This way you could be sure it is truly safe ( what works in a rat does not always in a human ) and she could later consent to what she wants in her body. Just my opinion. 


OH, PLEEZE . . . So, we should ignore what appears to be a verified method of reducing the spread of HIV??  Are you really serious? 

As for the HPV vaccine, the vaccine has been shown to be most effective, if given in early adolescence, around the age of 13.  That is why it has not yet been approved for women over the age of 26. 

Look, you can ignore this information if you choose to, but on these two issues, the evidence appears to be quite strong.

Dan



justheather -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/17/2007 4:55:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: somethndif

No one is saying to rely solely on circumcision.  Did you even read the full report? 


Where did I say that the report said that they were advocating relying solely on circumcision? What I said was that it would be foolish to do so, period.

When an infant is vaccinated, a fully functional, healthy part of her body is not being removed.




Rule -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/17/2007 7:09:51 PM)

So what? I am opposed to any mutilation of the human body, to any defacement of the temple the Creator gave us to house our minds and souls. Any who do are sworn to Satan.
 
Do not cheat, do abstain, or do use a condom.



aviinterra -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/18/2007 5:28:37 AM)

No, we should not ignore this information, but it should not be misused and misinterpreted either. Condoms are frankly the easiest and cheapest answer, and genital mutitilation seems like an extreme method if your child or the individual has so many other options.
As for HPV- every wonder the exact cause of why it has not been approved for women over the age of 26? Did you read the statistics for juvenille arthritis that are associated with this vaccine, or about the fact that Merck Co. studied the human subjects for a total of 14 days after administrations for adverse reactions - a small number of which came down with PID? That, and the fact remains, quoted directly from the company : " The duration of immunity following a complete schedual of immunization has not been established. " For these few reasons, while small in percentage and risk, I would still err on the side of caution and wait at least three years. As I said before, this is solely my opinion.



somethndif -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/18/2007 7:07:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

So what? I am opposed to any mutilation of the human body, to any defacement of the temple the Creator gave us to house our minds and souls. Any who do are sworn to Satan.


Satan, huh? *rolling eyes*

So, I suppose that those who have piercings or tatoos are "sworn to Satan." And of course any plastic surgery, even to correct cleft palates or other birth defects dooms that person to be "sworn to Satan." How dare those people deface the "temple the Creator gave us."

Dan



NightWindWhisper -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/18/2007 7:20:21 PM)

My understanding is that there are no particular adverse effects after age 26.  One set of the clinical trials were performend at DHMC.org in Lebanon, NH.  The seropositivity was impressive, and adverse effects seemigly non-existant.  I have not heard of PID as a side effect, usually PID is related to Chlamydia.  One obvious reason is that of the four of the ~50 strains are carcinogenic.  Once a woman has contracted one or two or four, the vaccine is useless.  CDC says:

"Why is the HPV vaccine only recommended for girls/women ages 9 to 26?
The vaccine has been widely tested in 9-to-26 year-old girls/women. But research on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy has only recently begun with women older than 26 years of age. The FDA will consider licensing the vaccine for these women when there is research to show that it is safe and effective for them."

What is not commonly known is that if a woman has contracted any of the virulent carcinogenic variants the absence of smoking will virtually protect them from cellular mutation towards cancer.  Additionally often women who either abstain, or have only one partner become immune (virus free).   But considering that if you took a random sampling from the average sexually active college student, over 60% will be infected with one or more strains.

As far as Circumcision and HIV--most Americans cannot fathom the cultural acceptability of promiscuous sex in Africa.  I rememember one poor co-worker who workend in the Peace Corps in Africa say to me: "They weren't whores, they just enjoyed receiving gifts."  He turned a bit white when I mentioned that the gift of a $30 dollar dress in Ghana could be sold for more than a man's annual wage.  This fellow had many, many "friends with benefits."  I would be surprised if he is HIV free today.




BalletBob -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/21/2007 7:07:48 PM)

I agree with Justheather. It would be very ignorant to just rely on Circumcision to prevent aids. That's like using a Filter on your Cigarettes, to stop Lung Cancer, when all you have to do, it quit all together. I am not getting my Little One snipped for anyone, or anything, and can't see anyone else doing it either.

Safe Sex or NO SEX ! It's that easy.




LadyEllen -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/22/2007 1:46:23 AM)

Anyone would think there was a confusion here between circumcision and penile castration.

And Rule - we usually see eye to eye on stuff, but Satan!?

Do you mean to say that Jews and Muslims (who both practise circumcision routinely) all belong to Satan?

E



Rule -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/22/2007 2:33:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
And Rule - we usually see eye to eye on stuff, but Satan!?
I was charging a bit to get through the thick skulls of religious nuts, LE - but not much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Do you mean to say that Jews and Muslims (who both practise circumcision routinely) all belong to Satan?
Quite. Ironical, isn't it, as those religions claim to oppose Satan - and they do, but unfortunately they have also been corrupted.
 
Actually, circumcision does in fact decrease the risk of bacterial and viral sexually transmitted diseases and thus does obstruct Satan, but the theory of evolution predicts that this strategy is self-defeating. Evolution is all about reproduction and therefore sexual intercourse. When one does mutilate genitals to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, one is messing about in a major way with the evolution of the affected subpopulation. I dedicated a chapter to this in the book I am writing about the cause of most chronic diseases. (After not working on it for more than a year I have started work on it again today. Hurrah!)
 
Counterintuitive as it will seem, sexually transmitted diseases in fact do benefit populations. It is  tough for the people who suffer and die because of it, but the process of evolution is harsh sometimes.
 
As for Satan: world mythology is one of my areas of special interest. I undoubtedly know more about mythology than anybody else.



onestandingstill -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/22/2007 1:40:08 PM)

Hi My Good Friend  Sir somethndif,
I wonder if it's because the infected fluid in a woman's vagina would collect in the foreskin thus exposing them to the disease longer or if it's they do not have adequate bathing avialability thus causing open sores due to not keeping their foreskin clean that transmit it better into their blood.
Here in the US Health Deaprtment they say 100 men can have sex one time with a woman with aids and only 1-2 of them will catch it vs 100 women sleeping with a man that has aids causes about 70 or more to contract it.
Hmmmm interesting they don't mention why they think this is an aids prevention tool, just the results.
As usual you've got me thinking[8|][:D][8D].
Tell Ms. Ariel I said Hi and I can't wait to see you guys soon,
suzanne



BalletBob -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/25/2007 4:50:13 PM)

Hi Outstanding. Can I be your good friend too?  ha ha ha

Take care and ALWAYS HAVE FUN, Sub BalletBob



DiurnalVampire -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/25/2007 5:12:18 PM)

Funny, I didnt this sounds like a proven method for decreasing the spread of AIDS.  It sounds more like a disaster waiting to happen, if people were to think that circumcision were a safety precaution and go by that alone. After all, a 50% decrease is a very sizable decrease, but that stil leaves a 50% chance that you will STILL get it. Unfortunately, there
are way more people out there who will selectively hear the news, throw caution to the wind and probably wind up risking themselves and others before tey are straightened out.

I am still boggling over the body mods are sworn to satan.  I never knew earrings were such desicration... but ok.

DV



GrizzlyBear -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/25/2007 5:28:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: somethndif

  Over 6,000 previously uncircumcised men ages 15–49 from Uganda and Kenya were enrolled in the study; half of the participants were randomly assigned to be circumcised and the other half acted as a control group, remaining uncircumcised. 


I want to know how they talked 3000 men into getting circumcised...



Rule -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/25/2007 6:54:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DiurnalVampire
I am still boggling over the body mods are sworn to satan.  I never knew earrings were such desicration... but ok.

As I said: I was charging a bit. I specifically had in mind genital mutilation.
Other mutilations I do not approve of either, but I am more tolerant of those. Then also, of course, there is reconstructive surgery. I am tolerant of those as well.



onestandingstill -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/25/2007 7:55:53 PM)





Hey Ballet Bob,
Hell, not only are you my good friend, you're my bro sub buddy.
FFL,
suzanne



quote:

ORIGINAL: BalletBob

Hi Outstanding. Can I be your good friend too?  ha ha ha

Take care and ALWAYS HAVE FUN, Sub BalletBob



LeatherRose -> RE: Male circumcision reduces risk of HIV (1/30/2007 8:45:32 PM)

In regards to the OP and Rule:  You can always find reports to justify your position.  In turn I could find reports on how NOT being circumcised is actually more healthy by not exposing the head of the penis to bacteria, yeast, etc., i.e. the hood provides protection.
 
And for the record I did do my research when making a decision for my oldest son.  I look at it like abortion, it's his body if he wants to do it when he is an adult that is up to him.
 
LR, proud mom of 2 boys uncut
 



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.265625