Study Says Male Circumcision Cuts (NPI...) AIDS risk by 70%

[Kodiak]

See MSNBC article here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8473838/)

"The study was conducted on more than 3,000 HIV-negative South African men, ages 18 to 24. Half of the men were randomly selected to be circumcised while the other half remained uncircumcised.

After following the men for a year, the researchers found that for every 10 uncircumcised men in the study who became infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, only an estimated three circumcised men contracted the virus, the newspaper reported."




Couldn't the dramatic results be due to those who were circumcised having less sex because of healing, pain, sensitivity, etc...?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Couldn't the dramatic results be due to those who were circumcised having less sex because of healing, pain, sensitivity, etc...?

Not likely. Most circumcised men have no such problems.

A likely explanation is that the "dramatic results" are nonsense.

[neutrino_cannon]

How so? Inquiring minds wish to know.

[bignickel]

Doing studies of this nature, in this region of the world, is, at best, problematic. It would have been just a tad enlightening for a mechanism to be listed.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

I suspect that Lysozyme is the agent that they suspect is destroying the HIV virus; the problem is: why haven't they done a study first to discover whether Lysozyme has any effect whatsoever vs HIV?

Until more data comes in, I'm predicting that this study will go the same way as the infamous 'prayer - fertility' study in the JRM. ie I suspect that the selection was not all that 'random' (intentional or no, I can not say)

EDITED to ADD: I also have a problem with them stopping the study only 1 year into a 3 year study based on the numbers. What if the numbers would have evened out over the 3 years? That's exactly why you can't do 'psychic' experiments with dice, and say "We'll do 50 rolls and look for the same number multiple times" and then stop the experiment prematurely just after someone rolls 6 four times in a row...

[Rolfe]

I recall reading an assertion that cervical cancer is much rarer in Jewish women than in the general population. However, the speculation that this might be due to the fact that their partners were circumcised was challenged, with the alternative explanation that the Jewish community tends to keep itself to itself as it were, and it was equally possible that the prevalence of the Human Papilloma Virus (I think that's the right one) which causes cervical cancer might be very significantly less in that community.

Rolfe.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Someone please confirm. Maybe I have yet to explore new horizons.

[CBL4]

There have been other studies suggesting circumcision reduces the risk of human papillomavirus virus (HPV).
They found HPV in nearly 20% of uncircumcised men, but in fewer than 6% of all circumcised men.
I do not vouch for this study but it was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. If it is true HPV, it reasonable to suggest it would be true for AIDs as well.

This virus apparently increases the risk of women getting cervical cancer which is what Rolfe refers to.

The researchers estimate that a woman's chance of developing cervical cancer was at least 58% lower if their current partner was circumcised, even if the partner had a history of multiple partners.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1921837.stm

CBL

[digitalmcq]

Originally posted by bignickel
Doing studies of this nature, in this region of the world, is, at best, problematic. It would have been just a tad enlightening for a mechanism to be listed.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

I suspect that Lysozyme is the agent that they suspect is destroying the HIV virus; the problem is: why haven't they done a study first to discover whether Lysozyme has any effect whatsoever vs HIV?

Until more data comes in, I'm predicting that this study will go the same way as the infamous 'prayer - fertility' study in the JRM. ie I suspect that the selection was not all that 'random' (intentional or no, I can not say)

EDITED to ADD: I also have a problem with them stopping the study only 1 year into a 3 year study based on the numbers. What if the numbers would have evened out over the 3 years? That's exactly why you can't do 'psychic' experiments with dice, and say "We'll do 50 rolls and look for the same number multiple times" and then stop the experiment prematurely just after someone rolls 6 four times in a row...

Why is it that everyone always assumes that the cause must be biological? There could just as easily be a social reason why they got these results. What groups are getting circumcised and what groups are not?

Different group = Different behaviors/norms = Different risk of infection

[bignickel]

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Was this as random a selection as they are having us believe.

Another thing to consider is that many of these studies come about from pro-circumcision groups. Now, if I was using that as a reason to say 'the studies are thus invalid', then that would be an 'ad hominem' logical error. So, I'm not suggesting that; the study will fail or succeed on it's own accord, once more information about it comes in (just like the infamous Columbia study).

These studies typically are done in Africa, which is pretty problematic, considering all the variables that you'd need to control for. What about the U.S.A.? Lots of circumcised men here, but that didn't seem to stop it's spread all that effectively in the last 30 years.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by digitalmcq
Why is it that everyone always assumes that the cause must be biological? There could just as easily be a social reason why they got these results. What groups are getting circumcised and what groups are not?

Different group = Different behaviors/norms = Different risk of infection

I would be with you on that confounding factor but the article suggests they accounted for it. I think it reports that uncircumcised men were initially the only group, and then a portion of them were circumcised and a portion were not. Then both groups were tracked and the circumcised men faired better.

But this is an extraordinary claim, and as such, requires extraordinary proof.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by bignickel
These studies typically are done in Africa, which is pretty problematic, considering all the variables that you'd need to control for. What about the U.S.A.? Lots of circumcised men here, but that didn't seem to stop it's spread all that effectively in the last 30 years.

Comparitively, something certainly slowed down the spread here. HIV is not that big a deal here -- a tiny deal in fact -- when compared to Africa.

Was it circumcision? I donno but I doubt it unless more studies prove it. Less homosexuality maybe? Less IV drug use? Cleaner sex in general? Cleaner needles?

[casebro]

Maybe parents who care enough about hygiene to get their babys trimmed, also teach the tyksters other good hygiene? Like bathing regularly? Or due to good hygiene habits,they wash after sex? Heh, if my sweat can support a yeast infection, smegma can support__________.

Or maybe it takes another organism to open a path for the virus, though nobody has proven that circumcision prevents anything.

But, doesn't it take years between exposure and sympoms? and is the valse positive rate still higher than the true positive rate? So, is a nine month trial meaningful?....maybe circumcision works 100%, but the subjects were not cut until after exposure?

There is a link in about the 3rd post, it discusses some of the potential problems with studies done in Africa. I'm glad I live in the first world.

[casebro]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Comparitively, something certainly slowed down the spread here. HIV is not that big a deal here -- a tiny deal in fact -- when compared to Africa.

Was it circumcision? I donno but I doubt it unless more studies prove it. Less homosexuality maybe? Less IV drug use? Cleaner sex in general? Cleaner needles?


Maybe so many of the gays died off early the rate declined? I know they changed the definition to raise the rate for one year. Now they are scaring us with the "women have the highest rate of new cases" claim. But I havent yet found what the percentage of the total is women. Methinks it's still predominantly a gay and addicted prostitute disease. If you don't consort with 'those people', you are safe.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by casebro
Maybe so many of the gays died off early the rate declined? I know they changed the definition to raise the rate for one year. Now they are scaring us with the "women have the highest rate of new cases" claim. But I havent yet found what the percentage of the total is women. Methinks it's still predominantly a gay and addicted prostitute disease. If you don't consort with 'those people', you are safe.

Wow. Just... wow.

I know you'd really like to continue you on in this vein, so please: give us more of your wisdom.

1. Who's the 'they' in "they are scaring us"?

2. What evidence exists on why they 'changed the definition'?

3. And best of all, because of information you DON'T have yet (which is easily available on the internet), you've reached a conclusion on who it's safe to 'consort with'?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/women.htm

Bonus question: un-addicted prositutes don't have to worry about AIDS? Since they're having sex with 'non-gay' men? Just trying to make sure I'm following your way of reasoning thru the whole AIDS issue.

[Deetee]

I will have to dig out the papers, but off the top of my head I can confirm that these findings are real, and there is a fairly straightforward biological explanation - no socio-cultural effect is needed.

The uncircumcised penis when erect exposes the mucosa underneath the foreskin and around the glans penis to any potentially infected fluid from the (female) partner. The area involved is considerable - several square cm, and this mucosa is rich in certain types of target macrophages called langerhans cells. These can be directly infected by contact with HIV.

The circumcised penis, in contrast, has lost this area of mucosa completely. For HIV to infect a circumcised male, the virus needs to gain entry via thin, moist mucosa rather than intact, keratinised skin. This means males are infected via the urethral meatus (pee hole) or if any other areas act as a potential site of entry - say if the male has an infection with an STD causing skin ulceration like herpes, syphilis for example.

[pgwenthold]

There is an interesting consequence of this: how many "abstinence only" religious people will use this as a justification to continue the practice of circumcision?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by bignickel
Bonus question: un-addicted prositutes don't have to worry about AIDS? Since they're having sex with 'non-gay' men?

His statement were too broad in some senses, too narrow in others, and sloppy overall. I tend to agree with his overall thesis. The gist of it, if you will.

I wouldn't suggest that "they" (they being various groups government and private) are lying. I'm suggesting they are engaging in the rhetoric they think necessary to accomplish their goals. Some of it is misleading.

Show the curve for the per capita infection rate and growth without resorting to cherry picking groups. If you want to focus on groups, focus on the probability of infection among members of the group and not the 'rate of growth'.

[Bruce]

.................but more importantly, it makes your penis look bigger. ;)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
There is an interesting consequence of this: how many "abstinence only" religious people will use this as a justification to continue the practice of circumcision?

With the exception of Jews, I don't know of a religious group that advocates circumcision. Most everyone else advocates it as a cultural custom. I might be wrong about that so set me straight. What religious groups are you referring to?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
With the exception of Jews, I don't know of a religious group that advocates circumcision. Most everyone else advocates it as a cultural custom. I might be wrong about that so set me straight. What religious groups are you referring to?

1) Why are you excepting the Jews? Are they not a religious group, or are none of them "abstinence only"?

2) I didn't say it was any "religious group". I said it was "abstinense only" religious people. It doesn't matter why they advocate circumcision, only that they do. I am wondering, how many will use this study to justify their support of the practice?

Actually, to amend my (1), I should note that I don't expect Jewish people to be a problem, because they don't stretch for excuses to carry out circumcision. "Our religion says so" may be a stupid reason to me, but at least it's not reaching. "Cultural custom" is merely self-fulfilling prophecy, just an "everyone else does it." "It's healthier", if true, is a legitimate reason to do it, and that includes "It helps prevent the spread of HIV." OTOH, "it helps prevent the spread of HIV" is hypocritical when coming from someone who espouses "abstinence only" birth control.

[TriangleMan]

"The study was conducted on more than 3,000 HIV-negative South African men, ages 18 to 24. Half of the men were randomly selected to be circumcised while the other half remained uncircumcised.
How in the world did they find 1,500 men aged 18 to 24 who would agree to be circumsized? Ouch!

researcher: Excuse me sir, we are conducting a study and we were wondering . . . :D

[AWPrime]

You can chose circumcision, which will cost you a lot of pain and a numb dick but give you less risk for aids.

Or you could chose a condom, and reduce risks (far more) on aids and other bad things, while keeping a whole dick.

The choice isn't so hard now is it?

[Ririon]

Originally posted by TriangleMan
How in the world did they find 1,500 men aged 18 to 24 who would agree to be circumsized? Ouch!

researcher: Excuse me sir, we are conducting a study and we were wondering . . . :D

That's what I was wondering:

researcher: "Excuse me sir, we are conducting a study and we were wondering . . . If you would like to submit to a coinflip, sir. Heads or tails? Remember it's your foreskin on the line."

That is what they would have to do to avoid bias.

If they did the study and only circumsized the volunteers, you can file the report at the nearest recycling center, if you ask me. But people rarely ask me. :(

Ririon

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ririon
That's what I was wondering:

researcher: "Excuse me sir, we are conducting a study and we were wondering . . . If you would like to submit to a coinflip, sir. Heads or tails? Remember it's your foreskin on the line."

That is what they would have to do to avoid bias.

If they did the study and only circumsized the volunteers, you can file the report at the nearest recycling center, if you ask me. But people rarely ask me. :(

Ririon

Good point.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Comparitively, something certainly slowed down the spread here. HIV is not that big a deal here -- a tiny deal in fact -- when compared to Africa.

Was it circumcision? I donno but I doubt it unless more studies prove it. Less homosexuality maybe? Less IV drug use? Cleaner sex in general? Cleaner needles? That's an interesting point.

I remember a "Trivial Pursuits" question - what percentage of the American population is circumcised? I was starting my guessing from a theoretical ceiling of 50%, being as the rest of the population is female. Imagine my surprise when the "right" answer turned out to be 54%! Now, even if all the men are circumcised, I don't believe that 8% of the female population has been caught up in that bizarre African ritual of female "circumcision". I can only assume, though, that the right answer was that 54% of American males are circumcised. Which was a lot more than any of my guesses. So maybe, you have a point there?

Rolfe.

[bignickel]

Probably everyone here already know this, but the references in the media to female 'circumcision' always annoys the hell outta me.

There is no female circumcision: only a cliterodectomy (if some other phrase that accurately describes what's going on in that horrible procedure, you can use that again).

Referring to the removal of a woman's clitoris against her will as 'female circumcision' is like referring to losing a finger as 'treating an ingrown nail'.

[Camillus]

Originally posted by bignickel
Probably everyone here already know this, but the references in the media to female 'circumcision' always annoys the hell outta me.

There is no female circumcision: only a cliterodectomy (if some other phrase that accurately describes what's going on in that horrible procedure, you can use that again).

Referring to the removal of a woman's clitoris against her will as 'female circumcision' is like referring to losing a finger as 'treating an ingrown nail'.

The term that is in common use in the medical community for this procedure is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

Clitoridectomy is the most common version seen (in about 85% of cases) and varies from the removal of the clitoral hood to complete excision of the clitoris.

In the remaining 15% of those subjected to this procedure the clitoris is removed as are the labia minora. The labia majoria are cut and stitched together to form a cover over the vagina. A small hole is left to allow the escape of urine and menstrual blood. This procedure is known as infibulation.

Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm) has an information pack about this practice and a campaign to eradicate it. I believe WHO are also campaigning against it.

In the UK the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 closed a loophole in a 1985 act and made it illegal for "nationals or permanent UK residents to carry out FGM abroad, or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of FGM abroad, even in countries where the practice is legal." It also increased the maximum penatly for being involved in this practice from five to fourteen years.

More importantly attitudes are changing in the immigrant communities in the UK. Women who were themselves subjected to FGM are standing up to their communities and protecting their daughters and younger sisters from being mutilated.

[richardm]

Originally posted by casebro
If you don't consort with 'those people', you are safe.

Unless of course one of the people you sleep with has consorted with one of 'those people'. Or one of the people they've slept with has slept with one of 'those people'. That's contagious diseases for you! When HIV first became an issue in this country back in the 1980s the government put out leaflets that said things like "When you sleep with a person, you're sleeping with everyone they've ever slept with". That's still true now.

I think it's more accurate to say that if you never have sex then you are safe. To think otherwise is risking your own health, and frankly a rather nasty slur on those unfortunate enough to have contracted HIV.

[Darat]

Perhaps a better way to stop the female mutilation being described as "circumcision" would be to refer to these types of procedures simply as "genital mutilation".

[Blue Bubble]

Originally posted by Darat
Perhaps a better way to stop the female mutilation being described as "circumcision" would be to refer to these types of procedures simply as "genital mutilation".

I don't think we should specifically mention female circumcision. To me, all circumcision is genital mutilation.

Circumcision is an outrageous, barbaric, illogical practice that should be made a criminal offence (except in genuine medical circumstances).

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Darat
Perhaps a better way to stop the female mutilation being described as "circumcision" would be to refer to these types of procedures simply as "genital mutilation". Indeed. You'll note that I put the word in inverted commas, because I don't think it's appropriate either. I was just speculating wildly as to how come anyone could state that 54% of the population was circumcised! (Obviously it was just a badly worded question, and they meant to say the male population.)

Rolfe.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by AWPrime
You can chose circumcision, which will cost you a lot of pain and a numb dick but give you less risk for aids.

I was circumcised as an infant, as were most Americans around my age.

I don't know what it would be like if I were not circumcised, but I certainly am not numb.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Blue Bubble
I don't think we should specifically mention female circumcision. To me, all circumcision is genital mutilation.

Circumcision is an outrageous, barbaric, illogical practice that should be made a criminal offence (except in genuine medical circumstances).

That's what I was meaning - why give the male operation a nice socially acceptable word, lets use a term that describes what it is.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I was circumcised as an infant, as were most Americans around my age.

I don't know what it would be like if I were not circumcised, but I certainly am not numb.

Ditto...

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Ditto...

Ditto squared.

[Blue Bubble]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Ditto squared.

Gack... you've been done twice ??

Yuch... :eek:

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Blue Bubble
Gack... you've been done twice ??

Yuch... :eek:

Maybe the guy slipped.:eek:

But it is bound to get less sensation since the procedure removes and eventually kills a lot of nerves.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Maybe the guy slipped.:eek:

But it is bound to get less sensation since the procedure removes and eventually kills a lot of nerves.

But it also removes the tissue that contains those nerve endings. The tissue left behind still has its nerve endings and therefore doesn't have to be numb.

"less sensation" does not necessarly mean "numb." Consider an amputation. If my hand is amputated, it is clear that I will have less sensation overall than if I had a hand, but it does not mean that there will be less sensation in my arm than before. In fact, since I will be using my arm moreso in the absense of a hand, it might be that my arm is getting more sensation than it would otherwise. But it certainly is not numb.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
[B]The tissue left behind still has its nerve endings and therefore doesn't have to be numb.
But without the protection from the foreskin they will get less sensitive.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by AWPrime
But without the protection from the foreskin they will get less sensitive.

So what, we circumcised people can hang around longer in the sack than you uncircumcised premature ejaculators?!?

No big deal, right girls?... ;) :D


:p

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Kodiak
So what, we circumcised people can hang around longer in the sack than you uncircumcised premature ejaculators?!?


Real men can take it.;)