Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men

[The Spartan]

Link

Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men
Removing foreskin no protection for American men of color, study finds
Reuters
updated 8:58 a.m. CT, Tues., Dec. 4, 2007
WASHINGTON - Circumcision may reduce a man's risk of infection with the AIDS virus by up to 60 percent if he is an African, but it does not appear to help American men of color, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.

Black and Latino men were just as likely to become infected with the AIDS virus whether they were circumcised or not, Greg Millett of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

"We also found no protective benefit for a subset of black MSM (men who have sex with men) who also had recent sex with female partners," Millett told reporters in a telephone briefing.

Doctors believe circumcision protects men because of specialized cells in the foreskin of the penis, which is removed in the procedure. The foreskin is filled with immune cells called Langerhans cells, which are the immune system's sentinels and attach easily to viruses — including HIV.

In addition, sexual intercourse may cause tiny tears in the foreskin, allowing the virus into the bloodstream.

The data has been so clear that the World Health Organization now recommends circumcision as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection. But circumcision does not protect men 100 percent — the studies in Africa have suggested it is 50 to 60 percent protective.

Millett's team studied 1,079 black and 957 Latino bisexual and homosexual men from New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. They filled out a computer survey and were tested for the AIDS virus.

"Overall, we found no association between circumcision status and HIV infection status among black or Latino (men who have sex with men)," said Millett, who presented his findings to the CDC's National HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta.

Doesn't protect female partner
Experts knew circumcision would not protect a female sex partner, nor the male sex partner being penetrated.

But Millett's study found no benefit of circumcision to any of the men. "We also found no protective benefit of circumcision among those men reporting recent unprotected sex with a male partner in which they were exclusively the insertive male partner," he said.

HIV is much more common among black and Latino men than whites and this may offset any protection offered by circumcision, Millett said. Black and Latino men are more likely to have sex with other black and Latino men, and thus may be exposed to HIV more often than white men.

The CDC is about to release new estimates of how many people become infected with the fatal and incurable human immunodeficiency virus each year in the United States.

The CDC estimates that more than 1 million Americans are infected, of the 33 million infected people globally.

I don't think my stance on circumcision is any secret, so I will simply let this speak for itself.

[Cairber]

well, well, well....we've been saying it all along. The pro circs are going to have to find some other crappy theory to cling to.

Meanwhile, the new stats are slowly coming out. Looks like circumcision is down to 32% in the western region of the USA.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It should have been obvious to the idiots doing those studies that the only "real" benefit of circumcision was Islam. It's been a known fact that HIV doesn't spread as fast in Muslim countries in Africa due to the extreme limitations on sexual behaviour promulgated by Islamic law. What was never considered however is that the coastal Muslim populations in the mixed-religion states have the same self-imposed internal limitations, being almost separate from the rest of the population. To be circumcised in Africa is almost invariably to be Muslim, and that is the real reason their HIV infection rates are 60% lower.

[Sephirius]

well, well, well....we've been saying it all along. The pro circs are going to have to find some other crappy theory to cling to.

Meanwhile, the new stats are slowly coming out. Looks like circumcision is down to 32% in the western region of the USA.

Is it wrong for me to be spitefully jealous of intact men D:

[Adrian Laguna]

It should have been obvious to the idiots doing those studies that the only "real" benefit of circumcision was Islam.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why the mantra one must repeat upon reading any statistical study is "correlation does not mean causation".

[SilverWingedSeraph]

"American men of color"? Is that the new PC term for anyone who isn't white?

[Adrian Laguna]

"American men of color"? Is that the new PC term for anyone who isn't white?

They could have said "brown people", but apparently that gets you in trouble.
Kidding, I don't see what's wrong with the term. Though the notion that "Latino men" are necessarily "of color" is somewhat stupid.

[Molyneux]

well, well, well....we've been saying it all along. The pro circs are going to have to find some other crappy theory to cling to.

Meanwhile, the new stats are slowly coming out. Looks like circumcision is down to 32% in the western region of the USA.

Is it wrong for me to be spitefully jealous of intact men D:

If it is, I'm wrong too.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm not really jealous. Circumcision helped me a lot once upon a time.

And whilst the research in the article is not under dispute, this:

It should have been obvious to the idiots doing those studies that the only "real" benefit of circumcision was Islam.

[...]

What was never considered however is that the coastal Muslim populations in the mixed-religion states have the same self-imposed internal limitations

is a deliberate attempt to attack prior scientific research, and a bold one really. This research, incidentally, does NOT ignore behavioural differences, nothing like the "never considered" claim you tout. In fact, it's main finding is that HIV-1 protection is outweighing behavioural factors:

In a recently published study in this regard in The Lancet, Male circumcision and risk (2004) of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections in India, Reynolds and Bollinger found that male circumcision was strongly protective against HIV-1 infection with circumcised men being almost seven times less at risk of HIV infection than uncircumcised men.[124] They further state that:

"The specificity of this relation suggests a biological rather than behavioural explanation for the protective effect of male circumcision against HIV-1."

Do you really think all existing medical studies of HIV-1/circumcision relations do NOT account for behavioural differences? Please. They're not even all done in Africa, for once.

[Covenant]

I'm not sure why anyone would be jealous. It seems extremely bizzare to invest so much emotion into it once it's been done, but continuing a practice for no reason when there's a risk of permanent damage is perverse. I've never looked into the studies and have no opinion on the subject (and hope science and medicine research decide the winner), I was just saying that I wouldn't understand why someone would be jealous.

[Justforfun000]

I'm not sure why anyone would be jealous. It seems extremely bizzare to invest so much emotion into it once it's been done, but continuing a practice for no reason when there's a risk of permanent damage is perverse. I've never looked into the studies and have no opinion on the subject (and hope science and medicine research decide the winner), I was just saying that I wouldn't understand why someone would be jealous.

You can't understand mourning something you've lost irretrievably? Something that according to the BEST studies we have out there, not the garbage pro-circ people crap out, is a sensation of sexual satisfaction and sensability that you will never experience? Even though it was your birthright? Damn right I'm jealous! Envious, pissed off and fucking bitter.

I wish every male that had it done to them understood the entirety of it and not only felt the same way, but would unite enough to stand up and make sure the barbaric and morally reprehensible practice was outlawed.

[K. A. Pital]

You know what I'm fucking sick of? Of people who think that because the foreskin is

a sensation of sexual satisfaction and sensability that you will never experience

they don't just say "okay, I'll never do it myself" - that's fine with me, I'm fine and you're fine.

But the likes of you want to outlaw medical treatment for phimosis. If you and your like would be successful, me and countless other people would be denied the right to medical treatment for an illness.

Yeah, let's do it! I mean, the WHO, UNIAIDS are just "garbage pro-circ crap" and of course people get circumcised ONLY because they're idiots, right, not because they can have medical conditions to do so?

Well here's my very deep and personal fuck you to you and others of your ilk.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

I think people are more pissed off about being circumcised, at birth, without their consent (obviously), for no fucking medical reason at all. I doubt anyone would want to stop you from being circumcised as a medical treatment for phimosis. Maybe some people might, but for the most part, I doubt it.

[K. A. Pital]

Circumcision at birth for religious and other reasons is obviously bollocks and should be outlawed - the child is unconscious towards his own medical condition, and it can't be operated just at the whim of the parent! However, outlawing the operation in principle should not be possible. This has to do more with children's rights (not to be operated "at will") than with circumcision as an operation.

[Colonel Olrik]

Yeah, let's do it! I mean, the WHO, UNIAIDS are just "garbage pro-circ crap" and of course people get circumcised ONLY because they're idiots, right, not because they can have medical conditions to do so?

Well here's my very deep and personal fuck you to you and others of your ilk.

Where the hell are you coming from with this? Often limb amputation is essential to cure medical conditions, and despite that hardly anyone ever says you can just as well live without arms (by the way, I'm very sure the rate of AIDS among armless men is lower than average).

Unless you're talking about some nutcase, being against circumcision always means being against it when done as a general practice for bogus social or religious reasons, not against it as some last resort medical intervention. I've never seen an hint of that attitude either here or elsewhere.

An adult that opts to be circumcised without a valid medical reason is as much a fucking idiot as a guy that decides to have his arm cut off for the fun of it.

[Cairber]

Phimosis has many different cures, and in different countries you find different slants as to the best way to cure it.

UNfortunately, in the USA, doctors are far too uneducated about the intact penis. They diagnose phimosis in newborns, mistaking the normal adhesions present at birth (sometimes until puberty) for phimosis. Time and time and time again mothers come to us telling us that their pediatricians attempted to rip back the infant's foreskin, and when they met resistance, they recommended circumcision. This practice is dangerous and stupid, yet it continues here.

The same happens in older boys. Many boys do not retract until puberty hormones kick in, and some even later than that. Instead of educating themselves, doctors immediately turn to circumcision.

It is my opinion that circumcision should be an option given only to those who are actual sufferers of TRUE phimosis and certainly only to those who have also been given their other options.

This is just not the case in the USA.



And I have never seen an anti circumcision law that does not allow for medical necessity. Even the ban on FGM in the USA has a provision for medical necessity. Even the recent outlawing of circumcision in Australian public hospitals leaves room for medical necessity. See here:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html

[Cairber]

For further evidence on medical necessity is normally considered even by those who want to outlaw male circumcision, see the MGM bill, which asks for males to be added to the protection of the FGM bill in the USA:

link

As I work with even the most fanatical anti circumcision advocates, I can truthfully say that I have never met anyone who would stand in the way of medical necessity, only people who are warey that "medical necessity" can be miscontrued in the USA, especially when it comes to the issue of phimosis. But the cure for this is never law but education.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

The same happens in older boys. Many boys do not retract until puberty hormones kick in, and some even later than that. Instead of educating themselves, doctors immediately turn to circumcision.

This happened to me. When I was like, eight or nine, my foreskin wouldn't retract properly, and my doctor kept insisting to my mother that I should get circumsiced. I didn't know what the hell that meant at the time, so the doctor explained (incredibly simplisticly) what it was. I told my mother I wasn't going to do it, I was never going to do it, and that if she made me I'd hate her forever (kids are so dramatic )

She didn't, and when I reached puberty, everything began working the way it was meant to. I was right, the doctor was wrong, and I didn't have to get my foreskin snip-snipped. I'd completely forgotten about that, until I read that just now. Fucking hell. I almost got unnecessarily circumcised!

[Cairber]

Awesome that you were able to stand up for yourself!

Let me guess, the doctor didn't even mention to your mother that there were alternative therapies for 'phimosis' (which it didn't even turn out to be). But I bet he didn't even mention steroid cream, stretching, slits, etc. It's true what they say, "the only thing american doctors learn about the foreskin is how to cut it off."


Admittedly, it is getting a bit better as the older doctors die off and newer doctors are faced with more foreskins

[K. A. Pital]

UNfortunately, in the USA, doctors are far too uneducated about the intact penis. They diagnose phimosis in newborns, mistaking the normal adhesions present at birth (sometimes until puberty) for phimosis. Time and time and time again mothers come to us telling us that their pediatricians attempted to rip back the infant's foreskin, and when they met resistance, they recommended circumcision. This practice is dangerous and stupid, yet it continues here.

Really? Well then it's really stupid. I mean, here in Russia doctors rarely give advice for phimosis operations unless you're like 16 yo. Generally they advise to wait until that age. It's really strange that people circumcise babies in the US.

It is my opinion that circumcision should be an option given only to those who are actual sufferers of TRUE phimosis and certainly only to those who have also been given their other options.

Yeah. Well, my other options were "suffer phimosis and hypersensitivity until you die", and steroid cream had caused rather awful side effects so, while I might lament the lack of a better way, I certainly am thankful to the surgeon.

Incidentally, when I was a baby (6yo), I was at the urologists. He did notice the problem, however, he implicitly advised waiting. He never ranted about "circumcise the baby now waah!", so I guess not all doctors are dumb. I only did the operation upon reaching 16yo.

[Cairber]

Once the kid is 16 or so, like you were, I feel they are fully able to understand the options open to them. I feel a 16 year old can decide between a dorsal slit, steriod cream, stretching, circumcision...or any of the other therapies used in this situation. At that point, it is their choice. However, I'm just not confident (as you can see why) that these choices are presented to correctly (or at all) here.

I think that is why you get people who seem to be "so crazy they want to outlaw medical circumcision" when you run into anti circumcision advocates on the net. Really they are just products of the American system and are wary that phimosis is not cut and dry here.

(incidentally, I hear this is also an issue in Germany)

[Mobiboros]

While I am against forcing circumcision on infants (Because it's nonconsetual cosmetic surgery), I'm not against the idea of circumcision in general.

Informed, consenting adults do all sorts of crazy body mods. People cut off parts, pierce parts, implant things, lift, tuck and reduce things on their bodies all the time. If some guy thinks "You know, I like how it looks without the foreskin, I'm having that bit nipped off!", that's up to him.

I'm against any non-consentual cosmetic medical procedure/body modification (I bitched out a co-worker for saying she was trying to get her daughter to pierce her 1 year old granddaughters ears).

[Justforfun000]

Stas, the other people here covered it already. They're correct. I have absolutely nothing against it as a treatment for a medical necessity, (if it's truly warranted). I'm against random, cosmetic circumcision for infants at birth. That's all.