Circumcision cuts HIV infection

[Mr. Truelove]

Originally Posted by From Sciencedaily.com

Circumcision cuts HIV infection
CHICAGO, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- Circumcision significantly reduces the risk of acquiring HIV in young African men, a study from the University of Chicago found.

Researchers followed 2,784 young men from Kisumu, Kenya, circumcising half of them. Forty-seven of the 1,391 uncircumcised men contracted HIV, compared to 22 of the 1,393 uncircumcised men.

"Our study shows that circumcised men had 53 percent fewer HIV infections than uncircumcised men," said Robert Bailey, an epidemiology professor. "We now have very concrete evidence that a relatively simple surgical procedure can have a very large impact on HIV."

Bailey cautioned that circumcised men might engage in risky behavior, feeling that they are protected from HIV.

"Circumcision is by no means a natural condom," said Bailey. "We do know that some circumcised men become infected with HIV. But we did find that the circumcised men in our study did not increase their risk behaviors after circumcision. In fact, all men in the trial increased their condom use and reduced their number of sexual partners."

The study appears in the Feb. 24 issue of The Lancet.

Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

Interesting article. It's just one study and I wouldn't base too much on it. But circumcision benefits are often discussed here so I thought I would share it.

Mr. Truelove

[hotsauce9]

This is a bogus study from Africa, and the people reporting it are biased. The truth is that men that get circumcised in Africa usually do so later in life for religous, or similar reasons, and therefore, by that same nature and lifestyle, are statistically less likely to participate in promiscuous or risky sexual behavior. That's it.

[subtoMistressT]

Originally Posted by hotsauce9

This is a bogus study from Africa, and the people reporting it are biased. The truth is that men that get circumcised in Africa usually do so later in life for religous, or similar reasons, and therefore, by that same nature and lifestyle, are statistically less likely to participate in promiscuous or risky sexual behavior. That's it.

I am not sure I would agree. The Lancet is a well known medical journal that is highly peer reviewed. The thing about any research like this is that the results must be able to be reproduced by other researchers. I think this is the second such study to come out reporting a conection between circs and a lower incidence of HIV among men. I think that anyone who thinks that this is some way protective because they had a circ would be taking a great risk. It is an interesting observation none the less.

[Chicup]

I heard this a while ago (different study). One thing I've come to see is just how vitriolic the 'circumcision is mutilation' crowd is and I think its not so much due to a belief that its really evil but because parents don't want their uncircumcised children to be singled out as different in the US.

Almost every study on sex, enjoyment of sex, and disease has circumcision as either neutral or benificial in some way. I have no problem with my parents that I'm circumcised but apparently I should be pissed off and I'm a monster for doing it to my son.

I'm glad I've never had to use the word 'smega' in relation to my hygiene

Edit:and before someone mentions female circumcision, I'm only talking about males, thats something completely different.

[lott]

This stuff is confusing because an article released yesterday shows Langerhans cells which are in the penis and vagina prevent hiv from spreading.

What I think his happening is that circumcision is good if your immunse system is compromised due to living in a poor low quality environment and you don't have access to a variety of fats(nuts), protein(beans, meat) and complex carbohydrates(brown rice,beans,etc.) and live in a low stressful environment(stress inhibits immune functioning)which means you're body won't be able to defend itself from different viruses it deals with daily. Cutting the foreskin hardens the skin which makes it harder for viruses to penetrate. Peace.

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/2...res-aids-virus

Natural HIV Barrier Snares AIDS Virus
Protein in Specialized Skin Cells Traps and Destroys HIV
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Medical News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

March 5, 2007 -- A natural barrier to HIV snares and destroys the AIDS virus, Dutch researchers report.

The newly discovered barrier is a powerful first line of defense against HIV infection. But at least one new strategy for preventing HIV transmission may breach this barrier, inadvertently opening the door to infection.

HIV targets T cells, a type of immune cell. It gets to T cells via a type of skin cell called a dendritic cell. Dendritic cells are supposed to warn T cells about foreign invaders. But HIV subverts this line of communication and uses dendritic cells to carry an infectious virus to the T cells.

That doesn't happen if HIV first encounters a specialized kind of dendritic cell called a Langerhans cell. It's hard for HIV to infect Langerhans cells -- and now scientists know why. It's because the cells carry a special molecule, dubbed Langerin.

Langerin grabs HIV and throws it in a kind of garbage disposal within the Langerhans cell, find Lot de Witte of Vrije University, Amsterdam, and colleagues. When the researchers disabled the Langerin molecule, HIV easily infected Langerhans cells.

"Thus Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV infection," de Witte and colleagues conclude.
HIV Prevention Method Has Flaw

As the AIDS epidemic rages on, researchers are looking for ways to prevent HIV infection. One powerful method would be a vaginal microbicide -- an easy-to-apply gel that would block HIV and protect women from being infected by their sex partners.

Because dendritic cells carry HIV to T cells, one promising vaginal-gel ingredient is a molecule called mannan. Mannan breaks the tether that dendritic cells use to haul HIV across mucous membranes.

But de Witte and colleagues find that mannan also disables Langerin, breaching this natural barrier to HIV.

"Inhibitors such as mannan have an unwanted and completely counteractive effect on Langerhans cells -- namely, they negate the protective function of Langerhans cells and enable [HIV] transmission by dendritic cells," they warn.

Instead, the researchers suggest using another molecule that keeps dendritic cells from latching on to HIV without affecting Langerhans cells.

De Witte and colleagues report their findings in the advance online issue of the journal Nature Medicine.

SOURCES: De Witte, L. Nature Medicine, advance online publication, downloaded March 5, 2007. WebMD Medical Reference from Medscape: "Microbicides: 'Cause Celebre' in HIV Prevention."
© 2007 WebMD, Inc. All rights reserved.

[lott]

I think the push for circumcision has a lot to do with religion and it being the right way to live in certain people's eyes and therefore they look for things to prove this.

Here's an an article dealing more with circumcision and hiv:

http://www.ragingblog.com/Adult_Rage

"HIV prevalence was markedly lower among circumcised than uncircumcised men only in Kenya (11.5% among uncircumcised men vs 3.1% among circumcised men). A small protective effect of male circumcision was also seen in Burkina Faso (2.9% vs 1.7%, respectively) and Uganda (5.5% vs 3.7%).

In the other countries, there was either no difference in HIV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised men or circumcised men were more likely to be HIV-positive than uncircumcised men. For example, in Lesotho, HIV was seen in 23.4% of circumcised men compared with 15.4% of uncircumcised men.

“If anything, the correlation [between circumcision and HIV infection] goes the other way,” in most of the countries studied, Dr. Mishra said during his presentation on August 15th"

[hotsauce9]

This is exactly my point. The men in Africa with circumcision, usually did so because of religious beliefs and those same religious beliefs preclude them from non-marital sexual relations... thus reducing contact and risk. So obviously there would be less HIV in this group.

"HIV prevalence was markedly lower among circumcised than uncircumcised men only in Kenya (11.5% among uncircumcised men vs 3.1% among circumcised men). A small protective effect of male circumcision was also seen in Burkina Faso (2.9% vs 1.7%, respectively) and Uganda (5.5% vs 3.7%).

In the other countries, there was either no difference in HIV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised men or circumcised men were more likely to be HIV-positive than uncircumcised men. For example, in Lesotho, HIV was seen in 23.4% of circumcised men compared with 15.4% of uncircumcised men.

In other countries where circumscision is more medical practice VS. strictly for conservative religious reasons... you would expect there to be equal amounts of HIV in circumcised and uncircumcised.

[Chicup]

I only now see how funny the title of this thread is.

[Alura]

Chicup wrote:

I heard this a while ago (different study). One thing I've come to see is just how vitriolic the 'circumcision is mutilation' crowd is and I think its not so much due to a belief that its really evil but because parents don't want their uncircumcised children to be singled out as different in the US.

I think you're partially right, Chicup. As a member of the "circumcision is mutilation crowd" I do not think circumcision is "evil." But other people's opinions had nothing to do with my decision to not cut my sons nor to remain so myself.

As I've said before on this subject, I made my decision for the same reason my father made his; I don't believe I have the right to make that decision for another person, my son or not, especially a defenseless infant. If either of my sons decided now that they wanted it done (They're fifteen and seventeen.) I'd tell them to go for it.

Almost every study on sex, enjoyment of sex, ... has circumcision as either neutral or benificial in some way.

Actually, there are a lot of studies that find the exact opposite. If you don't remember her posts, do a search for Night Goddess and read her reports of studies in which she, an R.N., participated.

I have no problem with my parents that I'm circumcised but apparently I should be pissed off and I'm a monster for doing it to my son.

I would not call you a monster, Chicup. Your decision, like your parents, was based on what you thought was best. That's all we, as parents, can hope to do. While I doubt I'd have a problem with my parents if I had been cut, I'm certainly grateful that the decision was left to me.

I think my attitude comes from my Native American heritage, in which individual freedom of determination was paramount. As my uncle, Blind Bear, was fond of saying, "No man has the right to tell another what to do."

Mr. Alura

[Alura]

My uneducated guess is that circumcision may, indeed, make it harder for a man to contract the aids virus, but I also think washing after sex, (not to mention careful selection of partners) for both cut and uncut men, will probably have a greater effect. I claim no medical expertise in this opinion.

Mr. Alura

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by Alura

Almost every study on sex, enjoyment of sex, ... has circumcision as either neutral or benificial in some way.

Actually, there are a lot of studies that find the exact opposite. If you don't remember her posts, do a search for Night Goddess and read her reports of studies in which she, an R.N., participated.

I read most of her posts just now, she was passionate but to me not persuasive. What I saw was anecdotal evidence, not true science. A old science joke told to me was n=1 is a case study, n=5 is still a case study. She saw a baby cry in pain as a nurse and decided she was anti-circumcision for life. Thats emotional response which tbh has no place in scientific study.

As for what you do to/teach your children thats another issue. I'm glad I'm circumcised and glad it was done to me AS a child. Were I to have waited until my 'age of consent', whatever that would be, I would have not been circumcised unless I suffered from one of the complications where adult circumcision is done. Its the same reason I won't get a vasectomy, I don't like sharp things by my penis.

Most of the pro/neutral circumcision evidence in sex comes from men who have had the procedure done after sexual maturity. Obviously I couldn't know if it was better/worse any more than a circumcised man could know. Its like asking us to describe the color blue and decide who sees it better. On the other hand men who were circumcised as an adult can answer this question, and they had few complaints and most felt the sex was better. I have had this discussion on another message board quite a while ago and sadly do not have the links for you.

I know this won't change your mind of course and its not my intent, but I think there are some minor benefits to circumcision which outweigh the negatives.

[Alura]

Chicup wrote:

I don't like sharp things by my penis.

Let's agree to agree on this one, Chicup.


Mr. Alura

[JTcamp05]

This is coming from a Circumcised male..... I would never never preform such a worthless surgery on any of my sons.

I could agrue 100's of resons pro and con, but its all a wash with uneducated folks who "think" they are right. There can be no reason ever to cut someones penis, and if your child wants his penis cut wouldn't that be HIS decision as an adult?

All I can say is better be sure if you decide to perform high risk surgery on your son that your comfortable he will be happy years later when more people are educated.

And of course you wouldn't cut the same piece of skin off your girls now would you?

[CuriousInOregon]

I being a woman dont have an opinion honestly BUT I do have 2 boys one of which is Cut one of which is NOT and I love em both the same So far so good No noxious infections on either End.

BUT I would like to know how someone thinks skin is gonna help prevent HIV or AIDS as its in the bloodstream and Body Fluids not topical?
Seems Silly to me why someone would think that would help. If you protect yourself while having sex in any form, and Keep yourself away from "High risk" activities You wont get any infectious desiese and you will be Plenty happy.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by JTcamp05

I could agrue 100's of resons pro and con, but its all a wash with uneducated folks who "think" they are right. There can be no reason ever to cut someones penis, and if your child wants his penis cut wouldn't that be HIS decision as an adult?

All I can say is better be sure if you decide to perform high risk surgery on your son that your comfortable he will be happy years later when more people are educated.

And of course you wouldn't cut the same piece of skin off your girls now would you?

I'll be willing to bet I have you beat in the education department by a large margin. Your post represents the odd rabid anti-circumcision raving I see from time to time and don't understand. Education in this matter doesn't involve going to some biased website and reading unverified stories set to scare people. You need to have the education to be able to sift through the crap and see whats a good scientific design and proper sample to make an educated decision. Based on that I decided to have my son circumcised. I think it was the better decision, but I don't fault people for not having it done either as long as they themselves have looked at the pros and cons in a dispassionate and intelligent manner.