Study: Circumcision Protects Against AIDS

[demdave]

LONDON - A new study found that uncircumcised men were nearly seven times more likely to get the AIDS (news - web sites) virus, giving further support to findings that circumcision .

The study by Robert C. Bollinger and colleagues from Johns Hopkins University Medical School and the National AIDS Research Institute in Pune, India, was published Friday as a "research letter" in The Lancet medical journal.


"It is now about the ninth study which followed men who are HIV (news - web sites)-negative over a period of months or years. It is the ninth study in a row which has found that the effect (of circumcision) is significant," said Robert C. Bailey, professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who was not connected with Bollinger's study.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=541&u=/ap/20040326/ap_on_he_me/aids_circumcision&printer=1

[Gloria]

1. It has also been long reported that it decreases the risk of cervical

cancer.

[Enraged_Ape]

40. I assume you mean penile cancer

And that's true.

I think a guy would have a hard time getting cervical cancer.

[FlaGranny]

45. No, cervical cancer in women is reduced when

women have circumcised sex partners. Less transmission of viruses, etc.

[truthseeker1]

48. The cancer thing is an old wives tale

I read this was a myth...

"There is not a shred of evidence to support to theory that smegma is carcinogenic." (p. 91) / "All animals produce smegma, and none is circumcised. When mammals reproduce, smegma is deposited. If smegma contained a carcinogen or even an irritant, then the propagation of the species would be jeopardized. No such phenomenon exists."


"Several researchers have tried to prove that smegma causes cancer; all have failed. Not only is smegma not harmful, it is actually beneficial, serving as a protective coating and lubricant for the glans." ("The Circumcision Decision," by Edward Wallerstein, Pennypress, Inc., 1980)

"This process of rationalization has culminated in the supposed relationship between the husband's foreskin and cancer of the genitals--one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of medicine. The theory is that the uncircumcised penis, because it may generate a waxy substance called smegma, can produce cancer of the penis and cancer of the cervix (neck of the womb) ... Further evidence that circumcision is not linked with cancer comes from tests of human smegma. In 1942, the National Cancer Institute conducted careful experiments and found that smegma had no carcinogenic effect whatsoever. This test was duplicated in 1963 on a more extensive scale by Dr. D. G. Reddy and others, with the same conclusions. Negative results have also been obtained in a number of other experiments (Circumcision in Infancy, Charles Weiss, M.D., Clinical Pediatrics, 1964)." ("The Unkindest Cut of All," by John M. Foley, MD, Fact, July 1966)

http://www.foreskin.org/smegma.htm

[mobuto]

49. The argument isn't that

smegma is carcinogenic, its that uncircumcised men spread HPV more easily. HPV is carcinogenic.

[FlaGranny]

50. What a site you sent me to. Try finding

something from the National Institutes of Health on the subject. This is not an old wives tale. It is a tale of uncleanliness in some uncircumcised men spreading the viruses and bacteria growing under their foreskins - not smegma.

[QC]

51. Is the National Cancer Institute good enough?

Despite early speculation regarding potential effects, more recent studies do not confirm a role for circumcision status of the male partner.

http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/raterisk/risks200.html

[truthseeker1]

52. sorry, i should have warned you about the graphics!

<sheepish grin>

Well, I wish my husband still had his skin and if we have any boys, they will certainly be keeping theirs!

[lazarus]

2. However

"The nine studies have all tried to control for variables in behavior, Bailey said. "A randomized control trial is what is necessary now to really nail this down," he said. "

So they really don't know what's going on here. They don't know if this is causation or correlation. The headline is utterly misleading to the point of being a complete lie, as a matter of fact.

[brainoverload]

3. correlation???

Are you suggesting that uncircumcised men have 7 times as much sex as circumcised men?

[lazarus]

5. No

I'm suggesting, as did a researcher quoted in the article, that more study is required. And that suggesting, as the headlined claims, that "circumcision protects against AIDS" is false given the information present.

The studies haven't yet controlled for behaviour. Nor have they controlled for a host of other things, I'm sure. Hence my statement that we don't know if this is correlation or causation.

Just a blanket statement that "circumcision protects against AIDS" is irresponsible and false. Whoever wrote that headline should be fired.

[StopThief]

34. Not yet scientifically proven is far more accurate. . . .

than false. Wouldn't you say?

The study suggests that there is more likely than not a correlation.

[private_ryan]

how about

comparing men with the skin that take showers? If you compare uncircumsized men with poor hygiene vs circumsized men, of course we'll see a difference. Try not brushing your teeth or washing any part of your body, and see what disease you get.

The skin has a vital role, to protect the most sensitive part of your body (give or take). If that rubs against underwear or jeans, it will loose some sensitivity. That's a fact we all can agree. I want to enjoy all the sensitivity mother nature intended me to have.

[kysrsoze]

21. They can keep my foreskin

I'm sure it had a purpose years ago when nobody wore underwear. But I think it's disgusting to be uncut and if you don't keep it clean, it evidently reeks. I don't think I have a problem with lost sensation. Ever see those people who grow their foreskins back? Ick.

[ldf]

25. they'll never GET my foreskin

at least i know what i will lose. those who were circumcised at a young age have no idea what they have lost.

sometimes, ignorance IS bliss.

but don't try to foist it on the rest of us as preferable. it's there for a reason. and a few seconds in the shower takes care of any hygiene problems. AND before you complain about a natural odor, make sure you scream in disgust the next time you shove your face in a woman's crotch.

just because we now wear underwear it is now useless? that is absurd.

those underwear you now wear are exactly what deadens the glans to sensitivity, due to the LACK of a foreskin.

those people who are trying to grow their foreskin back are DESPERATELY trying to regain something they lost. that should give you a clue.

DUH!

[NickB79]

31. If you're referring to sensation during sex

The belief that sex feels better for uncircumsized men is a myth. There was a report posted here last year from a study where researchers could find no difference in sensation felt by circumsized vs. uncircumsized men. I don't recall the exact methods used, but I do recall reading that they did interview and study men who had either had their foreskin removed later in life, or who had had it restored.

Those desperately trying to get their foreskin back are more than likely in for disappointment, and have deeper issues than lack of physical sensitivity, IMO.

[ldf]

44. "trying to get their foreskin back..... in for disappointment"

we are in agreement there.

all they are doing is stretching skin. they are NOT regenerating all those nerve endings that were lost.

[kysrsoze]

41. Wow! Such sensitivity (literally)

Thanks - didn't realize I didn't have a clue. Yes, you're right - it's not great either when a woman doesn't have good hygiene, but I luckily haven't had much of a problem with that. You? He he.

As far as loss of sensitivity, well my nipples have rubbed against my shirt for 30-odd years and I don't have a problem with sensitivity there. I suppose I should keep it locked in a cock-cage or something so I can keep what sensitivity I have left? Whatever.

[formernaderite]

47. We didn't circumcise any of our kids....

...totally unnecessary surgery. I find it offensive that parents still choose to do this for any reason....particularly for outdated religious mandates. We don't live in the desert where water is sparse....this is an issue of hygiene.

[private_ryan]

29. "if you don't keep it clean"

what if you don't keep your hands, ears, mouth etc. etc clean? How do they smell? What if women don't wash down there? Should we cut their labia when they're born to let the air in? Personally I think it's disgusting to be cut...actually I think it's stupid (parents are to blame )

Maybe the purpose of the skin is to keep it sensitive /protect it. Feeling sensation doesn't mean you're feeling all that was suppose to be. They are different levels and I refuse to beleive that it is just as sensitive after being rubbed against cloth for decades. Compare the hands of a brick layer with those of a baby and you might get the idea.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

32. Well I am certainly glad you are happy without a foreskin

as there is no getting it back now and you really didn't have any say in losing it. But um, it is not a vestigal organ. It it fully-functioning healthy tissue and has many purposes, not the least of which is to protect the glans.

Ever hear of keratinization?

It's probably happened to your glans from going without protection all these years. It happens to most circed men.

[kysrsoze]

42. Well, if I haven't heard of it I probably don't need to worry about it

All you uncut guys seem to think you have something on the rest of us. How do you know how it feels without having it done? It's not like we've been maimed. I feel quite fine during sex.

Sorry, but I think the world has more important things to worry about - like female castration. Now THAT is bad.

[private_ryan]

43. we do have something you don't

after millions of years of evolution people were still born with skin, yet some think it's better without it. Why? Because some "god" said so.

[daleo]

4. This would be tough to double blind

Um, don't look down for the next 50 years. Plus, it might be difficult to get people to agree to random assignment on this issue. And, it would take quite a while to get results, assuming that the 'treatment' was done when the person was an infant.

It may be one of those things that can never have a totally rigorous RCT done and observational studies will have to suffice.

[lazarus]

6. True

But a larger field would be required, as well.

Not only that, but regression analysis and other statistical engines could be brought into play. As well, there's the fact that not everyone with HIV develops AIDS, and not everyone with HIV caught it through sexual intercourse. And not everyone is going to be honest with reporting their behaviour, either.

So to just plop that headline on this article is completely irresponsible and misleading.

[daleo]

7. I agree that the headline is misleading

The popular media usually does a poor job with scientific research, especially the headline writers. I had assumed from the article that they must have used some kind of multivariate techniques (e.g. regression), but that still cannot establish causality with certainty. And you are certainly correct, that self-reported behavior represents a real problem.

[mobuto]

13. No, not everyone is honest about reporting sexual behavior

but its awful hard to get gonorrhea, herpes simplex and syphilis without having sexual intercourse. Since both groups were found to be infected with those other STDs at similar rates, and since both groups reported similar rates of sexual activity, and since the only known variables are circumcision and HIV infection, therefore it is logical to infer a correlation.

[nodehopper]

18. I'm curious

When you say not everyone with HIV develops AIDS, do you mean that people on retrovirals do not develop AIDS, or are you an "AIDS denier"?

[lazarus]

19. No, I'm not an "AIDS denier"

But it's a simple fact that the set of people with HIV includes all people with AIDS, but the set of people with AIDS does not include all people with HIV.

[shadu]

8. I'm gonna get circumcised tommorow...

then I can start having me some hot steamy sex with
women I pick up in bars - without using any protection.

Wait... you know I wonder if these folks are more
inclined to use condoms... or maybe they have sex less often.

(On the other hand, maybe getting a hair cut cures aids!)

[mobuto]

12. Did you read the article?

Wait... you know I wonder if these folks are more
inclined to use condoms... or maybe they have sex less often.

And I quote:

"The study also found that circumcised men were as much at risk of gonorrhea, herpes simplex and syphilis as the uncircumcised. "

The study also controlled for sexual activity.

In other words, everything about these two groups is apparently identical, except for HIV infection rates.

[Occulus]

36. I read that whole post as dripping with sarcasm n/t

[DiverDave]

9. Bull

Another example of faulty logic/results

[cprise]

10. Unfortunate but true

Another awful thing is that these findings will be used as a pretext for infant circumcision.

And if most EU men aren't circumcised, and most US men are circumcised... then why are HIV infection rates similar? It's an interesting question, but I know that no uncut man I've had sex with has ever complained about putting on a condom; If you can feel more to begin with, then wearing a condom is less like being condemned to numbness.

[mobuto]

11. Oh??

HIV infection rates for heterosexual men in Europe and the US are extremely low compared to the developing world, condom use is prevalent, HIV testing is freely available, and education is abundant. Therefore there are plenty of factors that would limit the impact of a discrepancy. A seven-fold risk increase may sound like a lot, but it really isn't. Intravenous drug users, for example, face a risk of several thousand times that of the general population.

That's why this study looked at two demographically identical groups of men in India.

I know that no uncut man I've had sex with has ever complained about putting on a condom; If you can feel more to begin with, then wearing a condom is less like being condemned to numbness.

So I take it you don't feel strange using your own personal sexual history as "proof" that a major scientific study must be flawed?

[cprise]

14. I agree

And I wasn't offering proof. I was raising a doubt and what seems like an interesting question.

[sybylla]

15. So does using condoms

One thing that doesn't appear in the headlines is that circumcised men still get AIDS. It is clear they haven't studied exactly what role is of a whole host of factors.

It is also interesting that the US has the highest rate of AIDS and the highest rate of male circumcision of the 'civilized' world. Obviously there is something missing here.

By the way, I got that AIDS rate here http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

[mobuto]

16. Because there are other differences between

the US and other developed countries than just rates of circumcision. You know, little things like condom use rates, socio-economic conditions, access to sex education, and cultural background.

There were no such differences in the two groups studied in India.

[sybylla]

17. So then you agree there is something missing

in the "prevents HIV transmission" studies. There were no such differences in the men of other studies either. The point is that there are a variety of factors that can effect a study like this. This isn't something where you can look at physical characteristics, analyze behavior, tabulate outcome and control for variables for a period of a couple of years and think you've got it nailed down. Look how many studies of the causes of cancer that have taken place over decades, even lifetimes, and still we get contradictory evidence that this or that food or behavior "increases your risk" of developing cancer.

The headline is misleading and irresponsible. The most anyone can know at this point is that circumcision is a factor that needs to be studied over the long haul. Which is precicely what the authors of the study concluded.

on edit: The link in my last post goes through the difficulties of studying the effects of circumcision on HIV transmission. I think I'll hold my Kudos for the India team until their research has been thoroughly analyzed by others the that field of research.

[plurality]

20. having a foreskin wont spontaneously give you HIV!!!

there are lifestyle choices (and by that i mean having unprotected sex/not getting tested regularly etc.) that contribute to the spread of HIV/AIDS. poverty, access to healthcare, effective barriers, needle exchanges etc. all affect the spread of HIV/AIDS.

intact fellas do need to take care of their foreskin and it takes a second more effort to clean. but its ridiculous that all men should be mutilated because of it's "cleaner." if you dont clean behind your ears, gunk accumulates. does that mean we should all chop off our ears?

edit: this is veganwitch

[mike1963]

22. I used to work in a circumcision ward. Made 8 bucks an hour,

plus tips.













oooooooooooooooooo
:evilgrin:

[PartyPooper]

26. LOL!

Good one!

:thumbsup:

[Chicago Democrat]

23. This seems strange... What the? I suspect this may be an

anomoly. There are factors that contribute to circumcision like country of origin and other religious or social reasons why this is so. It really doesn't make sense unless Aids is somehow transmitted under the foreskin.

Scarey and strange story.

[mobuto]

24. Unless HIV is somehow transmitted under the foreskin

well that's what this seems to suggest. This study was conducted solely of people of Indian origin and was controlled for social reasons.

[LONG-LINER]

28. Not all in India

[varun]

37. most men in India..

...are uncircumcised...about 15% (mostly muslims) are circumsised.

So it is easy to carry out a study like this in India, where the social customs are similar in both hindus ans muslims, but one group is circumcised, the other is not.

[Turbineguy]

27. I'm not a life science guy

But it seems to me that if you are marching around with your glans rubbing against your BVD's for a few years, the skin would become tougher and more impermeable than if it were protected under a fore skin, only peeking out on those special occasions.

While it is supposedly a mucus membrane, it really does not act that way in circumcised men, does it?

[private_ryan]

30. probably the secretions that are under the foreskin do it

cut guys are dry, uncut ones aren't. Either way it's stupid to cut somethign you're born with before it causes any problems on one disease. Who knows what the next study will say? Once you cut it, you're done.

[Turbineguy]

46. I'm not coming down on either side

of the circumcision debate, I'm only trying to explain the 7 to 1 discrepancy.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

33. It would be bordering on (if not right on) insane

to lop off a piece of fully-functioning perfectly healthy tissue from a baby boy's genitals to avoid AIDS when he could just use condoms.

Sheesh.

Men are born with a foreskin for a reason. It has many purposes and functions. This bunk about AIDS and cervical cancer is just that--bunk. Routine infant circumcision is a cure in search of a disease, as usual. At first it was the cure for masturbation, etc etc.

When will the insanity end? It makes NO SENSE at all to cut off fully-functioning, healthy tissue from a baby. No sense at all. "First, do no harm..." The foreskin is attached to the glans at birth and protects the glans from urine and feces and anything else it might come in contact with.

My intact husband cannot possibly imagine not having a foreskin and I'm glad he doesn't have to. Though he was born in the US in a year when MOST baby boys were circed, he was fortunate enough to be born to a German-born father who knew from his own experience that there was no need for circ at all.

As for smell, I find that the most disingenuous argument of all. We didn't consider having our daughter's labia lopped off at birth. And women have FAR more folds and whatnot. It takes a second and a half in the shower to push the foreskin back and wash. You don't even have to push it back again, it'll go back on its own. What guy begrudges another reason to mess with his own groceries? LOL! In the fifteen years I have been with my husband I have never ONCE experienced ANY kind of unseemly smell or anything in his bits. And I am quite sensitive to smell. And again, think about the idea of having healthy tissue cut off a baby for that reason. Ridiculous. Men weren't created WRONG. They're just fine with all their factory-issued parts.

[dax]

35. I had to fight for my son (and I was married to a jew)

I totally agree with you- he is 25 now and he has thanked me for not circumcizing him (no details). I think it is crazy since we have modern facilities now-and even in ancient times, or whenever they came up with the idea-it was probably some form of sacrifice and purification that they later got some "science" to justify then it was pure profit after that. They can call it surgury and charge several hundred or a thousand by now-for it and it just gets paid for five minutes work. I used to dock puppy tails (ugh hideous never again) and we would do a whole litter of 12 in half an hour. When I had my son, it was considered automatic. I had to insist ahead of the birth that it was not to be done (in case I was out or something and then I had to deal with the Buba. she got over it. I wonder who funded the study. maybe some hospitol marketting agency? I know they have been active in trying to deny midwives insurance to deliver babies at home.

[mainer]

39. Yep, agree with you too!

The trauma of such pain inflicted on a newborn baby boy is unnecessary.

The American Academy of Pediatrics considers circumcision unnecessary -- shouldn't we be listening to them?

When a circ goes wrong (and believe me, it occasionally does) you end up with a mutilated boy, and for what reason? CLEANLINESS?

Most of Europe, and almost all the Third World goes uncircumcised. This study sounds like ethno-centric trumpeting.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

53. Actually every time routine infant circumcision

is performed you end up with a mutilated boy. Why? Boys are ALL born with foreskins. You mutilate the genitals when you tear it from the glans then crush it and cut it off. It's a pretty brutal surgery and completely unnecessary.

Someone above mentioned we should be more concerned about female genital mutilation, but what the hell's the difference?

In both cases, healthy fully-functioning skin is removed from the genitals without any medical indication and without the owner's consent. Quite unethical, that.

And as for the guy who asked why his nipples haven't had a problem from 30 plus years of rubbing against shirts? Hon, your nipples weren't meant to stay soft and moist and your glans was. But then, like I said earlier in the thread, it's not like you were asked about it or anything.

[varun]

38. There may be some truth in this study...

...but it does not justify circumcision.

Take the case of Western Europe and Australia (mostly uncircumcised). It has lower HIV rate compared to USA (mostly circumcised).

Education and proper precautions can make all the difference.