03-26-2009, 08:11 PM
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Texas
Re: circumcision prevents hiv?
Originally Posted by iris0110
There is no information in that link for anyone to really analyze. How did they come up with these numbers? I think common sense would be the easiest argument against this particular "study" and I use that term loosely based on the info that link provides. In the US in the 80's circumcision was almost universal. Over 80% of boys were circumcised. However the US continues to have the highest HIV transmission rate of any country outside of Africa. Meanwhile in most of Europe circumcision rates were already far lower, in fact over 80% of the world's male population is intact. So why then would the country with the highest circ rate outside of Israel have the highest HIV transmission rate outside of Africa? If circumcision really prevented HIV?
There is also the topic of Langerhan cells. Cells produced in the vagina and the forskin of intact males that are shown to combat and even prevent HIV infection. Circumcised men do not have this protection.
ETA: did this confuse anyone else?
In this new research 5534 HIV negative, uncircumcised male subjects between the ages of 15 and 49 years were enrolled in two trials of male circumcision for the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.
Of these subjects, 3393 were HSV-2–seronegative at enrollment and 1684 were randomly assigned to undergo immediate circumcision (intervention group) and 1709 to undergo circumcision after 24 months (control group).
So 5534 were enrolled but only 3393 were HSV-2 seronegative, so were the others already HSV-2 positive? And the control group was circumcised after 24months? Why? How is that a study of intact men?
2141 are unaccounted for in those numbers.
They ran off with the women that were in the "control group"
wife to Mike
mom to Madeline 10/2005
, Marshall 4/2009
and surprise #3 due 9/2011