circumcision prevents hiv?

[MammaBx3!]

http://www.elements4health.com/male-...on-of-hiv.html

[babygirlsmom1005]

I would like to know how the study was controlled? Did all these men sleep with the same women, some with HIV or STD, some without? Did they all practice safe or unprotected sex? Did they all have the same number of sexual partners within the time frame? Way too many variables out there for this "study" IMO.

[nataliedan]

RIGHT lol, agreed how was it controlled

[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.

[mum2James&Julia]

AND??? It's not like circumcision completely eradicates the risk, if it even decreases the risk. Pretty stupid argument if you ask me... they'll still have to wear condoms anyway. There are tons of other STDs out there besides HIV. Ugh.

[babygirlsmom1005]

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"

[nm45832]

There is one study that does show this that is frequently thrown around - and it was a study completed on grown men in Africa - where the HIV rate is significantly higher than that of the UK/US/Canada. There has been no other well documented study showing this connection. I personally think it is continually brought up b/c US docs are looking to nickle and dime you for every procedure possible, and circing is becoming less and less common.

[jpicasso]

How about teaching our kids about safe sex?

Not putting anyone down, but it blows my mind that there are actually people out there who believe these things.

[amphibology29]

Originally Posted by jpicasso How about teaching our kids about safe sex? Not putting anyone down, but it blows my mind that there are actually people out there who believe these things.

I'm not going to go chopping any body parts off my son when some education about condoms, self control, and responsibility can do a better job at reducing his risk of contracting any STD, not just HIV.

[Jennie_in_Iowa]

Hmm... yea.. that article was poorly written. I won't comment on the trial, because there's just no way to know without a better written description.
My initial thoughts, just on what little WAS written:
They didn't mention what happened with the first group vs the control group. That's kinda important.
And the infection rate difference between circ and uncirc'ed was probably within the margin of error for the test.

HSV-2 was detected in 114 circumcised men compared with 153 uncircumcised men.

That's only a difference of 39 men, and in a study group of 5000, that's a VERY VERY small difference, less than 1%. If the margin of error for the trial is 1 or 2%, you're looking at NO DIFFERENCE between circ and uncirc.

My $.02