Milliner
10-02-2008, 14:20
Wives more likely to contract HIV from circumcised husbands.February 8th, 2008 by ICGI
In a two-year study, wives of circumcised men were 58% more likely to contract HIV than wives of intact men.
The study, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston, was carried out in Uganda and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It compared the annual HIV incidence in the wives of men who had been circumcised to wives of men who remained intact.
The study’s principal investigator, Maria Wawer of Johns Hopkins University, said the results were “unexpected and somewhat disappointing”.
Both groups reported the same level of condom use. Wawer said the results posed a challenge to the mass roll-out of male circumcision in Africa.
Wawer was a researcher on a 2007 Ugandan clinical study that concluded circumcsion lowered the rate of infection in men. Researchers had predicted that this “benefit” extended to women. Yet, this does not appear to be true. The circumcision clinical study done by Wawer, Ronald Gray, and others at Johns Hopkins was severley criticized by peers.
ICGI’s opinion of male circumcision as an HIV preventative is that it will cause more infections, not less, and that it will divert money that should be going into proven efforts such as free condoms, increasing nutrition, and purifying water supplies.
Circumcision of men does not protect women from HIVFebruary 4th, 2008 by ICGI
A new study revealed last week that women are not protected from HIV if their male sexual partners are circumcised and do not use condoms. Findings of the study, which was conducted in an area of high incidence of HIV, the AIDS virus, were reported at the 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston.
Researchers of previous studies that reported circumcision reduced HIV infection in males (and which have been taken to task as poor science by their colleagues) hoped that such protection would extend to women, too. This recent study shows the opposite. This casts a new light on circumcision’s role and pushes it away from being a preventative and towards being a placebo.
This isn’t the first time the promotion of circumcision used feminine interests as a ruse. Decades ago, circumcision was thought to reduce cervical cancer. We now know that HPV and smoking habits are the culprit. As such, the ulterior motives of circumcision proponents must be questioned.
http://www.icgi.org/2008/02/wives-more-likely-to-contract-hiv-from-circumcised-husbands/
In a two-year study, wives of circumcised men were 58% more likely to contract HIV than wives of intact men.
The study, presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston, was carried out in Uganda and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It compared the annual HIV incidence in the wives of men who had been circumcised to wives of men who remained intact.
The study’s principal investigator, Maria Wawer of Johns Hopkins University, said the results were “unexpected and somewhat disappointing”.
Both groups reported the same level of condom use. Wawer said the results posed a challenge to the mass roll-out of male circumcision in Africa.
Wawer was a researcher on a 2007 Ugandan clinical study that concluded circumcsion lowered the rate of infection in men. Researchers had predicted that this “benefit” extended to women. Yet, this does not appear to be true. The circumcision clinical study done by Wawer, Ronald Gray, and others at Johns Hopkins was severley criticized by peers.
ICGI’s opinion of male circumcision as an HIV preventative is that it will cause more infections, not less, and that it will divert money that should be going into proven efforts such as free condoms, increasing nutrition, and purifying water supplies.
Circumcision of men does not protect women from HIVFebruary 4th, 2008 by ICGI
A new study revealed last week that women are not protected from HIV if their male sexual partners are circumcised and do not use condoms. Findings of the study, which was conducted in an area of high incidence of HIV, the AIDS virus, were reported at the 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston.
Researchers of previous studies that reported circumcision reduced HIV infection in males (and which have been taken to task as poor science by their colleagues) hoped that such protection would extend to women, too. This recent study shows the opposite. This casts a new light on circumcision’s role and pushes it away from being a preventative and towards being a placebo.
This isn’t the first time the promotion of circumcision used feminine interests as a ruse. Decades ago, circumcision was thought to reduce cervical cancer. We now know that HPV and smoking habits are the culprit. As such, the ulterior motives of circumcision proponents must be questioned.
http://www.icgi.org/2008/02/wives-more-likely-to-contract-hiv-from-circumcised-husbands/