HPV and circumcision

[Justin1988]

I have heard Israel has one of the lowest rates of cervical cancer in the world.

Many people say the reason is because it is a "religious nation" and therefore people don't have sex before marriage that often.

I am not Jewish, but I have some friends who live in Israel and they tell me that in cities such as Tel Aviv, it is very secular and has everything from prostitutes, homosexuals and lots of teenagers having sex before marriage.

However, the rate of cervical cancer is still low.

Could the reason be that most men in Israel are circumcised because they're Jewish or Muslim?

I was feeling bad about having my son circumcised, but now I have looked into it, I am happy I had him done.

Yes he did cry for 10 minutes when he was done but he soon fell asleep after having a drink of milk.

I also watched it as I did not want him being alone during it. It was not as brutal as everyone says. Yes there was a little blood and by this I mean drops and not lots of it.

His penis head did look weird because it was purple, but after a few days it soon changed to the proper pink colour.

They say that Australia should spend millions more dollars not only vaccinating females against HPV with Gardisal, but rhey're now saying we should also vaccinate boys with Gardisal as well so they don't transmit HPV.

Well, isn't a cheaper option to just circumcise baby boys soon after birth?

[Fuchsia!]

Sorry but there would be no way that my sons would be circ'ed and no way they would be receiving the HPV vax either.

My sons will be taught proper sex education to use protection at all times, this is a far less invasive way to help keep them protected

There could be numerous reason as to why there cervical cancer rates are lower, i don't think circing really has much to do with it to be honest.

[Justin1988]

I think the low rate of HPV is more to do with like you said no sex before marriage then the circumcision issueDid you get to the part where I talked about Tel Aviv?

[Chickadee]

Perhaps they're better at using condoms.

I've only had sex with men who've been circumcised, yet I have HPV. I know it's completely anecdotal and not scientific evidence, but for me there is no link and the HPV risk would not be a factor in choosing whehter to circumcise a son.

[Justin1988]

Yes I did actually. I don't think that being circumsized is the reason that HPV is lower maybe more because they might be more careful I have been with a couple of muslim man and they were very clean insisting on using condoms etc. But this is only my opinion we are each allowed our own.Israel is mainly Jewish.

[misskittyfantastico]

Do you want a dicussion on this topic? Because it's in the pro-circ section and therefore it's really only for support for people who DO circumcise their kidlets.

[miloand4]

Well I had cervical cancer and my xdp was circumsised so I dont know about that one!! Im glad all went well for your little boy I had my ds1 done and it did not go so well they took to much skin and he is permanantly scarred and may need further operations to fix the damage as an adult. I just ask people who are considering getting this done to there sons to consider how they might feel if something does go wrong and you permanantly damage such an important part of your sons body? And it happens more often than you think.

[Justin1988]

Do you want a dicussion on this topic? Because it's in the pro-circ section and therefore it's really only for support for people who DO circumcise their kidlets.A discussion among those who support it, rather than a debate.

[DALLASMUM]

I work in a doctors office and often read the articles in the Journals- one recently stated that haveing the boys done did recuce the risk of std's /sti's including HPV, and even aids-


jaxcoop- We all have great intentions as parents- we all HOPE our kids will do as we say but things happen. It doesnt matter what you teach them you will not be in the room in the heat of the moment. we all make rash decisions ...... noone more so than teenagers

[Fuchsia!]

I work in a doctors office and often read the articles in the Journals- one recently stated that haveing the boys done did recuce the risk of std's /sti's including HPV, and even aids-


jaxcoop- We all have great intentions as parents- we all HOPE our kids will do as we say but things happen. It doesnt matter what you teach them you will not be in the room in the heat of the moment. we all make rash decisions ...... noone more so than teenagers

Of course there is always going to be that risk, but for me the risks of circ'ing far outweighs the risk of him passing on HPV.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

Why are women who have partners from the 60's and 70's when the rate of circ was very high, getting HPV's?
There are plenty of women in their 30's, 40's and 50's getting cervical cancer. I think it's more to do with having more partners and not using protection.
I really do not buy this notion that circing would reduce it that much, I do think that it could lower it, but I know women who have only been with criced men or who have had only 1 or 2 partners who were circed that have gotten STD's. Getting your son circd does not mean that he will not get STD's.

I would prefer to teach my son about cleanliness, and using protection then to circ him.

[sam's mum]

I would like to know where you got your information that the HPV rate is low in Israel. this study shows that it sits at about 50%, this was the first one that I found on google. without knowing if your information that it is low is correct, I don't know if there is anything to consider.


Pilot Study of Prevalence of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Genotypes in Israeli Jewish Women Referred for Colposcopic Examination
Dan Grisaru,1,* Boaz Avidor,2, Jacob Niv,1 Silvia Marmor,3 Benjamin Almog,1 Cecilia Leibowitz,2 Merav Graidy,2 and Michael Giladi4
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,1 Laboratory for Viruses and Molecular Biology, The Bernard Pridan Laboratory for Molecular Biology of Infectious Diseases,2 The Infectious Disease Unit,4 Department of Pathology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel3

Received 28 December 2007/ Returned for modification 14 February 2008/ Accepted 23 February 2008

The objective of the present study was to determine the prevalence of high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in a group of Israeli Jewish women referred for colposcopic examination. Scrape specimens were prospectively collected from 84 women referred for colposcopic examination. All the women underwent Papanicolaou (Pap) smears and colposcopies, and some also underwent cervical or loop electrosurgical excision procedure biopsy. HR HPV was detected in scrape specimens (Amplicor HPV test; Roche Molecular Systems), and the individual genotypes in these specimens were identified (HPV GenoArray test kit; Hybribio Ltd., Hong Kong). Forty-one (49%) specimens were positive by the Amplicor HPV test. Sixty-four samples (41 positive and 23 negative by the Amplicor HPV test) were also assayed by use of the HPV GenoArray kit. The overall level of agreement between the two assays was 93.8% (Cohen's kappa = 0.98). HR genotypes were found in 37/41 (90%) HPV-positive samples. The prevalences of the HR HPV genotypes in the 37 HPV-positive samples were 41% of patients for HPV type 16 (HPV-16), 22% for HPV-39, 19% for HPV-52, and 14% for HPV-18. Forty-one percent of these patients were infected with a single HR genotype, whereas 59% were infected with mixtures of HR genotypes. The presence of a relatively high percentage of HPV types 39 and 52 and the relatively high incidence of infections with mixtures of genotypes may be one of the reasons for the low rate of conversion from high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions to invasive carcinoma in Israeli women. Larger and more comprehensive studies are warranted to investigate this issue in greater detail.

[XandersMummy]

This is the PRO circumcision thread,correct? Because there seem to be a lot of people in here preaching AGAINST it.

In case you people didn't know, there is a thread just for you to complain about those of us who are for it.

This isn't that thread.

BTW, circumcising reduces the risk of penile cancer by over 50% and completely eliminates the chance your son will suffer from phimosis. I love my boys enough to protect them from potentially deadly disease, and my now 16 and 18 year olds are completely happy and well adjusted without their foreskins, and have told me they are glad I made the decision to circumcise.

Also, if you say you want them to make the decision themselves as an adult, the surgery is much more painfulas an adult, and does not reduce the risk of cancer. (risk is only reduced if the procedure is performed as an infant according to cancer.org)

[Fuchsia!]

This is the PRO circumcision thread,correct? Because there seem to be a lot of people in here preaching AGAINST it.

In case you people didn't know, there is a thread just for you to complain about those of us who are for it.

This isn't that thread.

BTW, circumcising reduces the risk of penile cancer by over 50% and completely eliminates the chance your son will suffer from phimosis. I love my boys enough to protect them from potentially deadly disease, and my now 16 and 18 year olds are completely happy and well adjusted without their foreskins, and have told me they are glad I made the decision to circumcise.

Also, if you say you want them to make the decision themselves as an adult, the surgery is much more painfulas an adult, and does not reduce the risk of cancer. (risk is only reduced if the procedure is performed as an infant according to cancer.org)

firstly, Yes this is the Pro circ thread and it doesn't mean that anti circ should stay out. I thought this was a discussion. I have seen many pro circers come into the anti circ threads and discuss things :)

2nd i would like to know if you have any links to information on the pain factor. Have you got anything that says that pain is higher in an adult?

I would think that pain would be worse on a newborn as their skin is more sensitive and new?

[XandersMummy]

http://www.circinfo.net/the_procedure_itself.html

Circumcision later obviously requires a separate (occasionally overnight) visit to hospital. Healing is slower than in newborns, and rate of complications is greater, but still low (<1% to 3%%). The incidence of penile adhesions decreases with age, but at any age they often resolve spontaneously [444]. Pain sometimes can last for days afterwards and those older than 1-2 years may remember. Cost is also much greater than for neonatal circumcision.

Just thought I'd also post this excerpt about the Australian doctor who developed this completely pain free method.

Dr Terry Russell, OAM, in Brisbane, Australia, has developed a simple, pain-free method involving 2 hours EMLA cream with the penis wrapped in cling wrap (done by the parents prior to arrival at the clinic), followed by a modified Plastibell circumcision [300]. The technique is described in detail on his website (www.circumcision.com.au). Dr Russell has used it in over 18,000 circumcisions on boys of all ages from neonate to puberty. Because complete anesthesia is achieved by EMLA cream for 2 hours, Dr Russell reports that no pain is experienced for 5 hours after the Plastibell is applied, meaning the circumcision is completely pain free at all stages. These were all a complete success with no serious or moderate complications, apart from one boy who developed mild methemoglobinemia (from the EMLA cream) that overnight resolved spontaneously with no medical intervention after immediate hospital admission.


By the way, many different links I found explained that it is less traumatic for infants following birth as their stress relieving hormones are still elevated from the birth. And additionally, healing is much quicker in babies than in adults, which adds to the argument of doing it earlier rather than later. Seems average healing time according to most websites for newborns is one week, compared to adults which take 4 to 6 weeks.


While many people choose not to circumcise, our family feels like we did the best possible thing for our children. It is not pleasant to feel criticised for doing what we believe to be right. Our boys all had anesthetic used, suffered no complications, and can now go through life without the worry of many conditions related to having the foreskin intact.

[XandersMummy]

Just thought I'd post this excerpt too, from the same website. Just goes to show that even experts can changed their mind, and in this case, his opinion was changed by overwhelming medical proof!

Circumcision - Benefits Outweigh the Risks



Dr Tom Wiswell, a respected authority in the USA was a strong opponent, but then switched camps as a result of his own research findings and the findings of others. This is what he has to say: "As a pediatrician and neonatologist, I am a child advocate and try to do what is best for children. For many years I was an outspoken opponent of circumcision ... I have gradually changed my opinion" [632, 635]. This ability to keep an open mind on the issue and to make a sound judgement on the balance of all available information is to his credit ... he did change his mind!

Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having circumcision performed in a study of 136,000 boys born in US army hospitals between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19%) had complications, mostly minor, with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the problems were more than ten-times higher and there were 2 deaths [636].

A study by others found that of the 11,000 circumcisions performed at New York's Sloane Hospital in 1989, only 6 led to complications, none of which were fatal [482]. An early survey saw only one death amongst 566,483 baby boys circumcised in New York between 1939 and 1951 [390].

There are no deaths today from medical circumcisions in developed countries.

Very similar to the study by Wiswell above, it was found that of 354,297 infants born in Washington State from 1987-96, only 0.20% had a complication arising from their circumcision, i.e., 1 in every 476 circumcisions [114]. Most of these ‘complications’ were minor and readily treated. It was concluded that 6 urinary tract infections could be prevented for every circumcision complication, and 2 complications can be expected for every penile cancer prevented [114].
Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice

[MissSookyLaLa]

Personally, I think there is a place for circumcision in developing countries where condoms are not used/not readily available...

In these countries, circumcision can and does reduce the risk of passing on HIV/STD's/HPV etc etc

However...in countries such as ours, where condom use is the norm, I don't think this is why we should circumcise...

Do it for cultural/religious reasons but the above doesnt seem like a valid argument in a developed country :)

[delirium]

However...in countries such as ours, where condom use is the norm, I don't think this is why we should circumcise...

Do it for cultural/religious reasons but the above doesnt seem like a valid argument in a developed country :)

More protection from HPV is only one of a range of reasons parents circ. If that was the one and only advantage, I'm not sure I would bother. I doubt you'd find many people that circ based SOLELY on the HPV argument.

[MissSookyLaLa]

More protection from HPV is only one of a range of reasons parents circ. If that was the one and only advantage, I'm not sure I would bother. I doubt you'd find many people that circ based SOLELY on the HPV argument.

No...neither would I

But that was the OP's reason for opening this thread, I was responding to his line of argument... :)

[XandersMummy]

Jaxcoop, :wave: just wondering if the links helped.

[Phyllis Stein]

I'm not Jaxcoop, but I've been following this thread, and I found the links extremely unhelpful. However, as this is in the pro-vax section, I can't really critique them, but will start a new thread in the Discuss It area when I get the chance.

[Fuchsia!]

The link didn't convince me.

I have used emla ALOT over the last few years and i can tell you that it does not always numb the area.

I still don't believe that is it less painful for a baby, I think they just can't express the pain like an adult can. As mahna said this is the pro vax thread so i will leave it at that and it has gone OT too :D

Sorry, but thanks for the links :)

[babywez]

http://www.circinfo.net/the_procedure_itself.html

Circumcision later obviously requires a separate (occasionally overnight) visit to hospital. Healing is slower than in newborns, and rate of complications is greater, but still low (<1% to 3%%). The incidence of penile adhesions decreases with age, but at any age they often resolve spontaneously [444]. Pain sometimes can last for days afterwards and those older than 1-2 years may remember. Cost is also much greater than for neonatal circumcision.

Just thought I'd also post this excerpt about the Australian doctor who developed this completely pain free method.

Dr Terry Russell, OAM, in Brisbane, Australia, has developed a simple, pain-free method involving 2 hours EMLA cream with the penis wrapped in cling wrap (done by the parents prior to arrival at the clinic), followed by a modified Plastibell circumcision [300]. The technique is described in detail on his website (www.circumcision.com.au (http://www.circumcision.com.au)). Dr Russell has used it in over 18,000 circumcisions on boys of all ages from neonate to puberty. Because complete anesthesia is achieved by EMLA cream for 2 hours, Dr Russell reports that no pain is experienced for 5 hours after the Plastibell is applied, meaning the circumcision is completely pain free at all stages. These were all a complete success with no serious or moderate complications, apart from one boy who developed mild methemoglobinemia (from the EMLA cream) that overnight resolved spontaneously with no medical intervention after immediate hospital admission.


By the way, many different links I found explained that it is less traumatic for infants following birth as their stress relieving hormones are still elevated from the birth. And additionally, healing is much quicker in babies than in adults, which adds to the argument of doing it earlier rather than later. Seems average healing time according to most websites for newborns is one week, compared to adults which take 4 to 6 weeks.


While many people choose not to circumcise, our family feels like we did the best possible thing for our children. It is not pleasant to feel criticised for doing what we believe to be right. Our boys all had anesthetic used, suffered no complications, and can now go through life without the worry of many conditions related to having the foreskin intact.
:yelclap:
Don't bother trying to change the anti-circs mind, NOTHING will change it. Just as their arguments dont change our minds.
NO matter what side of the fence you sit on this issue, you can find documentation to support your argument. Just agree to disagree, and keep stuff like this out of the pro-circ thread. It should be moved to the discussion thread. I stay away from the anti-circ thread for a reason.