HIV in Australia

[Father]

Below is a link with some current information on HIV in Australia.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24891191-23289,00.html

[JohnC]

Below is a link with some current information on HIV in Australia.

The Australian newspaper actually published two articles on this topic, so the second may be of interest also. It can be found here (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25177994-23289,00.html).

There is of course a thread (http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=242912)that discussed the Wodak article when it was published at the beginning of the year, which also contains some further Australian data analysis.

It should also be noted that Wodak is a controversial figure with no known professional expertise regarding the opinion piece he wrote. His engagement with the issue seems to be personal and political.

[KatiesMum]

Please remember that this is hte Pro-Circ area. This are is for


Pro-Circumcision For those wanting to ask questions about the procedure, medical practitioners, after-effects etc. Any attempts by viewers to tell viewers why they shouldn't circumcise will be removed.

Any posts which are argumentative, anti-circ or not appropriate for this section will be deleted.

Thank you.

[JohnC]

For those interested in the HIV issue, this is the most current national data: Australian HIV Surveillance Report, Vol 25 No 1 January 2009 (http://www.nchecr.unsw.edu.au/NCHECRweb.nsf/resources/Quart_17/$file/NCHECR_QSRJan09.pdf).

HIV incidence figures look fairly stable, but I notice annual AIDS deaths of males who acquired the disease hetrosexually fell from 11 to 2, and new cases fell from 25 to 16. Not sure why, but certainly good news.

[Fellow Traveler]

It also appears that perhaps 35% of new HIV cases are basically imported. I am presuming that "From High Prevalence Country" (47/130) means immigrants who arrived already infected. As opposed to "Sex with persons from high prevalence country" (30/130) would be negative people who become positive in Australia via sex with a female in the first category or sex tourism. So there are really only about 50 indigenous cases of F->M exposure per year.

[Father]

Yes, HIV in Australia is rare. So is penis cancer.
The fact is though, circumcision reduces the risk of both. I would not want a member of my family to be one of the unlucky few, so I am taking all available measures to protect them.

[BigRedV]

Yes, HIV in Australia is rare. So is penis cancer.
The fact is though, circumcision reduces the risk of both. I would not want a member of my family to be one of the unlucky few, so I am taking all available measures to protect them.

Even if circumcision does protect against HIV, I will be teaching all of my children about safe sex, not that they don't have to worry about STI's because they had their foreskin chopped off. Not to mention unwanted pregnancies, a circumcised penis doesn't prevent that.

http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/20...e-numbers.html (http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2009/03/circumcision-and-hiv-by-the-numbers.html)

Most interesting point from this article:

Professor Murray goes on to point out that of the 854 Australians men diagnosed with HIV in 2006, only about 77, about 9%, were thought to have acquired it through heterosexual contact. While this is an increase since 2000 (62), a close look at the statistics reveal that the average age of HIV infection for these 77 men was 46, most of the increase (10) were in men 60 and over, and none of the men were younger than 24. The vast percentage of new infections therefore were in men of a generation that was already circumcised. :detective:

[Fellow Traveler]

Another interesting thing I noticed is that nearly 1/3 (43) under heterosexually acquired are categorized as 'not further specified' which is curious. There are only a finite number of ways to contract HIV. It makes me wonder whether people are always saying truthfully how they acquired it. I think homosexuals and IV drug users would be more forthright but it's possible that someone could say 'hetero' because they are ashamed that they got it trying the drugs once or doing that once homosexual act. Hetero acquisition in men may then be even less than we think.

[JohnC]

In the actual clinical setting, unless the patient volunteers the information upfront, there is a process of elimination of going through known risk factors. The default position is heterosexual "not further specified" once everything else has been eliminated.

So an unknown percentage of those persons actually acquired the infection by other means.

[Father]

You can argue about percentages all you like. But the fact of the matter is that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

[JohnC]

... the fact of the matter is that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

It's not clear that's true in absence of endemic genital ulcerative disease sustained by high levels of unregulated and unsafe commercial sex.

Comparisons of developed world HIV incidence would suggest the foreskin is not an independent risk factor.
..

[Fellow Traveler]

You can argue about percentages all you like. But the fact of the matter is that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

In addition to what John said the actual number matter a great deal. It's the same reason some available vaccinations are not given in some countries or to certain groups of people. So knowing the actual number of cases is a good way to inform people. It makes me wonder what on earth the author of the article you posted was thinking.