New weapon offers help in fight against Aids

[Oscar's mum]

Well I would never have thought it could have helped perhaps help in the war against AIDS but apparently it can.

Here is the article:

CLICK HERE (http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/01/int16.htm)

[Chickadee]

I don't believe it, sorry. There has been previous articles on this and discussion on this forum. There are so many other factors in that one study which may have associated with circumcision but were not looked into statistically or reported - such as whether men who were circumcised had different sexual patterns and practices. Were they more likely to be monogamous. If they were circumcised as children how does that relate to their upbringing, family beliefs and morals installed. Etc etc.

[Roopee]

Nope another non believer here.
There have been numerous studies on this and they are all unfounded.
The only thing to stop the AIDS epidemic is for everyone to never have sex. Hardly gunna happen:no:

[melfunction]

Don't believe it for a second.

[Duchessa]

Hopefully people are using condoms with interim partners and thus rendering the argument sterile *snigger*

[Yoshua]

If circumcision fought aids, what is wrong with america having one of the larger infected populations in the industrialized world?


Condoms fight aids, circumcision fights nothing. It is a pretend band aid made to make people feel like there is a cure, which there isnt. However it will be interesting to see how many people in Africa get cut and then think they are invincible. What do you think will happen when you get a bunch of men who think they are not only invincible to aids, but cannot spread it?


The study was flawed, don't trust the media, go look at the study itself.

Starting of with the day the circumcisions happened was the day the study started. The men who were circumcized had to heal for 6weeks to 3 months before they could even START having sex, when the men who were intact started having sex day one.



It is a flawed study, the world is grasping at straws for a cure, but they are grasping at the wrong ones. They need to find a true cure.

[Aquamarine]

Don't believe it either!

One piece of skin off can prevent AIDS? Come on.




Me (31)
DH (31)
DS (4)
DS (3)
DS (3 months)

[parfz61]

This is an age old arguement that has gone on for years and alas, will go on for many many more. The simple truth is that NOT ONE OR THE OTHER has been founded to be worse than the other. Scientifically, or medically. FACT !!!
Interestingly, America holds its head in shame with the worse rate of AIDS per capita than any other country and statistically, most men are circumcised. What does this tell you ?
One piece of God's given skin, does not account for a world wide disease epidemic ffs.
There will always be the I haves, and the I have nots, and until there is substantial, scientific evidence to prove otherwise, ppl on either side of the fence should shut up and start looking at the real issues as to why AIDS has become so pandemic, and Im sure you will find it has nothing NOTHING to do with your penis being cut or uncut !!!! And yes i am uncut and bloody proud of it.

[MotherNurture]

These over-zealous, self-promoting researchers are claiming a significant reduction and calling male circumcision (in adult African populations that practice dry sex, where women intentionally dry, swell, and tighten their vaginal tissues with herbs, chemicles, animal products, sand, etc) akin to a vaccine or even a "invisible condom" (The irresponsibility of such termination is appalling!) out of one side of their mouths while mumbling admittance that safe sex (REAL condoms) is absolutely essential...IMO, the entire thing is likely to backfire tragically.

In addition, the first study was refused publication by The Lancet on ethical grounds. The most recent two aren't yet published or peer reviewed. ALL OF THE STUDIES WERE HALTED EARLY, supposedly because the results were soooo compelling, but the reality is HIV has a 6 month window period and when men are circumcised, there is post-op healing time to take into consideration as well as initial hypersensitivity followed by gradual keratinization resulting in progressive desensitization. There have been no follow up on these studies proving that the reduction in HIV transmission proving that the supposed reduction continues in the long-term.


http://prweb.com/releases/2006/12/prweb491707.htm

A coalition of international medical experts and bioethicists denounce the National Institutes of Health (NIH) endorsement of circumcision as a solution to the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa as being irresponsible.

George Denniston, MD (PRWEB) December 16, 2006 -- President of the international group, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, says "The NIH suggestion is dangerous folly. Worse, the NIH plan will permit circumcised men to claim they are immune to HIV and engage in unsafe sex. In cultures where women are obliged to submit, this is a recipe for a human rights disaster to women on a massive scale. Safe-sex education and widespread availability of condoms are the only answers before a vaccine is developed."

Critics of the plan, which include the umbrella group International Coalition for Genital Integrity, note that traditional African cutting and scarring rituals, and even modern medical care, are both proven sources of HIV infection. Surgeries in villages where even clean water is a luxury are likely to prove risky. The coalition, which also opposes female genital mutilation (FGM), is also concerned that suggesting genital surgery is the solution to the AIDS crisis, ”will sustain FGM or introduce it where it is unknown, at the same time as the World Health Organization has pronounced the practice ‘genital torture,’” says Dan Bollinger, the group’s spokesperson.

The NIH has claimed that circumcising adult men is an effective way to stop the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS. However, even if true, this does NOT apply to America where the disease vectors are different and hygiene is not an issue. HIV/AIDS in Africa is spread by heterosexual transmission, while HIV/AIDS in the United States is spread by homosexual transmission and the sharing of IV drug needles.

Genital integrity groups are not the only ones questioning the NIH. Dr. Haanah Kibuuka of the Makerere University Walter Reed Project in Uganda has made the following recommendation to his countrymen, "Do not expose yourself to danger in the mistaken belief that since you are circumcised, you will not catch HIV."

Robert Van Howe, MD, Michigan State University says, “Factors such as the unknown complication rate of the procedure, the permanent injury to the penis, human rights violations and the potential for veiled colonialism need to be taken into account. Based on the best estimates, mass circumcision would not be as cost-effective as other interventions that have been demonstrated to be effective. Even if effective, mass circumcision as a preventive measure for HIV in developed countries is difficult to justify.”


For Immediate Release - 12/15/2006 • Contact: Matthew Hess, President • Phone/Fax: (208) 330-8435 • PDF

Doctors and Children’s Groups Say Male Circumcision Must be Voluntary, Consensual

National Institutes of Health’s endorsement of adult male circumcision leaves the question of infant circumcision unanswered.

SAN DIEGO, California – Physicians and children’s rights advocates are calling on the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to formulate a clear policy on male circumcision so that minors are protected from being circumcised for medically unnecessary reasons. The plea follows Wednesday’s NIH announcement that findings from two new African clinical trials show that adult male circumcision helped protect men from acquiring the HIV/AIDS virus over a 15 month period.

The first trial in Kisumu, Kenya, of 2,784 HIV-negative men showed a 53 percent reduction of HIV acquisition in circumcised men relative to uncircumcised men, while the second trial of 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, showed that HIV acquisition was reduced by 48 percent in circumcised men. The trials were originally scheduled to continue until mid-2007, but the NIAID Data and Safety Monitoring Board halted them early after deeming the interim data sufficient enough to draw conclusions.

“The only complete protection against HIV is safe sex and any decision to circumcise should be made by the owner of the foreskin when he is able to give informed consent,” says David Smith, who is General Manager of NORM-UK, a UK based foreskin health charity. “The British Medical Association (BMA) has recently revised their 2003 guidance on the law and ethics of male circumcision. The revised guidance dated June 2006 reaffirms the statement ‘to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate’”.

In the UK, non-therapeutic male circumcision is not available on the National Health Service, and a Korean study by DaiSik Kim and Myung-Geol Pang, published in the online edition of British Journal of Urology earlier this month, found that “circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings”. The study confirms widespread reports from men who claim that circumcision has damaged their sex lives.

Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, a Los Angeles pediatrician and author of the book “What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision”, said that the male foreskin has sensory and protective functions that are lost after circumcision. “The foreskin contains a rich concentration of blood vessels and nerve endings that are designed to enhance sexual pleasure,” said Fleiss. “And just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. These functions make it ethically imperative that circumcision only be performed on adults who have given their consent.”

Dr. Dean Edell, syndicated radio host of “The Dr. Dean Edell Show” and anchor of “Medical Minutes”, a series of ten weekly radio medical reports, said that using routine male circumcision to prevent AIDS is flawed logic. “AIDS is caused by a virus, not by the foreskin,” said Edell. “The foreskin is one of several possible entrance points for the AIDS virus to infect the body, but that does not mean that you should cut the entrance off. It means that you should protect the entrance, either by using condoms or by practicing safe sex. If some men want to undergo circumcision because they feel it will make them safer, then they should be free to do so. But we need to draw the line when it comes to circumcision of children, which is done without consent of the patient. The common sense thing to do here is to make circumcision an option for adults only.”

Although female circumcision of minors was outlawed by Congress in 1996, a similar law does not exist to protect males. As a result, circumcision is still performed on nearly 60% of infant boys, either because the parents request it or because a doctor or religious advisor recommends it.

Matthew Hess, President of San Diego based MGMbill.org, said that a consent law for male circumcision should be enacted by Congress to give men the same choices that women have when it comes to elective surgery. “The new NIH suggestion that adult male circumcision may be used as a tool to protect against AIDS is going to tempt many physicians to circumcise children as well. But removal of healthy, non-diseased tissue is elective surgery that should be the choice of the person who owns the body, not the choice of parents or physicians.”
MGMbill.org has authored proposed federal and state legislation that would require men to be 18 years old before undergoing circumcision. The legislation is endorsed by 16 health and human rights groups, but has yet to be enacted into law.

http://mgmbill.org/pr15.pdf

Jen