MotherNurture
08-03-2007, 16:14
New study shows the foreskin is self-protective (http://www.africasciencenews.org/_disc1/00000036.htm)
By Henry Neondo The debate on whether male circumcision could be used to prevent HIV infections or not is still raging and now, a group of doctors opposed to circumcision (Doctors Opposing Circumcision) yesterday asked Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director, UNAIDS to review new data on the protection provided by Langerhans cells in the foreskin against HIV infection; new study shows protective function of langerhans cells in the foreskin. George C. Denniston, MD, MPH, President of DOC, called for a reappraisal of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which purport to show that male circumcision has a protective effect against male circumcision. He said, "A new study by Dutch molecular biologists released this week by Nature Medicine shows that Langerhans cells produce Langerin, which is a natural barrier to HIV infection. In view of this finding, all previous studies regarding HIV and circumcision must be reviewed in the light of this new information." Denniston went on, "Those randomized controlled trials from Africa, which were terminated early, must now be reassessed. Male circumcision may not provide protection because it removes the protective Langerhans cells. Obviously, they appear to be rebutted by these new data. One cannot see how the RCTs and this information about the protective function of the Langerhans cells can both be correct." He elaborated, "Previous studies carried out on dead, amputated foreskins appeared to show that the Langerhans cells in the foreskin served as an entry point for HIV infection and that circumcision would remove some of these cells. This new study, carried out with improved methodology on healthy tissue removed by plastic surgery less than three hours after surgery, provides radically different findings. The study reveals that Langerin inhibits T-cell infection by HIV. If we can find a way to stimulate Langerin production by the Langerhans cells, then we may be able to increase resistance to HIV infection. Excision of the foreskin by circumcision may permanently and irreversibly reduce the protection of Langerin provided by its Langerhans cells." Denniston also cautioned African nations. "Public health officials should not rely blindly on those HIV studies cranked out by the circumcision lobby. There are better ways to prevent HIV infection in the community. Until we get an effective vaccine or otherwise learn to stimulate immunity, perhaps through better use of the Langerhans cells, public education on safe sex, behavior change, and use of condoms remains the most effective means of controlling HIV infection." Circumcision as a measure to reduce the transmission of HIV was proposed in the mid-1980s by the late Aaron J. Fink, MD, who had extreme views about male circumcision, which he vigorously promoted. Fink had no scientific basis for his hypothesis that circumcision could reduce the transmission of HIV, nevertheless, certain scientists tried to show that his hypothesis was valid. They carried out a number of poorly designed studies in Africa, which purported to "prove" that male circumcision could prevent the transmission of HIV. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has not endorsed the use of male circumcision to prevent HIV infection. Neither has the British Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (BCDSC), UNAIDS and WHO. BCDSC says that the introduction of circumcision would lead to young men continuing their unsafe sex practices and would fail a cost-benefit analysis. UNAIDS issued a statement on the use of circumcision to prevent HIV transmission/reception, saying the use of circumcision to prevent HIV as it would convey a false sense of security.
More info:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20070305/hl_hsn/scientistsdiscovernaturalbarriertohiv
Jen
By Henry Neondo The debate on whether male circumcision could be used to prevent HIV infections or not is still raging and now, a group of doctors opposed to circumcision (Doctors Opposing Circumcision) yesterday asked Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director, UNAIDS to review new data on the protection provided by Langerhans cells in the foreskin against HIV infection; new study shows protective function of langerhans cells in the foreskin. George C. Denniston, MD, MPH, President of DOC, called for a reappraisal of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which purport to show that male circumcision has a protective effect against male circumcision. He said, "A new study by Dutch molecular biologists released this week by Nature Medicine shows that Langerhans cells produce Langerin, which is a natural barrier to HIV infection. In view of this finding, all previous studies regarding HIV and circumcision must be reviewed in the light of this new information." Denniston went on, "Those randomized controlled trials from Africa, which were terminated early, must now be reassessed. Male circumcision may not provide protection because it removes the protective Langerhans cells. Obviously, they appear to be rebutted by these new data. One cannot see how the RCTs and this information about the protective function of the Langerhans cells can both be correct." He elaborated, "Previous studies carried out on dead, amputated foreskins appeared to show that the Langerhans cells in the foreskin served as an entry point for HIV infection and that circumcision would remove some of these cells. This new study, carried out with improved methodology on healthy tissue removed by plastic surgery less than three hours after surgery, provides radically different findings. The study reveals that Langerin inhibits T-cell infection by HIV. If we can find a way to stimulate Langerin production by the Langerhans cells, then we may be able to increase resistance to HIV infection. Excision of the foreskin by circumcision may permanently and irreversibly reduce the protection of Langerin provided by its Langerhans cells." Denniston also cautioned African nations. "Public health officials should not rely blindly on those HIV studies cranked out by the circumcision lobby. There are better ways to prevent HIV infection in the community. Until we get an effective vaccine or otherwise learn to stimulate immunity, perhaps through better use of the Langerhans cells, public education on safe sex, behavior change, and use of condoms remains the most effective means of controlling HIV infection." Circumcision as a measure to reduce the transmission of HIV was proposed in the mid-1980s by the late Aaron J. Fink, MD, who had extreme views about male circumcision, which he vigorously promoted. Fink had no scientific basis for his hypothesis that circumcision could reduce the transmission of HIV, nevertheless, certain scientists tried to show that his hypothesis was valid. They carried out a number of poorly designed studies in Africa, which purported to "prove" that male circumcision could prevent the transmission of HIV. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has not endorsed the use of male circumcision to prevent HIV infection. Neither has the British Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (BCDSC), UNAIDS and WHO. BCDSC says that the introduction of circumcision would lead to young men continuing their unsafe sex practices and would fail a cost-benefit analysis. UNAIDS issued a statement on the use of circumcision to prevent HIV transmission/reception, saying the use of circumcision to prevent HIV as it would convey a false sense of security.
More info:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20070305/hl_hsn/scientistsdiscovernaturalbarriertohiv
Jen