Mommy to Brent (10/15/02) Expecting Gabrielle (10/29/05) Married to Ashby (1/3/04)
I read that on the news yesterday. I don't believe it. I mean, I believe the study results were as they reported, but I wonder whether other factors that could affect HIV transmission were also considered. Like whether circumsized men in S.Africa were more likely to have been raised in a religious, cultural, family or socio-economic setting that makes them more likely to be monogamous or to use condoms.
Jack of all trades, master of none.
But loving this life of mine.
It's true that circumcision lowers the risk of acquiring HIV / AIDS. There are now more than 30 studies showing that circumcised males have a reduced risk of HIV acquisition, and therefore less chance of infecting their female partner!
It has been shown that Langerhan's Cells on the inner surface of the foreskin are responsible for the uptake of the AIDS virus. Circumcision removes most or all of those cells, and therfore removes the portal of entry.
I recently visited Africa to advise on modern circumcision technique as part of their AIDS minimisation strategy -- using the Plastibell device after prior application of EMLA anaesthetic cream -- a safe, painless procedure for boys to the age of puberty.
Last edited by xkwzit; 27-10-2006 at 20:21. Reason: advertising own website
Dr Terry Russell has reported a study given at a recent aids conference. However the New Zealand aids foundation is concerned at the report stating ‘…Though there is evidence that circumcision might lower a man's chances of contracting HIV, there is no evidence that the reduction in risk takes unprotected sex for circumcised men out of the high-risk category… Of the millions of men worldwide with HIV, many are circumcised’.
(An interesting fact that this study was rejected for publication in the well respected ‘Lancet’ journal, the study has never been officially published!).
The well respected Cochrane reviewers(Informed health online) has looked at all studies ‘…the Cochrane review concluded that there is a strong association between circumcision and lower HIV infection in men - and it was especially strong for those at high-risk. However, this does not mean that getting circumcised can reduce your risk - or that if you are circumcised you can be sure your risk is lower… there is no strong evidence that circumcising more boys and men would slow down the spread of HIV/AIDS.’ The report also said other factors known as confounders such as sexual and hygiene factors may have an impact on becoming infected!
The Paediatrics and Child Health Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians have stated in their circumcision policy that ‘…Whilst there is some evidence, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa, that male circumcision reduces the risk of acquisition of HIV, evidence is conflicting and would not justify an argument in favour of universal neonatal circumcision in countries with a low prevalence of HIV.’ Australia has a low prevalence of HIV! There is no correlation between HIV and a lack of Circumcision in Australia!
Unfortunately Dr. Russell likes to put unnecessary fear into forcing parents into circumcising their boys! Contra to what he states, this procedure is painful, totally unnecessary and has a 2-10% complication rate!
After extensive research, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons, Urological Society of Australasia, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, and Paediatric Society of New Zealand have concluded in their circumcision policy statement reaffirming ‘... that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision.’
Would you listen to a GP well known in the media for his strong stance supporting circumcision and who profits from this (his website full of biased and inaccurate information and a direct advertisement for his clinic) or the Australian medical experts?
I am a parent with 2 boys intact and proud of it. I urge all parents to be very cautious with any recommendations concerning circumcision made in these forums, do speak with your local GP and be referred to a specialist if needed!
There are health benefits to removing virtually any normal part of the body, since a missing body part can never become diseased or injured. Removing healthy breast tissue prevents breast cancer, amputating a toe prevents nail fungus, and so on. Even female circumcision has health benefits, since anyone whose clitoris and labia have been cut off will never suffer from vulvar agglutination, lichen sclerosus, or cancer of the labia.
Assuming that the reduced AIDS risk is true (there is evidence both ways) then this is a relevant point.
Tha annoying thing is that when the fashion of circumcision began in the developed world, nobody claimed that it would reduce the risk of AIDS at the time. The health benefits we hear about over the years (most are, in time proven to be false) are used as a way to justify circumcision and to perpetuate it.
It began in the developed world as a means of sexual control. This was seen as a good thing. it was later that the health benefits were claimed. If we had not become used to the idea of circumcision, I dont think that we would be able to justify it today based on some, debatable evidence suggesting a possible health benefit, in the same way that we do not justify removing girls breast buds to prevent them from contracting breast cancer (a much more tangeable possibility than penile cancer).
All the studies on this I seen have been badly flawed, a simple example is monogamous clean teetollating circumcised Muslim are being compared with heathens who sleep with HIV positive prostitutes who are too drunk to be able to put on a condom. A sound study would be very difficult to do and would be completely unethical. Its irrelevant anyway. Ignorance re HIV is rife in Africa, and
there is apparently a condom shortage.
Terry Russell had many strange things on his website, though much of it has been removed recently.
Terry, if you read this, can you please explain who you were giving all those foreskins to and what the research was?
Also please explain why you don't allow parents present during circumcision.
I wouldn't leave a child alone with a doctor (or dentist) in a purple fit.
Even if circumcision did lower the rate of HIV infection (which it doesn't) males still need to wear protection to keep them selves safe from a vast range of other STD's, and of course, to stop the female from getting pregnant.
So even in assuming that your son should turn out to be a male ***** (the only people really who should be worry about such infection), this does not diminish their chances of being infected, and they are still prone to other diseases and in causing unwanted pregnancies.
I really don't think we have to worry about Aid's these days at all... its the Bird flu that could kill majority of the population now !!!
lol Dilly. A bit of an extreme measure!
Jack of all trades, master of none.
But loving this life of mine.