NIH: circumcision halves AIDS risk

[Dr Mordrid]

Washington Post article....

WASHINGTON -- Circumcising adult men may reduce by half their risk of getting the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse, the U.S. government announced Wednesday, as it shut down two studies in Africa testing the link.

The National Institutes of Health closed the studies in Kenya and Uganda early, when safety monitors took a look at initial results this week and spotted the protection. The studies' uncircumcised men are being offered the chance to undergo the procedure.

The link between male circumcision and HIV prevention was noted as long ago as the late 1980s. The first major clinical trial, of 3,000 men in South Africa, found last year that circumcision cut the HIV risk by 60 percent.

Still, many AIDS specialists had been awaiting the NIH's results as a final confirmation.

"Male circumcision can lower both an individual's risk of infection, and hopefully the rate of HIV spread through the community," said AIDS expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

But it's not perfect protection, Fauci stressed. Men who become circumcised must not quit using condoms nor take other risks _ and circumcision offers no protection from HIV acquired through anal sex or injection drug use, he noted.

"It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De Cock of the World Health Organization.
>

[ND66]

And this study was sponsored by who?????????


.

[Nowhere]

Doc, but obviously you do think that half of risk is still waaaaaaaay to high?

[Dr Mordrid]

When dealing with the pandemic in Africa one takes advantages over the virus where one finds them.

And this study was sponsored by who?????????

Your presumption of gain by someone is way off base.

The recent studies were were done in Kenya and Uganda and paid for by the US National Institute of Health (NIH), meaning US taxpayers. You're welcome

It was a follow-uo to a similar study done by French researchers in South Africa which showed a similar effect. That study was also ended early so its results could be hurried to the field.

The whole thing started with African researchers who noticed a lower HIV rate in villages where circumcision was customary.

The logic:

The interior of the foreskin has a mucosal surface which is more susceptible to trauma than the skin of the penile shaft or glans. Once broken HIV can easily penetrate to blood vessels.

The foreskin also contains high levels of HIV target cells. Ex: Langerhan's cells. Once HIV bonds to these cells it has a vector into the bloodstream.

In a recent in-vitro study of 14 foreskins researchers in Chicago found that foreskin mucosal tissue had a 7 times greater susceptibility to HIV-1 than cells in cervical tissue under the same conditions.

Finally, the presence of a foreskin appears to increase risk of ulcerative STD's such as chancroid and herpes, which are strong co-factors for HIV infection.

Ta Da.

[Nowhere]

...with the risk of giving people false sense/feeling of safety.

[Dr Mordrid]

Sigh........PC rears its head

Look at it this way;

which is safer: use condoms or use condoms with circumcision?

In the former if the condom breaks you're 100% screwed.

In the latter if the condom breaks you're 50% screwed.

If I were a male in Uganda I'd choose door #2.

[schmosef]

And this study was sponsored by who?????????


.

the jooooooossssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[Nowhere]

Doc, don't even go into PC, especially not with half-truths (you know perfectly well it's not 100% screwed). I have enough of half-truths/half-solutions as it is here (political situation). And this is IMHO half-solution. Look at it this way: condoms alone would suffice perfectly (+ the whole false security thing (BTW, reminded me somehow about, idiotic IMHO, protection from rape by placing in vagina painful (for the rapist) device...)). In PL, where condoms were/are actively promoted, we managed to avoid any significant number of HIV victims (even though condoms aren't as widely used as they should be anyway). Yes, virtually 0% of circumcised man in population. (too bad that condoms might become more expensive due to some idiotic tax (part of idiotic political situation here))
Now, if only some "missionaries of god" wouldn't swore against them...

Yes, I know this would work, somehow. I just think it's not good enough...

PS. Fresh memories of sensations given by this particular part of foreskin might influence my judgments

[Wombat]

Condoms are voluntary, and a *huge* problem in Africa is that men refuse to use them. Circumcision is a decision made by the parents before AIDS is a risk.

[Dr Mordrid]

@Nowhere

Don't be disengenuous; you know darned well that "%" business wasn't meant literally

[Gurm]

Well since we can't manage to get the Roman Catholic Church to stop telling the Africans that condoms CAUSE AIDS (yes, that's what they're preaching)... I think that circumcision might not be all that terrible an alternative for now. *sigh*

[TransformX]

Well, due to too many reasons, my son was circumcised and he doesn't nor will miss his foreskin. It was done in the traditional way (I say, if you're going to do a 'pagan' ritual, have a witch-doctor do it) and Eitan didn't cry or show any signs of suffering. The process took ~30 seconds and the only time where he was in pain was the first time he urinated some time later. The area almost didn't bleed and was fully healed within less than a week.

[Mehen]

"The (medical) Logic" aside, I don't think that accounts for the dramatic difference of 50%, although it probably does account for a portion of it. There is probably a strong positive correlation between the responsible sexual activity of those that are circumcized vs. those who are not.
Those that are circumcized more likely come from a family with stronger values and education, which correlates to more sexually responsible men, therefor less HIV. (I am not saying higher education means more responsible, but there IS a correlation.)

14 foreskins is not nearly large enough of a sample to win me over.

edit: conclusion: probably does not decrease it by 50%, but I am willing to be it is still a substantial percentage, enough to make it worth your while to get circumcized. Also, although this has absolutely no data to back it up - men who are circumsized have a less sensitive "tip" of the penis - could this somehow, using some nice logic circles, mean that these men are slightly less sex crazed because of the reduced stimulation and thus have sex less? Meaning circumcision leads to less sex leading to less HIV?

[Dr Mordrid]

Circumcision never limited my sex life, I can guarantee you that

As for the 50% reduction figure; that is a conservative number. The French studies showed 60%.

[Mehen]

I am willing to bet that number is reduced b/c of the factors I mentioned above, and is more likely something like 30%.