Circ could prevent millions of Aids cases

---

Here's the link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060711/hl_afp/africahealthaids_060711214237

the key word is could prevent, and thats over the next 20 years....

They should be using condoms anyways, rather than going bareback all the friggin time. Then they wouldn't have this problem nearly as much.

Point being, if someone reads this and doesn't have any other info to go on, they'll just think that getting cut will solve all their HIV gettin problems.

It's been established that circumcision reduces the chance of being infected. Even the article says the chances are reduces by 60%.I guess we should all go get circumcised now. Thanks willy. I'll make an appointment today.

Circumcision is a real crusade for you. A 60% reduction is notable, but what would the reduction be if condoms were used in unsafe circumstances? I expect the difference would be much smaller. I personally would not want to get circumcised for that purpose alone.

Maybe i overnalize shit too much but...
results of a trial conducted in South Africa, in which men were offered the chance to be circumcised. Those who chose to be circumcised had a lower HIV infection rate 18 months later.
That does not indicate anything other then the circ happening.
did they factor in changes in lifestyle? Maybe those men are not out whoring around or using IV drugs or maybe they started or continued using condoms while themen that didnt have the circ done, continued or started all the above mentioned things.
From just reading the article, it doesnt give all the conditions of the trial, there was no control group, it certainly isnt bad news, but its also not a cure, or a warranty against an aids infection.

results of a trial conducted in South Africa, in which men were offered the chance to be circumcised. Those who chose to be circumcised had a lower HIV infection rate 18 months later. Researchers say that their test shows a reduction in rates of infection, from women to men, of about 60 percent. Extrapolated mathematically, that would lead to a prevention of about two million new HIV infections in the next 10 years, and a further 3.7 million cases in the decade after that, while 2.7 million deaths could be prevented.

they are speaking about over 20 years. It also ony affects en getting it from women, what about men to men ?
You also have to remeber that in the US being circed is the norm rather then the exception, we still have aids in the US, there are millions of men who have been cut, but still got it. How many of thoe were from women? drugs? blood transfusions? acidnetal exposure like a dentist or doc or first responder EMT might happen to get into?
Whie its posative news, it sure as hell isnt the be all end all argument for having th end of your dick lopped off.
If people stopped fucking with no protection, stopped using drugs, and contained the spread that way, the damned thing would eventualy die off and not be a threat.
Theres alot more to onsider then simply getting cut.

Yes, I think this study is seriously flawed. Guys who chose to be circumcised would be different psychologically on average from the general population - more likely to do what they were told. Therefore they would be more likely to practice safer sex, and perhaps have sex with multiple partners less often. The report doesn't say whether these factors have been allowed for.

Son ofa bitch, you and I agree on something, besides that I jerk off to much and like to smoke and drink, Im proud, i really am all bullshit kidding aside though, this is less of a study and more of an observation with no background to back up what they want the point to be.

Does this mean i have to go get circumcised? Or i will get Aids? What if i dont wan't to get Circumcised, does it make me a bad person? I don't want AIDS!

That's like saying, circumcision will stop masterbation! It's all preposterous; to stop aids is to know your partner and to practice safe sex.

Hey Chance, did I ever say that jerking off continuously was too much?

I knew this was going to stir up the circ debate and quite frankly I'm angry about it all. Lets not forget that this study was about Africa where resources (like money) are slim and access to condoms is much different than it is here. Add to that the rate of AIDS already in that country and the amount of people there who aren't as educated as in other places. It is a recipe for disaster. We all know that good hygiene under the foreskin prevents infections and related issues for uncut guys. We also know that safe sex (condoms) and abstinence prevent the transmission of HIV... So be cool folks, this isn't a study that should cause any of us to do anything different.... Remember the focus of the study is on a country that is very very different than most ours. Just my thoughts I'm sure this is going to cause a flurry of "in your face posts" about the virtues of circumcision. I'm not running out to have one done - and unless you really really want to, don't use this study as the reason.....

Not sure what the point of that article is. Is it suggesting circumcision is the solution to the problem of transmission of AIDS in Africa? That is like saying cutting off your ears is a solution to preventing ear infections. While it may be a true statement, it doesn't address the whole picture, and isn't the only solution (such as cleaning and using condoms), nor the best solution. I think they'll have more success in Africa reducing HIV rates by giving out condoms and educating the people there how to use them and why it is important to use them than convincing the male population there to get circumcised. While circumcision may reduce transmission of HIV, it won't solve any other health related problems in Africa like condoms will such as birth control (overpopulation), and transmission of most other STD's.

And to add to what lance said, I think proof that circumcision rates don't have much effect on HIV rates is look at the HIV rates between high circumcision countries such as the U.S. and Australia versus low circumcision countries such as Europe and China. If this article's theory was true, you should see much higher HIV rates in Europe and China where most guys are uncut than in the U.S. where most guys are circumcised, yet it is simply not the case.

That's absolute rubbish. If being circumcised was such a good preventative for AIDS, then why is it that the US, a largely circumcised country, has such large numbers of AIDS cases and Western Europe pales in comparison?Why not remove girl's breasts? Babies can be fed formula and think of the number of Breast Cancer cases and women's lives that could be saved and women don't need tits , they can wear falsies to stuff their bras - OR - how about doing Hysterectomies on all women in their late 30's, just think of the affect on the rates of cervical cancer? They don't need a uterus or cirvix, they'll still have their vaginas for sexual relations.Then of course, what about pulling teeth. False teeth are available and think of the tooth decay which could be prevented, gum disease, orthodonture and more.How about concentrating on the easily doable at very minor cost. Sex education and condoms, maybe some morality lessons for those prone to indescriminate fornication or adultry. Cuting off body parts is not the answer to mankind's bad behaviour, unless you just get your nut thinking of the whole bloody world being cut and mutilated like you are?At least that's my take.

In reply to:I think proof that circumcision rates don't have much effect on HIV rates is look at the HIV rates between high circumcision countries such as the U.S. and Australia versus low circumcision countries such as Europe and China. If this article's theory was true, you should see much higher HIV rates in Europe and China where most guys are uncut than in the U.S. where most guys are circumcised, yet it is simply not the case.Your conclusion may be correct, but there are too many confounding influences to come to any kind of conclusion, much less proof, about the effect of circumcision on the epidemology of AIDS in the cases you cited.

In reply to:Your conclusion may be correct, but there are too many confounding influences to come to any kind of conclusion, much less proof, about the effect of circumcision on the epidemology of AIDS in the cases you cited. I shouldn't have used the word 'proof', but the same can be said about this study in Africa. There are far more confounding influences at work than just circumcision, which that article failed to identify or acknowledge.

Yes, absolutely. The quality of studies varies considerably, and, unless a study is a huge, well-done, and longitudinal, it's just another data point.