Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk

[Masked Monkey]

Heard this on the radio coming into work, Report: Male circumcision cuts AIDS risk.

They did stress that other means of protection was also required,

 

:king: Snow Dog

Edited July 7, 2005 by Snow Dog

[JamesSavik]

I have seen this before.

 

Way back in the eighties a statistical corelation between circumcised and non-circumcised males and the transmission of the HIV virus was observed.

[Masked Monkey]

I have seen this before.

 

Way back in the eighties a statistical corelation between circumcised and non-circumcised males and the transmission of the HIV virus was observed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This study was a formal double-blind study that showd a 70% decrease in transmission rate -- they stopped the study early because of the strenght of the results. Considering a vaccine with 30% effectiveness would be considered a success, the results are remarkable.

[Myr]

What does getting the foreskin chopped off have to do with transmission of AIDS, I wonder?

[Masked Monkey]

What does getting the foreskin chopped off have to do with transmission of AIDS, I wonder?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I gathered, it was believed to be a combination of the collection of a large number of white blood cells in the foreskin with the "toughening" of the circumcised glans.

 

:king: Snow Dog

[Jay]

From what I read in a article some months ago a certain type of cell on the inner foreskin facilitates the entry of the virus. Similar cells populate the vagina. The article did say that the HIV type (not sure if it was 1 or 2) most prevalent in Africa was most capable of using this avenue of entry hence the high rate of hetero transmission there. If you google it you will find that there is a lot of controversy over circumcision as a preventative.

[Conner]

I'm wondering if there was any kind of ethics committee associated with this study.

 

This caught my eye from the MSNBC report:

 

"The results of the study have not been published in a medical journal, although the French researcher who headed the team is expected to present them at an International AIDS Society conference in Brazil later this month."

 

Why hasn't the study results been published, preferably in a peer-reviewed medical journal? Poor study? Poor ethics?

 

Another extract from the report:

 

"The study was conducted on more than 3,000 HIV-negative South African men, ages 18 to 24. Half of the men were randomly selected to be circumcised while the other half remained uncircumcised."

 

So 1500 men were randomly selected from the group of 3000 and then circumcised? What is that all about? "Excuse me, sir, you've been selected for circumcision. Please follow me." 1500 times? The compensation for participation must have been attractive!

 

What were the subjects told then? "Go out there and f**k your brains out....and by the way, don't use a condom because we want to see if you catch the HIV virus."

 

I don't get it.

 

Hugs,

Conner

[gobears20022002]

I would suspect that medical journals wouldn't touch this study as there was no control for this experiment. You would have to have a group of circumcised and group of uncircumcised people actually sleep with someone with HIV and see how many actually contracted it. Due to being unethical, they never would have done this. it is all wild specualtion and theory.