| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jmbran11
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Location: U.S.
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:37 pm Post subject: Circumcision reduces rate of HIV spread |
 |
|
I don't strongly support or oppose male circumcision, but when I posted about female genital mutilation a couple of weeks ago, it was hi-jacked by guys who felt that it was pointless and harmful to circumcise males.
Here's a new study that says it slows the spread of HIV and should therefore be practiced in Africa and Asia as part of AIDS prevention.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1971526,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I HATE it when the media makes the WRONG claims.
They probably noticed a correlation but that doesn't imply that there is a physiological reason behind it.
Sounds like boalloacks to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmbran11
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Location: U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I wouldn't say total bollocks, but it certainly shouldn't be hailed as the way to stop the spread of AIDS in the developing world. It is possible that there is some medical truth, but I do think that focusing on this would only distort the real problem.
However, I think it's really interesting that someone bothered to study this. And, I'd really like to see the raw data and find out how they did the control group. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmbran11
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Location: U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I just realized someone else already posted about this. Sorry I copied you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tobacco Dreams
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:09 am Post subject: Decapitation |
|
|
| Decapitation reduces rate of Alzheimer's spread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Killing all of the young ones increases life expectancy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmbran11 wrote: |
| I just realized someone else already posted about this. Sorry I copied you. |
No problem. It kinda died on me anyway. Maybe the poll put people of or the use of the word 'Roundhead'.
If this does cut HIV by 50% then why not do it. Yes, you could just castrate them as well, but circumcision isn't that extreme ( when carried out by a doctor and not by a rabbi on the kitchen table with a butcher's knife).
I'm worried that some will see it as an excuse to not use condoms or that those already circumcised will think they are somehow immune. The church may also push for this as an alternative to condoms.
I would also be concerned that most circumcisions are not carried out in hygienic settings (in Africa anyway) Nelson Mandela was circumcised with a spear at around 10 yrs old. Any push to improve circumcision would be better spent providing education and contraceptives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thebum
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Location: North Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i wish my parents hadn't had the tip of my *beep* chopped off soon after i was born |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm resolutly against circumcsion for both women and men. The church and others will use this as a way to get out of pushing condoms.
Also this only helps straight men.
The vast majority of new HIV case are women who are infected by those they love, this doesn't help women at all, I would argue it only hurts them more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| I'm resolutly against circumcsion for both women and men. The church and others will use this as a way to get out of pushing condoms. |
a little paranoid aren't we?
The catholic church is the only one demonising contraception.
Most protestant churches have been at the forefront of caring for AIDS victims.
"circumcision is hygenic and recommended for your health". Yet another scientific study confirms what was written in the bible millenia ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You can be "for" or "against" circumcision all you want, but the latest evidence suggest that it does, indeed, lower ones chances of HIV infection. It is accepted at likely to be true by the CDC among others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
Also this only helps straight men.
The vast majority of new HIV case are women who are infected by those they love, this doesn't help women at all, I would argue it only hurts them more. |
Female circumcision isn't being suggested. Only male. In fact, the two procedures are related only in name. Lastly, the way that the FGM is often done (with broken glass and no meds) likely increases her chance of infection due to the open wound left behind for many weeks.
And, no, "the vast majority of new HIV cases" are not women. You are very bad with stats. The vast majority are the same as they have ever been. Homosexual men. The women stat is largely about the increases in HIV infection among Black women in both America, Europe and Africa (due to anal sex as a means of birth control). Also, white women in Russia who use needles. More women are testing positive than did in the past, but they still are very small when compared to men who have sex with men. Female-male, and male-female (without any other disease,,,hep, clap etc) is a VERY inefficient means of transmitting the virus. Anal sex and IV drug usage are astonishingly efficient.
This is a serious issue. Don't play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
I HATE it when the media makes the WRONG claims.
They probably noticed a correlation but that doesn't imply that there is a physiological reason behind it.
Sounds like boalloacks to me. |
I too smell pseudo-science.
53) His disciples said to Him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?"
He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."
Gospel of Thomas
Last edited by igotthisguitar on Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh for christs sakes. Look at the links I posted. One is from JOHN HOPKINS.
| Quote: |
| The finding that circumcision afforded protection against HIV infection, with no infections among 50 HIV-negative circumcised men as compared to 40 infections among 137 uncircumcised men, suggests another potential biological method of HIV prevention. Previous studies among high-risk populations have shown that uncircumcised men have an increased risk of heterosexual acquisition of HIV compared to circumcised men. This is probably due to the biological characteristics of the foreskin of an uncircumcised man, which is prone to microulcerations, is associated with an increased frequency of STDs, and provides an increased surface area of epithelial tissue that is susceptible to HIV. |
http://www.hopkins-aids.edu/publications/report/may00_1.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
