Study Confirms Link Between Male Circumcision And HIV Prevention
A recent article published by the Public Library of Science has confirmed that circumcised males experience increased protection against HIV. It is predicted that in certain areas of the world, one out of every five to 15 male circumcisions in the next decade could prevent HIV infection of one male.
This is one of the conclusions drawn as a result of meetings between the World Health Organization, The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, and the South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis. Experts from all three organizations met to analyze previous published and unpublished works to estimate the impact of an extensive male circumcision program.
“The impact at a population level depends on the frequency of circumcision and the prevalence of HIV,” said Dr. Ronald Gray, lead researcher of circumcision trials in Uganda. The published numbers apply to areas in which more than 15 percent of the population has HIV, and in which more than 80 percent of men are uncircumcised.
As of yet, no research has shown any correlation between male circumcisions and male-to-male HIV transmission. Thus the estimations also assume the majority of HIV transmission in the population is heterosexual.
Using these parameters, the study is only applicable to at-risk areas including regions in South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya. However, predictions say that if almost all men in such an area were circumcised, the risk of HIV infection in males could potentially be halved.
The benefits of circumcision are not limited to protection from HIV infection. Circumcised males are also less likely to contract several sexually transmitted diseases, including herpes and syphilis. Women would benefit indirectly from the decreased likelihood of encountering an infected partner. Moreover, in previous studies, females experienced lower risk of genital ulcers and other bacterial infections when their partners were circumcised.
Results from a Kenyan trial indicate that the effects of one circumcision surgery are life-long. The greatest long-term effects thus would arise when males are circumcised before they engage in sexual activity.
This would seem to support the common United States practice of circumcising males as infants. Experts concluded that the results of widespread infant circumcision would not be apparent for 20-25 years afterwards, but would likely be highly significant.
However, for now this practice remains a hotbed of controversy due cultural, moral, religious, and historic differences. Because the results of this study do not apply to a country such as the U.S., the results do not support circumcision in the U.S.
Dr. Gray was also hesitant to fully support infant circumcision in the U.S. When asked what his advice to new parents would be, he simply said “I would recommend they receive full information on short-term risks and potential life time benefits, and then make an informed decision.” He also does not believe that the U.S. should take steps to promote circumcision nationally.
The controversy surrounding infant circumcision is only one hindrance to the successful implementation of an extensive male circumcision program. Availability of finances and qualified medical personnel will present huge obstacles to overcome, particularly in the areas most in need.
So far, no governments have succeeded in getting an effective male circumcision program off the ground. It is “a failure of political will,” says Gray.
For more information, please see the study in the Public Library of Science and the New York Times article for more about the circumcision debate.
Related Articles:
- CDC Releases New Statistics On HIV/AIDS In The United States
- Study Finds That An Increasing Number Of HIV-Positive Women Plan To Become Pregnant
- President Obama Announces Launch Of The National HIV/AIDS Community Discussions
- Further Strategies Sought To Reduce Mother-To-Child HIV Transmission During Breastfeeding
- Second Study Indicates That People With HIV May Have A Higher Risk Of Bone Fractures, Even At A Young Age
Circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS. There are six African countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 50% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.
The real news is that male circumcision is now known to ablate the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with over 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated. Now that people know this, it is not a medical option to mutilate a baby. Taking away male pleasure zones without consent is ABUSE.
It is outrageous that there are some obsessing and trying to find a reason to continue this practice. The HIV risk change is minimal and not observed outside Africa. The risk cahnge (alleged to change from from 3.2% risk down to 1.8%) may not exist as the cut men did not have sex during a large part of the study and were told to use condoms. Further, if these med experts were not just promoting the cut and were really into reducing HIV, would they not look at clitoral hood and labia cutting? This is the removal of same tissue and a study showed that HIV rares were so much lower with circumcised females! Any women want to be circumcised to reduce the HIV problem? A condom is still needed for unsafe sex and circumcision raises the risk of women catching HIV (in the same Africa study). Stop advocating mutilation. Just think, when these baby boys grow up, it is likely there will be a contraceptive gel that prevents HIV with certainty — 0% risk. Oh, and we have something now that lowers the risk to zero, and sex with condoms feels so much better with all of the erogenous tissue — the whole penis.
Over 80% of the world is intact, and most of the places with low rates of circumcision also have low rates of HIV infection. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.
Foreskin feels really good. The foreskin includes over half of a male’s pleasure-receptive nerve endings and about 15 square inches of sensual interface. It protects the glans and mucosa and allows an exquisite frictionless rolling/gliding action during intimacy for him and his partner.
Even a pin-poke to draw a ceremonial drop of blood from a female is an illegal outrage for 94% of the world’s people. How can it be legal to do significant cosmetic genital reductions on boys?
It’s HIS body, and it’s HIS decision.
These studies are BS and are supported by pro circ lobby. They are using the most frightening diseases to justify the mutilation : fear of masturbation in 1880, hygiene with the fear of germs in 1900s, fear of cancer in 1970s, fear of HIV in 2000s. They have an agenda. For more information : http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/
A central element, perhaps the central element in the circumcision debate is not often discussed. The majority of those who express opposition to circumcision, including me, are actually not opposed to circumcision. We are opposed to circumcision of minors. That is the issue. Adults have every right to do whatever they wish to their bodies. I defend that right. However I adamately oppose the circumcision of minors.
In the last 3 weeks there have been two articles in Australian newspapers. One is a reaffirmation of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians saying circumcision of minors is not recommended (inspite of all the “news” out of Africa). The second is about a current Australian legal review as to whether anyone who circumcises a minor, even with parental consent, can be held liable for assualt. This article also reports the circumcison rate has fallen from 70% to two percent today. Examples from other countries could also be cited.
The United States has been on the wrong side of history on this issue. From a jury of our peers, so to speak, 80% of the worlds population says we are wrong, including all of our closest English speaking friends, England, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Yet even the United States is changing. Circumcision is down to 30% on the West coast. I feel it is only a matter of time, 20 years maybe, before it is made illegal to modifiy the genitals of a male minor in the United States.
Circumcision is not a vaccine or a haircut or similar in any to all the other myriad choises a parent makes. It is an unethical violation of another human beings right to bodiliy integrity. I was circumcised against my will. I am angry about it. No one had the right to do this to me. I don’t care that other men accept it, maybe even like it. I do not. Emotionally (not in reality, of course) I feel like shooting the butcher who did this to me.
Circumcision on a minor is not a medical proceedure, except in rarest instances. It is true that their can be potential medical benefits down the road, but at the time circumcision is done, on a minor, it is unethical cosmetic modification.
There are major potential medical benefits to both the individual and to society in removing infant female breast buds. The benefits from this proceedure are vastly larger than anything circumcision can give to society. Yet it would be patently unethical to do and offensive to even talk of it. So, to all you circumcision advocates, what exactly is the difference?
There is absolutely no difference. No….there is a difference. In the United States some people have grown so accustomed to male genital reduction, so hardened to it, that they can’t see what they are doing. Yet in both prodeedues you are forceably removing normal, natural body tissue from another person who had every right to keep it. In the end all the “good” intentions and rationalizations of those who remove the tissues mean nothing.
His body, his choice…when he’s eighteen.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak, James
This was just published:
Circumcision Not Enough to Stop HIV, Experts Warn
Although circumcision has been touted as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection, recent findings show an increase in HIV infection in regions where most males are circumcised.
By ARTHUR OKWEMBA Posted Saturday, September 26 2009
As thousands of young men in Nyanza Province troop to health centres to be circumcised in hopes of fending off HIV, new studies show it might be too early to claim victory. Although circumcision has been touted as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection, recent findings show an increase in HIV infection in regions where most males are circumcised.
According to findings of the Kenya Aids Indicator Survey (Kais) released last week, North Eastern and Coast provinces, where 97 per cent of males are circumcised, registered an increase in HIV prevalence.
That story goes on, “The new findings of growing HIV
prevalence among circumcised males indicates the practice cannot
completely protect an individual from HIV infection unless it is
combined with other practices including using condoms, being faithful to one partner, or abstaining from sex.”
A traveller came to a farmhouse and offered to make the occupants Nail Soup in return for a night’s shelter. He threw a large nail in a pot of boiling water. But he said -
“A nail cannot completely make Nail Soup unless it is combined with other soup ingredients including onions, carrots, leeks, potatoes, meat and seasonings.”
In the morning he went on his way, refreshed after a night in a comfortable bed, minus the nail, with some gold coins in his pocket and the thanks of the family ringing in his ears for the wonderful nail that made such delicious Nail Soup.
So it will be when mass circumcision has been “rolled out” and if there is any dent at all in HIV transmission.
You boneheads all bit the big one, and swallowed it hook, line, and stinker.
Nancy Padian’s 10 year study of hiv positives and their seronegative partner showed ZERO transmission of hiv.
Just because doctors scare their patients to death with diagnoses of death, and just because gays stressed and doped themselves to death, and just because starving hopeless people in Africa are stressing and starving themselves to death, does NOT MEAN it has anything to do with the big sex boogeyman of HIV.
All of your ignorance shows HOW RIGHT Elsevier was to put out the so-called “denialist” findings. Only problem is you goons are calling the wrong team denialists. Wanna see the denialists who are living under illusions of the sex boogeyman of death? Go look in the mirror, fools.
You boneheads all bit the big one!!! Hahahahahaaaaa