How Well Does Circumcision Slow the Spread of HIV / AIDS?

Thanks For Giving Us Such Wonderful Information. For Those Who Enjoy Statuses On Facebook, We're Just Trying To Make New Status And You Can Also Get Latest Statuses From Facebook Status.

There are many other factors, such as the HIV status of partners, number of partners, frequency of sexual activity, use of condoms, and more, that the researchers assume were equalised by randomisatation and unaffected by circumcision, when they probably were not. The trials were not, of course, double blinded or placebo controlled, the true gold standard of medical trials.phillies tickets

Circumcision is genital mutilation no matter if it is a boy or girl. America had a 90% circumcision rate in the 70's and still had very high HIV rates. Europe does not circumcise and have some of the lowest HIV rates in the world. Proper education, safe sex, and condoms is what can present HIV. Circumcision does not have a role in this.

How well does circumcision protect against HIV? Here is the sum total so far.

In the three trials, they circumcised a total of 5,400 men and left simlar groups alone. After less than two years, 64 of the first groups had HIV, and 137 of the second. That difference, 73 men, is the whole of the protection that has actually been demonstrated. All of the "modelling" (basically just multiplying those numbers by population and time) stands or falls on them. The overall Number Needed to Treat for the three trials was 39, so how did they beat it down to 5 or 15?

There are many other factors, such as the HIV status of partners, number of partners, frequency of sexual activity, use of condoms, and more, that the researchers assume were equalised by randomisatation and unaffected by circumcision, when they probably were not. The trials were not, of course, double blinded or placebo controlled, the true gold standard of medical trials. 673 men (327 circumcised) were lost from study, their HIV status unknown, and a difference of 73 could easily be hidden in those figures. (Finding you had HIV, after a painful and marking operation to prevent it, would be a powerful incentive to drop out, and they were not told their HIV status but encouraged to be tested nearby.)

Behind all this is the mystery of why circumcision has such a hold on the popular imagination; why it has been a "cure" in search of a disease for so long, why it has never been subjected to the same scrutiny as any other parental imposition or surgical procedure, and why cutting part OFF a man's (or baby's) penis is somehow seen as enhancing his manhood.

reduces the risk of female-to-male transmission of the virus by 60 percent."
Well that has not been observed in populations in the industrialized world. In other words, this risk reduction has really only been observed by circumcision pushers that did the study. the observed reduction was ALWAYS less than 60% and of course the actual risk change was in the range of about 1.4% risk change -- again not observed in large population studies. So it is outrageous to say that this is in any way useful for the industrialized world.

The same researchers stopped the male to female circumcision study because it showed circumcised men pass HIV to women at a higher rate than natural men. So this article is misleading and propaganda on many levels. This is similar and no more useful than the studies that show female circumcision lowers the risk of male-to-female transmission of the virus by about 60 percent.

Circumcision is nerve damage cutting off about 20000 fine touch and stretch sensing nerve endings and removing a source of pleasure from the male FOR LIFE. This is 2/3 of the total pleasure source amputated! This is nerves, blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones taken away from a human before the human can experience this. The dynamics and function and pleasure from sex and masturbation of the penis is harmed for good. This is a horrible thing for any medical professional to push.
Push condom use. A condom is not great, but it feels so much better when you have all of your natural penis.

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 South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% 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.