Circumcision prevents AIDS infection: scientists

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070223/hl_afp/healthaidscircumcision_070223002616

:popcorn::beer:

i have raisinettes -- and goobers.

:popcorn:

Yummy.:popcorn:

;)

The spittle-flecked invective of the nutters can get sloppy.

Every six months or so, they come out with another "study" saying the same thing.

If circumcision is so effective, why is one of the world's most 'cut' nations (the USA) one of the most affected by AIDS? BTW, ever wonder what happens to all those foreskins? They get sold for research into cosmetics, among other things.

one of the nations most affected by AIDS- and just for the record, I'm no fan of circumcision, and refused to have my now 20 year old son circumcised.

When did the US move to Africa?


For the record, I'm no fan of circumcision either.

Getr a freakin' grip of the facts before you post such nonsense.

In areas where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual sex, such as sub-Saharan Africa, male circumcision could theoretically slash the infection rate in half.

It is unknown whether circumcision would be equally effective in concentrated AIDS epidemics, as in Asia and eastern Europe, where AIDS primarily strikes gay men and drug users.

and if they're not have they set up an appointment to get snipped.

Saying that three peer-reviewed studies blessed by the World Health Organization were conducted by "scientists" is on a par with fundie claims that there's a debate in the scientific community about evolution.

Guess what? Science will sometimes fail to support your prejudices. Doesn't make it "science."

Reminds me of a friend of mine who suffered from severe, chronic ulcers, when I told her about a study that showed they were caused by a bacteria. She got ALL pissed off. Turns out the study was right, and they've since just about eliminated ulcers as a chronic disease (including hers) through the use of antibiotics.

automatically make it wrong.

It is a peer reviewed study, and it was also reviewed by the WHO. But it is not a scientific study, nor was it studied by scientists.

Key difference. Clinical study vs. Scientific study. This was a Clinical Study. Done by clinicians in clinics, to find results. They publish the results. Clinical studiues concern themselves with outcomes.

Scientific studies, on the other hand are done in labs, and concern themselves with WHY the outcome is the way it is. They are performed by scientists, using laboratory teqniques, which this study hasn't been been through yet.

For example. In the 80s clinical studies concluded that circumcision eliminated penile cancer. The scientific study found that the foreskin had no effect, chemically, or physiologically on the likelihood of penile cancer. They actually found that the greatest cause of penile cancer is tobacco usage, negating the clinical study who had no WHY they came to their conclusion, just a sample of statistics.

cure themselves of AIDs should they get infected.

The head of the World Health Organization's HIV/AIDS department is Kevin De Cock.

Huh. Huhuh. Huhuhuhuh. You said, "Kevin."

circumcision in Africa, it might save more lives to campaign against cultural resistence to condoms in the Vatican. Just my two cents.

I know they said there's the concern of cultural sensitivities, but I didn't see any mention of actual cultural aversion. I think they're worried that a rumor will get started that the Jews are behind it.

I think that counts as cultural aversion thought they don't specify which culture.

It's not dead yet!

:rofl:

I'll bet complete removal of the penis would cut HIV risk by about 98%!

:rofl:

popcorn was the first cold cereal in America. Sugar and milk.

Just sayin'. :+

You cannot get "AIDS" from anyone. I'm so sick of having to read crap like this.

Then how does one get AIDS? From the store down the street?

HIV is a viral infection. AIDS develops from the HIV virus. So, I suppose your post is technically correct, but one wouldn't develop AIDS without being infected with HIV from another source.

When you get infected, you get infected with HIV which eventually may lead to an AIDS diagnosis.

I'd love to hear if people on DU even know what an AIDS-diagnosis is and why it's given.

I've posted on this many times.

...I think it's sufficient that people realize that AIDS (which is really not the proper term anymore, it's called HIV disease) is a sexually transmitted disease and recognize it for the danger that it is to their health.

AIDS is not a sexually transmitted disease. HIV is. The media always uses the word "AIDS" out of context, which I believe is done as a scare tactic. It bugs the shit out of me.

I would not be so hasty in advocating for universal infant circumcision just yet. This study has yet to be confirmed or falsified in a lab. They may have found what happens, but they still don't know WHY.

Consider... and infant is not going to have sex for 15 years, give or take, and in that amount of time...

*AIDS researchers have conservatively stated that there my be vaccine trials within that time.

*A new discovery of the HIV weakness...

http://advocate.com/news_detail_ektid42092.asp

An image released Thursday by researchers at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases reveals a vulnerability in the ever-powerful AIDS virus. Unlike the rest of the mutating virus, one key portion on the surface of HIV has been found to be stable and, more important, penetrable by the HIV-fighting antibody b12.

The finding has profound implications for developing an AIDS vaccine. "NIH researchers and their colleagues have revealed a gap in HIV's armor," said NIH director Elias A. Zerhouni in a release, "and have thereby opened a new avenue to meeting that challenge."

AIDS vaccine developers have long been frustrated by the endless ways HIV eludes natural and pharmacological-induced immune responses. Not only does HIV mutate rapidly and continuously, but the virus is coated with an impenetrable coat of sugary molecules, which block access by antibodies.

However, certain parts of the virus remain immutable in order to bind and penetrate human cells. One of these regions, gp120, protrudes from the surface of the HIV molecule and has become the hot spot for vaccines to target.

...may prove that this vaccine is all the more closer.

*Microbicides, sometimes known as liquid condoms have been in trial stages for some time now, and FDA approval is within 5 years. The infection rate, without traditional latex condoms is less than 13% with the microbicides, far larger than the averages that these circumcision clinicians/advocates are boasting. More on Microbicides here...

http://www.ipm-microbicides.org/about_microbicides/english/index.htm

Microbicides are vaginal products being developed to reduce the transmission of HIV during sexual intercourse. Microbicides could take the form of a gel, cream, film, suppository or sponge, or be contained in a vaginal ring that releases the active ingredient gradually. A microbicide could also be in a new formulation and use a delivery method yet to be invented. A microbicide would be a useful complement to other HIV prevention measures, including safer sex education, condom distribution, voluntary testing and counseling, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, anti-stigma campaigns, safe blood supplies and (hopefully, one day) a vaccine.


Circumcision should not be taken lightly, and it is in the US. Too much so IMO. Nobody bothers to understand that this is PERMANENT BODY MODIFICATION, and few ever really bother to take the time out to truly understand what is cut off, how many nerves are removed, or what the purpose of a foreskin is...perferring to just dismis it off as "just a pice of skin". If a vaccine is found to be decades away and this study proves to be true (highly unlikely considering the history of all the other 100s of diseases circ'ing was supposed to cure), then the infants of today can opt to have it done themselves as adults.