What you don't know is that there were studies done in the mid 80s-90s. Studies that have had plenty of time to pan out whether or not this is effective. Where's the big news on those? Nada? Wonder why? Can you say Downing Street Memos?
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/A number of studies from Africa point to the fact that the regions of Africa most troubled with HIV infection tend to overlap with the regions where male circumcision is rare. However, this does not imply a causal link: If the same argument were applied to the industrialized world, one would note that the United States has a high circumcision rate, and also has the highest prevalence of HIV.28,31,32 38 Circumcision alone cannot explain these differences. Furthermore, the applicability of data from Africa vis-à-vis the conditions in developed countries—where hygiene standards, prevalence of different STDs, and strains of HIV differ greatly—is questionable. Rather, these variances can be explained by looking at cultural differences and sexual practices.
Unfortunately, this subject has received an unbalanced treatment in the popular and scientific press. For example, in February 1996, Scientific American printed an article by two Australian researchers, JC Caldwell and P Caldwell, based on the apparent correlation between HIV infection and non-circumcised populations in Africa. Their retrospective analysis did not examine any patients. Furthermore, de Vincenzi and Mertens (AIDS, 1994) had, two years previously, criticized the design of such studies;17 and although this fact was pointed out in at least two letters to the editor, the magazine chose to edit the letters severely for publication. The Caldwells were also allowed a rebuttal that did not address the criticisms. See the original complete (unpublished) Fleiss and Hodges (1996) and Falk (1996).
In one recent study, Baeten et al.72 reported a small increased risk of HIV-1 acquisition in intact vs. circumcised truck drivers in Kenya. This study followed a cohort of 745 long-distance truck drivers. Subjects self-reported their sexual behavior at quarterly intervals over a 1–2 year period. Commonly reported behaviors included multiple partnerships, failure to use condoms, and contact with prostitutes. This study concluded that circumcision status "may explain the rapid spread of the HIV epidemic in settings, found throughout much of Africa, in which multiple partnerships and a lack of male circumcision are common."
Baeten et al. estimated that the rate of HIV-1 infection amongst prostitutes frequented by working-class men in Kenya is 60-65%.72 During the course of the study, 43 of the 745 men experienced seroconversion to HIV-1. It is important to point out that HIV can be prevented through several known very effective means, such as condom use, and limiting exposure to multiple partners. Rather than advocating universal circumcision (as some have done), it would be more appropriate to advocate better public health education in African countries regarding these issues.What you also refuse to consider is that throughout the last century, circumcision has been the cure all for any number of diseases, and ALL, every single one, have been proven false. Yes, even urinary tract infections.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/So please excuse my looking upon this new "study" as dubiously as I look upon all the others that have been proven wrong.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore