How significant is the research that proves that circumcised men are 50% less likely to catch HIV / aids?

Question

If they have unprotected sex with somebody who has the virus.This is the result of many years of research involving 8000 men in Uganda,

The male foreskin is a special type of skin tissue that that the virus can use as a host.

Answer 1

Don't fall for that. Why do you think black Africa is in the state that its in?
Even some of their politicians believe that rubbish.

Aids is tranmitted by body fluids present in sexual intercourse - not by monkey bites or any other fanciful ideas!

Answer 2

Contrary to popular belief, yes there were two studies done 3,000 and 5,000 men respectively. I do not consider that very significant. I think the study will do more harm than good, do you realize how many circumcised men will consider themselves "safe" from HIV. This will only serve as another excuse for men that don't want to use condom's. Does cutting the HIV infection statistics in half make you want to not use a condom?

Answer 3

As has been pointed out there are a great many variables here, not all of which have been mentioned. Not least the fact that there seems also to be some evidence of an ethnic element in susceptibility to AIDS (highly politically-incorrect, but then Caucasians are particularly prone to skin cancer!) Sexual practices are the biggest factor in the spread of AIDS. If you don't have HIV yourself and you don't have sexual intercourse or otherwise exchange body fluids with someone who is HIV positive, you're not going to get AIDS. In Africa the problem is a combination of promiscuity combined with a level of ethnic susceptibility .
And we haven't even begun to address the question of the anatomical differences between the typical African penis and the typical Caucasian one.

Answer 4

VERY SIGNIFICANT

Many studies, carried out by very prestigious research institutions and universities confirm that circumcision reduces the risk of contraction of STD's such as AIDS-HIV, herpes or syphilis up to 70%.

It is important to distinguish between risk reduction and total protection, two concepts many confuse.
The only way to obtain a total protection (100%) against STD’s is sexual abstinence.
Condoms provide a protection of about 96%. Studies have shown, as I said, that circumcision offers a protection of a very respectable 70%, compared with the 0% protection of an uncircumcised penis.
This means that circumcised men have a *much lower* risk of contracting STD’s, however condoms still have to be used.

Today (Dec 13 2006) two new studies have been released that confirm the findings of prior studies. These are backed by the National Institutes of Health
( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16184582/ )

Why uncircumcised men are more prone to STD’s?

Scientist have discovered that the skin covering the inner side of the foreskin is by its nature (has a very low amount of a protein called ‘keratin’ which stops viruses entering into the body, plus some other factors) acts as an ‘open door’ to STD’s. Circumcision, by removing the foreskin, ‘closes’ this ‘door’.

Some more links with related information:
http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html

http://icuxbridge.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14095142&method=full&siteid=53340&headline=-circumcision-protects-against-aids--name_page.html

Answer 5

Circumcision, other than being scientifically "cleaner" has its roots in the Bible.
Perhaps the significance is that those men circumcised have a belief system that decries the acts associated with AIDs.

Answer 6

Native Africans are not circumcised, thus I think this research shows that the native population has higher infection rates, and that the non-native population i.e. people from developed countries are less likely to have AIDS. Which anybody could have told you.

Answer 7

50 percent? I guess it shows that being on the "cutting edge" of medical research pays off.

However in all seriousness, I think there's probably more to that statistic than meets the eye. For example, are the men in this study uncircumcised because of their religious background which might also affect sexual practices, like refusing to use condoms?

Answer 8

Utter pooh! Most Africans males are circumised, especially West Africans - so how come AIDS is stil rife in Africa?
It's probably due to things such as: infection from needles used in medical procedures, sharing toothbrushes, sex with infected people, the lack of family planning.

Answer 9

The spread of aids involves the use of bodily fluids so i do not see how circumcision would have anything to do with it. I would have to see the reaction from the rest of the scientific community before i would make a decision. I would also look at their methodology.

Answer 10

hmm interesting question! 8000 people is a big number, it sounds pretty believable to me. it could still be really unreliable though.. have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#HIV
it seems quite likely that circumcised men are less likely to get hiv. i wouldnt recommend getting circumcised for that though.. no foreskin means less sensitivity during sex! just use a condom.