Circumcision, gives 50 to 60% more protection against AIDS etc?

Question

Wow, I finally got reason to be proud of it!

Its official.

Anyone else, like me, not happy at being cut-at-birth, and now proud-as-you-like?

Whoopie!

Here is the link as requested: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6176209.stm?lsm

Answer 1

Circumcision can save over two million in the next 15 years. This is very serious and should not be taken as a joke.

All these studies have been carried out by prestigious and respectable research institutions and universities, and are back in many cases by official organisations such as the US National Institutions of Health or the World Health Organisation.

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’.

Circumcision rates are increasing nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African and South American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.

The sites below have very interesting information related to this topic. Please have a look.

http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html

Answer 2

I think if there are radical people, they will always be so, but I don't believe that everyone who is against circumcision will have their opinion changed by this. I'm not against circumcision for other people, but I will not have it done for my son, even in light of reading this. I think the study is fascinating and important, but we've know since the jews first invented circumcision that it cuts down on the incidence of disease and illness. Circumscising men in Africa may be the best defense IN AFRICA for cutting down on AIDS (like the ancient jews, they don't have a lot of clean wash water), but here in the states we can protect against HIV and infections with proper cleaning, use of condoms, and smart sexual and lifestyle choices, and that is what I will teach my uncircumcised son. Hopefully, the fanatics out there will read about this study and realize that not everything is black and white, and that what is good for some isn't necessarily good for everyone, and choose to tone down the fanaticism a bit.

Answer 3

To address some misinformation above:

"The evidence is from one study done in 2005
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/abstract..."

So far so good... See source 1 for the full paper.

"however this study was heavily criticised because the two samples used were from different areas. The circumcised men were from an area where condoms were generally used while the uncircumcised men were from an area where Catholicism was the main religion and condoms were not used"

This is complete nonsense. That study was a randomised controlled trial. A total of 3,274 men participated. Half were circumcised at random, as part of the study. This randomisation process is an essential part of the design, because it breaks any possible associations that might affect the results (imagine flipping a coin for each man).

Now two more randomised controlled trials have completed, showing similar results (see 2).

"A survey done this year
http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf...
actually yielded results that circumcision increased HIV risk by 7%."

The results are somewhat misrepresented. And that was an observational study - a design that is recognised to be far weaker than randomised controlled trials (RCTs). To quote a Cochrane Review (predating the first RCT): "However, observational studies are inherently limited by confounding which is unlikely to be fully adjusted for. In the light of forthcoming results from RCTs, the value of IPD analysis of the included studies is doubtful." (see 3)

"I guess if it got 1000 thing guys with beards and 1000 fat beardless guys I could scientifically prove that growing a beard prevents heart attacks."

Indeed, this would be a classic example of confounding. To be more rigorous, you'd need to take a large number of male volunteers, flip a coin for each and assign them to 'beard' or 'shaved', then observe the results.

"There is actually as much evidence to prove that female circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS as theree is for male circumcision. http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/abstract..."

Nonsense. This is a single observational study, one that is unusual since most studies of female circumcision have shown the opposite results.

Answer 4

Whether or not circumcision has preventative medical benefits is controversial; some argue that circumcision is an essential public health measure, while others believe that there are no benefits to the procedure, and even drawbacks. For a detailed discussion, see medical analysis of circumcision.

Most major medical societies and other countries do not recommend routine infant circumcision. Some organisations argue that parents should make an informed decision based upon medical and other benefits and risks, while others discourage the procedure altogether.

Answer 5

Circumcision is more common than people think, although I have not been cut-at-birth as you put it. In the USA 65% of males are circumcised, 12% in Australia, 11% in Canada but only 6% in England. So there was no reason to be unhappy with it.

Answer 6

It protects yes but not 100%. Through experience in our country tribes which dont exercise circumsicion have a double death rate as compared to those do. When young and not realising what they are being done its not fair in life. Wait until the child realises that there is need of it and what it means to a man and how he should start behaving after its done. This helps much in grown and establishment of a responsible man.

Answer 7

Also even if it gave 99% protection then what good would it do.
"Hey I can sleep with hundreds of STD ridden prostitutes with little risk to myself - I'm off to an orgy, bye for now!"

The evidence is from one study done in 2005
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=2675

however this study was heavily criticised because the two samples used were from different areas. The circumcised men were from an area where condoms were generally used while the uncircumcised men were from an area where Catholicism was the main religion and condoms were not used
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

A survey done this year
http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/852571020057CCF6852571CD005207D9
actually yielded results that circumcision increased HIV risk by 7%.

I guess if it got 1000 thing guys with beards and 1000 fat beardless guys I could scientifically prove that growing a beard prevents heart attacks.

There is actually as much evidence to prove that female circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS as theree is for male circumcision. http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Answer 8

In cultures where circumcision is the norm, there is also a reduced number of cases of cervical cancer. Despite that, I hated having my son done.

Answer 9

hey dude...nothing is 100 % effective protection from Aids except no sex, iv drugs...etc.....you are nuts to think that that "concept" is a positive...I am sure that many men are upset that they are not the way they were when they were born...but accept your body for what it is as it is the only one you get and feeling badly about it wrecks your quality of life.

Answer 10

I don't see why you should be proud or not proud of something you had no influence on... Am glad that you're happy about it, whether the statistics are accurate or not.