new study released today states that the forskin cells are more easliy attacked by the diese but how does that work if the main cuase of aids is fluid transfer?
2007-02-23 05:10:44 · 10 answers · asked by simpleton templton 2 in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Infectious Diseases
my sources are kiro 7 seattle new report
dont have link or anything heard it on the news on the way in this morining
2007-02-23 05:15:54 · update #1
I have read the exact same news article recently, and was somewhat surprised at the finding as you were - although more hopeful than skeptical.
The article in question is referring to transmission through direct sexual intercourse, not intravenous drugs, needles, etc. and the main argument is that certain specialized cells in the foreskin are especially susceptible to infection and harboring HIV, and the removal of these cells via circumcision will create more difficult circumstances for the virus in terms of human-to-human transmission.
While this does not necessarily prevent the transmission of bodily fluids, which are, as you stated, the main cause of this disease, you need to keep in mind that this is not about eliminating the threat altogether by blocking interfluid exchange, but rather about reducing vulnerability to the virus by curbing the number of cells that are particularly susceptible to HIV.
So, as you can see, it is not a foolproof anti-AIDS firewall, impenetrable fortress, silver bullet, miracle cure, or anything like that. It is also definetely not saying "get circumcized and then act however you want" as some seem to suggest. It is just making it a little harder for the virus to jump from person to person. And if sufficient medical evidence can be found, and the article seems to suggest it has been without a doubt, I guess this means that we just have one more trick up our sleeves in fighting AIDS.
2007-02-23 05:36:20 · answer #1 · answered by terbiyesiz_herif 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would really question that!!! And look to see what kind of testing was done!! (i.e. double blind, repetitive) How long did they test how many subjects. Has anyone else found similar indications? how did they find this out, what was the motivation for the tests? Did they accidentally come across findings that lead to this testing?
Remember most times people FIND WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR in tests.
And lastly just because you heard it on the "NEWS" whomever they may be, it is not always gospel.
I tend to agree with you it seems to have nothing to do with fluid transfer, how do they address that??
2007-02-23 06:32:12 · answer #2 · answered by silverthorshammer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the lack of foreskin would not reduce your chance of getting Aids. Did you also know that you can also reduce your chance of getting aids by 99.9% by stop having sexual intercourse with same sex partner? Just look at the demographic of who are getting aids right now.
2007-02-24 13:31:33 · answer #3 · answered by steve 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's what test data shows and it's more like 65%
2007-02-23 23:55:43 · answer #4 · answered by jonnyraven 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it makes no difference whatsoever.
If it is in the media, it is usually a money racket (false)
2007-02-23 05:15:13 · answer #5 · answered by sunflare63 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow, being circumsized keeps you from using interveneous drugs and unprotected sex? Hmm.
2007-02-23 05:15:08 · answer #6 · answered by Skyhawk 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes! less chance of "harboring" unwanted viruses or bacteria's as the circumsized penis is more exposed to oxygen-which kills most viruses.
2007-02-23 05:56:23 · answer #7 · answered by Stephanie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is a myth.medically if that were to be the case easily all the men in the world would have gone for it
2007-02-23 05:14:32 · answer #8 · answered by chiratai 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't see how cut or uncut would have any effect, however,
I'm no scientist
2007-02-23 05:18:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where did you get this information, it sounds made up.
2007-02-23 05:13:39 · answer #10 · answered by Jessy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋