Published May 28, 2003
You are reading page 109 of The Circumcision Discussion
I listed SEVERAL sources of DIFFERENT studies that were done.None of them were done in Africa.You are posting that as if all of the research is based on a single study done in Africa...and there is simply, no truth to that whatsoever.
None of them were done in Africa.
You are posting that as if all of the research is based on a single study done in Africa...and there is simply, no truth to that whatsoever.
Hate to be the one to point this out to you, but I am quoting directly from the links you posted.
In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study.
The Uganda study investigators are also examining the following in an ongoing study
In an earlier study of couples in Uganda in which the male partner was HIV infected and the female partner was initially HIV-seronegative, the infection rates of the female partners differed by the circumcision status and viral load of the male partners.
A number of important differences from sub- Saharan African settings where the three male circumcision trials were conducted must be considered in determining the possible role for male circumcision in HIV prevention in the United States. Notably, the overall risk of HIV infection is considerably lower in the United States, changing risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness considerations. Also, studies to date have demonstrated efficacy only for penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, whereas the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM.
Lastly, whether the effect of male circumcision differs by HIV-1 subtype, predominately subtype B in the United States and subtypes A, C, and D in circulation at the three clinical trial sites in Africa, is also unknown
individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).
Your research sites were located in Africa, and this research is far from conclusive in saying that circumcision is the only way to reduce HIV transmission.
Link #2 posted:
In the new study, a research team at the Rakai Health Sciences Program in Uganda -- in collaboration with researchers from the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, and Makerere University in Uganda -- conducted two clinical trials involving 3,393 uncircumcised men ages 15 to 49. All the men were negative for HIV and genital herpes (also known as herpes simplex virus type 2); a subgroup of men also tested negative for HPV.
They also note, however, that male circumcision is not completely effective in preventing sexually transmitted infections. Safe sex practices, including consistent condom use, are still necessary to provide the best protection.
They also point out that roughly 3/4 of US adults have already had at least one HPV infection....already. That in a country that still circumcises the majority of baby boys. Hmmmm.
And link #3:
Does not say where the study was done. Furthermore, the two sample pools (circ vs intact men) were not even remotely close in size. 292 circed men, vs. 847 intact men. Got to have similar sample pools if the research is going to be considered valid.
Still, I especially like the MD's comment at the very bottom - that he fully expects for us to start doing mastectomies on newborn girls, because it will prevent cancer in the future, should be able to be done w/ local anesthesia, and they won't remember it anyway.
BabyLady, BSN, RN
I am very proud of the fact that I base my teaching on facts, backed up by research that I can prove, rather than thinking that the CDC and WHO is involved in some conspiracy theory to con the world into circumcisions.
Elvish, BSN, DNP, RN, NP
Takes off regular member hat, puts on moderator hat.
Name-calling on either side (i.e., ignorant, wearing blinders) is not cool.
Feel free to disagree with each other - and just 'cause I moderate this forum doesn't mean you can't disagree with me - but name calling won't be tolerated. A few posts will be edited/deleted to reflect that.
And, I'm closing this temporarily so everybody (including me) can take a break from it.
By using the site, you agree with our Policies. X