Study Says Circumcision Reduces AIDS Risk by 70%

The Wall Street Journal ^ | July 5, 2005 | MARK SCHOOFS, SARAH LUECK and MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS

[Paladin2b]

In a potentially major breakthrough in the campaign against AIDS, French and South African researchers have apparently found that male circumcision reduces by about 70% the risk that men will contract HIV through intercourse with infected women.

Other than abstinence and safer sex, almost nothing has been proved to reduce the sexual spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. World-wide, the major route of HIV transmission for many years has been heterosexual sex.

Vaccine developers have said they would consider an AIDS vaccine with just 30% efficacy useful. But so far, no effective vaccine against the disease has been developed, leaving AIDS workers desperate for another tool to help them stem the tide of new infections, estimated at almost five million last year.

The circumcision findings were so dramatic that the data and safety monitoring board overseeing the research halted the study in February, about nine months before it would have been completed, on the grounds that it would be immoral to proceed without offering the uncircumcised control group the opportunity to undergo the procedure. While men were directly protected from infection by circumcision, women could benefit indirectly because circumcision would reduce the chances their partners would be HIV-positive.

Researchers in the field have been aware of the study's basic findings, but they haven't been published, so most experts haven't evaluated them. The British medical journal the Lancet decided against publishing the study, but for reasons unrelated to the data and scientific content, according to people familiar with the matter. Lancet officials, following standard policy at the journal, refused to comment on why the study was turned down.

The fact that an independent board ordered the study halted is considered a strong sign that the science is sound...

[Quinotto]

And you couldn't just write this in your first post? Maybe even your second?

Ummm, the treatment was for your Liberal Juice overdose :)

However, this fight is getting sillier and sillier for both of us with each reply so I am extending to you a heartfelt hug. :)

[Quinotto]

It seems this is jus the same old recycled stuff without any real new science. Why not a study on how much avoiding homosexual behavior cuts the risk to aids.

BINGO...you nailed it on the head (no pun intended!): voodoo science au lieu of real clinical research in a controlled environment.

[Quinotto]

Poland has Europe's lowest AIDS rate, even though they don't circumcise.

I am not debating or doubting your statement, I was wondering if you can direct me to any research, study or census which confirms the above.

[Quinotto]

Poland has Europe's lowest AIDS rate, even though they don't circumcise.

The reason I am inquiring this is because I knew of Netherlands having the lowest rate of HIV/AIDS and they justify it by their Liberal approach to the social ills: legal prostitution, legal heroin with lowest addiction rate in Europe, granted, they are using cannabis and again, the argument is being made that they are not using hard drugs (hence not injecting it) and claiming to have broken the connection between soft and hard drugs. Also, the lowest rate of prison per capita hence no irresponsible sexual behavior.

[Destro]

Circumcision is a hold over of primitive tribal mutilation of the male member for the proposes of sexual control of the tribal males (same circumcision reason for women). If not done for the purposes of reducing sexual appetite it is done for cosmetic reasons making it akin to tribal scarring or tooth chipping or pointy head shaping of babies.

[DouglasKC]

I guess God really does know more than science.

[Feldkurat_Katz]

Poland has Europe's lowest AIDS rate, even though they don't circumcise.

I am not debating or doubting your statement, I was wondering if you can direct me to any research, study or census which confirms the above.

The map you'll see below comes from Germany's Koch Institute. My memory failed me - the AIDS rate in the Czech Republic is even lower. Still, Poland is second lowest. The countries of the former Soviet Union are not on the map but they are notorious for high AIDS rates, mostly due to drug use. Netherlands is not as bad as France or Spain but has a higher rate than several other countries.

[Quinotto]

The countries of the former Soviet Union are not on the map but they are notorious for high AIDS rates, mostly due to drug use

Actually they have a higher percentage of AIDS patients due to years of communism and it's not related to drug use, maybe just in the latter years. During communism there was no such thing as aseptic techniques in healthcare industry, there was a shortage of needles and syringes and using the same syringe & needle over and over without sterilization was the norm simply because the autoclave was inexistent there. I am wondering what is the rate for Andorra? :)

[eddie willers]

Hmmmm....looks like Norway/Finland could use a good circumcision.

[Alia]

The reason I am inquiring this is because I knew of Netherlands having the lowest rate of HIV/AIDS and they justify it by their Liberal approach to the social ills: legal prostitution, legal heroin with lowest addiction rate in Europe, granted, they are using cannabis and again, the argument is being made that they are not using hard drugs (hence not injecting it) and claiming to have broken the connection between soft and hard drugs. Also, the lowest rate of prison per capita hence no irresponsible sexual behavior.

Do you have url (website) to show me that data, pls?

[Alia]

Circumcision is a hold over of primitive tribal mutilation of the male member for the proposes of sexual control of the tribal males (same circumcision reason for women). If not done for the purposes of reducing sexual appetite it is done for cosmetic reasons making it akin to tribal scarring or tooth chipping or pointy head shaping of babies.

lol! Really? Do you have some urls that equate this "circumcision" belief. Do you think it is like.. genital mutilation for "controlling" the male sex?

[MortMan]

I'm amazed you didn't lose count! ;-P

[Quinotto]

It was something mentioned at some silly seminar I was forced to attend for CE credits, reason for which I inquired further when Poland was mentioned. Turns out that neither side was correct, it was the Czech Republic which had the lowest rate...I still want to know about Andorra, for obvious reasons. :)

[Destro]

Why yes I do have such links.

Circumcision and Footbinding: The parallels are astounding

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION: CIRCUMCISION

The practice of circumcising babies began in Western society in the mid-1800's as a means of preventing masturbation. "Circumcision was used as a deliberate surgical intervention to debilitate and desensitize the penis" (2. Hodges, 1995). Masturbation was said to cause epilepsy, tuberculosis and insanity (nocirc, 1997). "Masturbation was viewed as the most dangerous form of sexuality and was named as the cause for every known disease, from blindness to nervousness, insanity, venereal disease, tuberculosis and death" (2. Hodges, 1995) . The influential Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the founder of Kellogg's Corn Flakes, preached that the reason that young boys masturbate is because the foreskin rubs on the head of the penis. Dr. Kellogg believed that boys who were circumcised at birth would be less likely to masturbate (Joannids, 1996). "In 1928, the American Medical Association (AMA), published an editorial in its journal calling for routine circumcision of all male infants at birth. The primary justification ..was the prevention of masturbation"(2. Hodges, 1995).

[Alia]

Thank you.

Just took a cruise around the web. Since the early 90s, I see more and more articles denouncing circumcision as a means to stop men from masturbating. What hogwash. I've been tracking this issue since then and only BECAUSE it became such a large issue in the early 90s. In most of the articles I just read, oh yes... many liken circumcision to "gender mutilation". "preventing masturbation" -- what a HOOT! I guess the implied is that uncirc'ers like to masturbate more "freely"? lol.

In the following link is a pro/con article. The inserts are written by an anti-circ'er.

[REBUTTAL TO] MEDICAL BENEFITS FROM CIRCUMCISION

I'm sure you already know, the anti-circ movement is worldwide, and led predominantly liberals, no? This is not to say there aren't individual valid reasons to circ or not to circ. I'm not discounting that. I do despise the "agenda" of likening circumcision to "gender mutilation", however. I'm not even going to address the so called "masturbabory" agenda being widely published in past decade concerning circumcision.

I think the anti-circer's had more credibility when they were using the Line that the Medical Industry was foisting "circumcision" on everyone in order to make more money. That sounds far more plausible than the "GENDER mutilation/Masturbation" one. At any rate, Whether to circ or not to circ, should be an individual or parent's perogative. It is NOT gender mutilation, IMHO, no matter how many hysterical articles are calling it so. The "anti-circ" movements wish GOVERNMENTS to make circumcision ILLEGAL.

In my search, Sean Hannity had this topic on his show:

Circumcision To Be Banned In U.S.

Most the artcles coming up in the search seem to make very "light" of a Jewish religious practice. None is bringing up information I had via web to me in the 90s; about living thousands of years ago in the desert with little water for hygienic purposes -- yeast and STDS being passed onto women and therefore to newborns.

No. No. I'm not getting into a circ/anti-circ debate with you. Circumcision is already A CHOICE in America. And around the world.

The issue that anti-circ'ers liken circumcision to "gender mutilation" defeats them, IMHO, as a movement. Gender Mutilation in Women means CUTTING OUT the clitoris. Although the glans is a sensitive tissue, men are not being deprived of sexual pleasure or release through being circed. If that were so... and using your own article... rhetorically asked here: would the population have grown so? You think men, deriving no sexual pleasure due to having been "gender mutilated" were punishing themselves with women?

I hope you will think on the following, for just a moment:

Orthodox Jews and Muslims yet practice circumcision (as do many Christians). Imagine a world in which some large body OUTLAWS "circumcision". How many Jews and Muslims and Christians will be jailed? A "foreskin" bootleg industry will arise? Will they be tracked and hunted down like gun owners are?

More seriously, in the early 90s as I debated these issues.. let's say that UN bodies and country governments do not outlaw Circumcision. And let's say, that two generations down the road, more uncirced men begin having wild diseases affecting their penises. If the circ'd do not get these diseases, will there be a pro-circ movement! Will it start out by saying the "uncirc" movement was begun by the medical profession in order to make more dollars on the backend? Will it be asserted that this was done in order to decrease population?

After a while, ya get to see the "social issues" run in cycles and circles, IME.

Anyway, thanks for the discourse.

[Selkie]

Yes this will be fascinating to see how it's played out.

[Selkie]

Yeah I recall a thread where some of them when ballistic on anyone pro circumsion.

Dare I ping them ? ::evil laughter::

[SouthernFreebird]

LOL... I dare say they have avoided this thread like the plague.