These are pretty dramatic data. I'm no fan of circumcision and I think
adult versions should be done with great care. Traditional healers,
should they be seen, should have the necessary tools and knowledge to
prevent spreading HIV and other infections.

George M. Carter

**
NATAP http://natap.org/
_______________________________________________


Circumcision 'reduces HIV risk'
Circumcision can reduce the rate of HIV infections among heterosexual
men by around 60%, a study suggests.

The South African study, reported in Public Library of Science
Medicine, found it had a protective effect for some of the 3,280 young
men involved.


Cells under the foreskin are vulnerable to infection

Circumcision is thought to help protect against HIV because cells
under the foreskin are vulnerable to the virus.

UK experts warned some circumcised men in the study still became
infected and condoms offered the best protection.

HIV infection rates are lower among groups in Africa who practise
circumcision, but it was not known if this was due to cultural
differences.

There is a danger that people who have been circumcised will feel that
they are fully protected from HIV when they are not
Deborah Jack, National Aids Trust

When the foreskin is removed, the skin on the head of the penis
becomes less sensitive and so less likely to bleed, thereby reducing
the risk of infection.

Studies in Uganda and in Kenya are also investigating the link.

Trial stopped

The South African trial, conducted by a team of French and South
African researchers and sponsored by ANRS (the French National Agency
of Research on Aids), took place in the Orange Farm area near
Johannesburg, where male circumcision in adulthood is a common but not
universal practice.

Just under 3,280 young, sexually active, uncircumcised, heterosexual
men who took part in the study were offered the chance to be
circumcised and then monitored for HIV infection.

Just under half chose to be circumcised.

The researchers planned to test all participants for HIV at three, 12
and 21 months, to see whether there was a difference in the rate of
new infections between the two groups.

However, after 18 months, the number of new HIV infections in the
control group was 49, compared with 20 in the treatment group.

The researchers decided at this point it would be unethical to
continue the study.

It was stopped and the uncircumcised men were offered circumcision.

UNAids has said the trial found promising results, but more work needs
to be done to confirm its findings and "whether or not the results
have more general application."

'Not a condom substitute'

Keith Alcorn, of the National Aids Manual, said: "Although this study
showed that men who were circumcised were less likely to become
infected with HIV, it must be stressed that circumcised men did become
infected in this study, and that circumcision does not provide total
protection against HIV.

"I don't think that any country will be moving towards promotion of
circumcision for HIV prevention on these results alone.

"Two further studies in Kenya and Uganda have yet to be completed, and
will give us more information."

Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National Aids Trust, added:
"There is a danger that people who have been circumcised will feel
that they are fully protected from HIV when they are not.

"We need more research and clear guidance, as circumcision can never
be a substitute for condom use."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/..lth/4371384.stm

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

GMCarter wrote:
> These are pretty dramatic data. I'm no fan of circumcision and I think
> adult versions should be done with great care. Traditional healers,
> should they be seen, should have the necessary tools and knowledge to
> prevent spreading HIV and other infections.
>
> 		George M. Carter
>


The study has been published:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/pe..
l.pmed.0020298



> **
> NATAP http://natap.org/
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> Circumcision 'reduces HIV risk'
> Circumcision can reduce the rate of HIV infections among heterosexual
> men by around 60%, a study suggests.
>
> The South African study, reported in Public Library of Science
> Medicine, found it had a protective effect for some of the 3,280 young
> men involved.
>
>
> Cells under the foreskin are vulnerable to infection
>
> Circumcision is thought to help protect against HIV because cells
> under the foreskin are vulnerable to the virus.
>
> UK experts warned some circumcised men in the study still became
> infected and condoms offered the best protection.
>
> HIV infection rates are lower among groups in Africa who practise
> circumcision, but it was not known if this was due to cultural
> differences.
>
> There is a danger that people who have been circumcised will feel that
> they are fully protected from HIV when they are not
> Deborah Jack, National Aids Trust
>
> When the foreskin is removed, the skin on the head of the penis
> becomes less sensitive and so less likely to bleed, thereby reducing
> the risk of infection.
>
> Studies in Uganda and in Kenya are also investigating the link.
>
> Trial stopped
>
> The South African trial, conducted by a team of French and South
> African researchers and sponsored by ANRS (the French National Agency
> of Research on Aids), took place in the Orange Farm area near
> Johannesburg, where male circumcision in adulthood is a common but not
> universal practice.
>
> Just under 3,280 young, sexually active, uncircumcised, heterosexual
> men who took part in the study were offered the chance to be
> circumcised and then monitored for HIV infection.
>
> Just under half chose to be circumcised.
>
> The researchers planned to test all participants for HIV at three, 12
> and 21 months, to see whether there was a difference in the rate of
> new infections between the two groups.
>
> However, after 18 months, the number of new HIV infections in the
> control group was 49, compared with 20 in the treatment group.
>
> The researchers decided at this point it would be unethical to
> continue the study.
>
> It was stopped and the uncircumcised men were offered circumcision.
>
> UNAids has said the trial found promising results, but more work needs
> to be done to confirm its findings and "whether or not the results
> have more general application."
>
> 'Not a condom substitute'
>
> Keith Alcorn, of the National Aids Manual, said: "Although this study
> showed that men who were circumcised were less likely to become
> infected with HIV, it must be stressed that circumcised men did become
> infected in this study, and that circumcision does not provide total
> protection against HIV.
>
> "I don't think that any country will be moving towards promotion of
> circumcision for HIV prevention on these results alone.
>
> "Two further studies in Kenya and Uganda have yet to be completed, and
> will give us more information."
>
> Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National Aids Trust, added:
> "There is a danger that people who have been circumcised will feel
> that they are fully protected from HIV when they are not.
>
> "We need more research and clear guidance, as circumcision can never
> be a substitute for condom use."
>
> Story from BBC NEWS:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/..lth/4371384.stm
>

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"Jordan" <dan@jordan.org> wrote in message news:_tWdnXs_O4s__sPeRVn-tQ@is.co.za..
> GMCarter wrote: 
>
>
> The study has been published:
>
>
[url]http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298[/
url]
>
and posted here weeks ago.
that shows how current Carter is in his information.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:08:06 GMT, GMCarter wrote:

> These are pretty dramatic data. I'm no fan of circumcision and I think
> adult versions should be done with great care. Traditional healers,
> should they be seen, should have the necessary tools and knowledge to
> prevent spreading HIV and other infections.
>
> 		George M. Carter

Another study was presented at the same conference, and it found that
female circumcision seems to have a similar prophylactic effect vis-a-vis
HIV.

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

The cultural and sexist biases in scientific journalism were seldom more
starkly apparent than in the recent coverage of the HIV conference in Rio.

These two studies were presented on the conference website together
yet the female circumcision study was invisible to the western medical
press.

One could hardly open any newspaper in the U.S. without seeing
the headlines: "Male Circumcision Prevents HIV".  Yet not a peep about
the conference's other paper dealing with female circumcision and HIV.

Where are the calls to make this practice a public health measure like it's
urged for male circumcision? It is not surprising that no one has made such
a ridiculous call. Perhaps this is because the West does not have a lobby
for female circumcision unlike that for male circumcision.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Richard Keith wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:08:06 GMT, GMCarter wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> Another study was presented at the same conference, and it found that
> female circumcision seems to have a similar prophylactic effect vis-a-vis
> HIV.
>
> http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
>
> The cultural and sexist biases in scientific journalism were seldom more
> starkly apparent than in the recent coverage of the HIV conference in Rio.
>
> These two studies were presented on the conference website together
> yet the female circumcision study was invisible to the western medical
> press.
>
> One could hardly open any newspaper in the U.S. without seeing
> the headlines: "Male Circumcision Prevents HIV".  Yet not a peep about
> the conference's other paper dealing with female circumcision and HIV.
>
> Where are the calls to make this practice a public health measure like it'
s
> urged for male circumcision? It is not surprising that no one has made suc
h
> a ridiculous call. Perhaps this is because the West does not have a lobby
> for female circumcision unlike that for male circumcision.


Female circumcision is an issue in the US?

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:07:34 +0200, Richard Keith <rkeith@gmail.com>
wrote:

snip..
>Where are the calls to make this practice a public health measure like it's
>urged for male circumcision? It is not surprising that no one has made such
>a ridiculous call. Perhaps this is because the West does not have a lobby
>for female circumcision unlike that for male circumcision.

Thanks for the abstract, cut-and-pasted below
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

I don't think female circumcision is viewed by most as anything more
than something anatomically unnecessary and often cruel. It is far
more destructive than male circumcision, isn't it?

I don't particularly advocate either practice. But the reduction in
transmission rates seem pretty significant.

What do you think the alternatives should be?

George M. Carter

**
Abstract


Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for
worse?
Stallings R.Y.1, Karugendo E.2

1ORC Macro, Calverton Maryland, United States of America, 2National
Bureau of Statistics, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania


Introduction: It has been postulated that female circumcision might
increase the risk of HIV infection either directly, through the use of
unsterile equipment, or indirectly, through an increase in genital
lacerations or the substitution of anal intercourse. The authors
sought to explain an unanticipated significant crude association of
lower HIV risk among circumcised women [RR=0.51; 95% CI 0.38,0.70] in
a recent survey by examining other factors which might confound this
crude association.

Methods: Capillary blood was collected onto filter paper cards from a
nationally representative sample of women age 15 to 49 during the 2004
Tanzania Health Information Survey. Eighty-four percent of eligible
women gave consent for their blood to be anonymously tested for HIV
antibody. Interview data was linked via barcodes to final test results
for 5753 women. The chi-square test of association was used to examine
the bivariate relationships between potential HIV risk factors with
both circumcision and HIV status. Restricting further analyses to the
5297 women who had ever had sexual intercourse, logistic regression
models were then used to adjust circumcision status for other factors
found to be significant.

Results: By self-report, 17.7 percent of women were circumcised.
Circumcision status varied significantly by region, household wealth,
age, education, years resident, religion, years sexually active, union
status, polygamy, number of recent and lifetime sex partners, recent
injection or abnormal discharge, use of alcohol and ability to say no
to sex. In the final logistic model, circumcision remained highly
significant [OR=0.60; 95% CI 0.41,0.88] while adjusted for region,
household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent
ulcer.

Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women
was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these
data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in
Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

..The Muslim population in Africa represents about 65% of all the African
people. anyway a big part is muslim. they practice circumcision, but still
africa is the biggest continet with "aids" apadamic.

if circumcision is that great why are then also so many muslims affected.

or do muslim dont practice there religion as the should.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

tsip29 wrote:
> .The Muslim population in Africa represents about 65% of all the African
> people. anyway a big part is muslim. they practice circumcision, but still
> africa is the biggest continet with "aids" apadamic.
>
> if circumcision is that great why are then also so many muslims affected.
>
> or do muslim dont practice there religion as the should.
>


When one reads shyte like this one wonders what agenda is at play here.

Studies out of Africa found that there was a marked difference in HIV
infection rates between circumcising and non-circumcising groups and
communities.

Read this:
Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting
http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/halperin_bailey.html

And after 30 odd studies which indicated a protective effect for male
circumcision the results of the first of three RCT's have been published.

Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for
Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/pe..
l.pmed.0020298

The evidence is clear.

Progress has been made, George, a known foreskin fetishist has decided
to leave his foreskin fantasies in the mens-room and take a belated
responsible approach to the mounting evidence.

Why not take take a leaf out of George's book? Leave your foreskin
fantasies in the mens-room and bedroom, millions of lives in Africa and
Asia are at risk from HIV/AIDS.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:33:04 +0200, Jordan <dan@jordan.org> wrote:

snip
>Progress has been made, George, a known foreskin fetishist has decided
>to leave his foreskin fantasies in the mens-room and take a belated
>responsible approach to the mounting evidence.

LOL..no, dearest peachkins. I looked at the data and changed my mind.
Foreskins are not a fetish of mine. On some men, they are quite
beautiful. On others, a cut cock is gorgeous.

On most, that dangling dingus just looks like a turkey neck..

But you're right--I have had my concerns about circumcision as a means
of reducing the risk of HIV transmission. And important caveats remain
about when and among whom to undertake them--who does them, how, etc.
Caveats notwithstanding, these data look compelling.

And thus my mind has changed about supporting or encouraging men to
make that choice to be circumcized.

George M. Carter

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

GMCarter wrote:

>
> But you're right--I have had my concerns about circumcision as a means
> of reducing the risk of HIV transmission. And important caveats remain
> about when and among whom to undertake them--who does them, how, etc.
> Caveats notwithstanding, these data look compelling.
>
> And thus my mind has changed about supporting or encouraging men to
> make that choice to be circumcized.
>
> 		George M. Carter
>



Ah, the caveats (aka the devil is in the detail).

The history of this all makes interesting reading. Thirty odd studies
and an RCT was demanded before anything would be considered. Now they
have one RCT, they need three. When they have three there will be the
caveats. I am trying to understand who gains from these additional
infections, who benefits from the deaths, who derives enjoyment from
suffering of the families and next of kin? Can you help me understand
this George?

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]