Parents circumsizing their sons.

[freedbarton]

New Scientific Data on Male Circumcision

Circumcision Protects Against Several Sexually Transmitted Infections

By C. Vidya Shankar, MD

MEXICO CITY (Reuters Health) Aug 07 - Male circumcision has a protective effect against HIV, human papilloma virus and trichomonas vaginalis infections, researchers reported at the International AIDS Conference here.

Dr. Robert C. Bailey from the University of Illinois at Chicago and his team from Kenya reported 42-month follow-up results on the protective effects of male circumcision. They had previously reported encouraging results after 24 months of their randomized trial, which was stopped in December 2006 due to significant protective benefits, with the controls also being offered circumcision.

The cumulative incidence of HIV infection over 42 months among circumcised men was 2.6% as compared to 7.4% among controls, the researchers observed. The protective effect of circumcision was 64% (i.e., relative risk of infection, 0.36), they noted.

Male circumcision provides a sustained protective effect against HIV, Dr. Bailey's team concludes.

In another study, Dr. Bertran Auvert from Universite de Versailles, France and his team from South Africa analyzed the protective effect of male circumcision against other sexually transmitted infections.

In their randomized study of men aged between 18 and 24, the prevalence of human papilloma virus and trichomonas vaginalis was lower in the circumcised group with odds of 0.57 and 0.54, respectively, after 21 months follow up, they report. There was no effect on gonorrhea rates.

"Circumcision could therefore be an indirect way of limiting the risk of genital cancers caused by HPV in women," Dr. Auvert said during a related press conference.

Male circumcision can prevent between 2 to 8 million new HIV infections in the sub-Saharan Africa, resulting in savings of around $2 billion over the next 20 years, Dr. Auvert said.

Male circumcision is safe, with minimal side effects, and can be promoted as a universal preventive measure against HIV, Dr. Dirk Taljaard, one of the co-authors of the second study told Reuters Health.

"The studies of male circumcision have opened up a whole new era in the fight against AIDS: we now potentially have a new method of prevention," Professor Jean-Francois Delfraissy concluded during the press conference.

Related Links
External Links
More AIDS news on Medscape

 

[BenF]

Re: New Scientific Data on Male Circumcision

If you chop their dick off, they'd never get HIV. Or perhaps it's just because cut men have sex less often due to the fact that they have had their genitals mutilated.

 

[hungbuzz]

Re: New Scientific Data on Male Circumcision

you know what else protects against Several Sexually Transmitted Infections?


Condoms!!!!!! hmmmm chop the end of ur cock off or use a condom.

 

[Garawr]

Re: New Scientific Data on Male Circumcision

I'd rather use a condom than lob off part of my dick to be honest. I like my foreskin.

 

[Ramindra]

Re: New Scientific Data on Male Circumcision

New? Research reports on this subject have been around for ages, and there has been considerable debate about it for years.

For a more complete cover of the situation, please see noelie's excellent thread at

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=229381

I still like to think that there are better, more reliable ways of protecting yourself against HIV than having a part of your body chopped off!

 

[alley]

Luminum, I could go on and on about this subject, but there is no point. I'm not saying circumcision is medically necessary, I'm saying is socially necessary. I've heard a couple people saying they think cut penises are ugly, but only like 2 or 3, and I've been heavily involved with this topic since I was 11 or 12. FREQUENTLY, I hear comments about uncircumcised men such as "Eww that's nasty," or "Gross!" and statements like that. I've seen this all over the internet, and from most people I discuss this topic with. There are a couple of my good friends that don't have a problem with it, but overall the opinion greatly favors circumcision. I'm not saying I agree with newborn circumcision, but really, when is a better time to do it? It's just so much easier and less complicated when the patient is a child. You can say all you want about how it's wrong, and barbaric, but at the end of the day, if you take anyone from the western world and give them a choice of cut or uncut, I guarantee you the majority would take cut.

Comet---I beg to differ. I really doubt given the choice most adult men would ever want a piece of their cock cut off, at the end of the day.

 

[Corny]

dude .. comet .. let it go. you have some serious issues.
socially necessary? what have you been smoking?
in a country with a high rate of circumcision .. what do you expect from the masses about their expectation of a penis?

 

[godson112]

Re: New Scientific Data on Male Circumcision

I find it hard to believe...
Surely the layer of skin woukd provide protection, especially seeing as the bit under the foreskin is like...an actual open muscle...?

 

[Corny]

I think you are way beyond a personal preference.

 

[lovrboy24]

I must agree with the guy that is saying it is more socially acceptable for a man to be cut than uncut. The first time i saw one I must say it was startling. And for the kid who was uncut, it was probably startling to have all the boys in the locker room stare at him because your slong looks a bit different. Also, ill never forget one of my girl friends who was going out with an uncut guy was repulsed by a strange odor that lingered around that area. I would not kick a hot piece of ass out of bed for being uncut but i would def have any of my kids cut for social acceptance and hygiene. I personally love the look of a cut penis over an uncut one but that is mostly personal preference.

 

[lovrboy24]

I've met some guys who have a strange odour lingering around their butts - perhaps we should introduce butt circumcision? If we succumb to every social convention then where do we stop? And because something is a social convention in one country doesn't mean it should be carried around the world to other societies.

I guess that's your prerogative but if a guy ever had a "strange odor" around his butt, i wouldn't be going anywhere near that region until it smelled much cleaner. But to be honest, uncircumcised penis' are more likely to have infections, etc than circumcised. here's some sources for you just in case you think I'm lying.


http://children.webmd.com/tc/caring-for-your-young-sons-uncircumcised-penis-topic-overview - likelihood of UTI is greater

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/foreskin_problems/article_em.htm




Obviously it is more popular in the US than the EU, so i personally don't care what they do to themselves in other countries for the fact that I love my country and have no intentions of leaving.

Ultimately, It is medically more hygienic to be circumcised, but its a personal preference if you want it to be or not.

 

[G-Lexington]

Re: New Scientific Data on Male Circumcision

More bullshit from the pro-mutilationists. People should start lopping off the ends of their fingers so they won't be able to write these so-called "research studies" anymore.

Remember, people. There are two types of data. The kind that supports your theory, and the kind that's really hard to interpret, and requires further study.

Lex

 

[G-Lexington]

Re: New Scientific Data on Male Circumcision

Ibid.

Lex

 

[jockboy01]

I've cleaned up some posts in here.... again.

I know this is a heated topic, but try to stick to the topic, not direct attacks. There might be more I will clean up later.

As to the medical necessity, the studies aren't conclusive overall in anyway. I find the summary of the CDC page to be biased in comparison to the studies themselves. Further, I'd bet that if you looked into the studies, they would all have some serious flaws. It's not an easy task to determine if circumcision is medically beneficial. At this point, the studies are actually quite mixed (as noted in the individual sections of the CDC page).

Circumcision definitely eliminates the risk of phimosis (by definition practically). It also is pretty clear that it decreases the risk of penile cancer.

http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1791.htm

As to socially acceptable, I disagree with the argument that people should be circumsized in order to be acceptable. I think we need to change attitudes to make people more tolerant of differences. The same could be said for homosexuality.... it's socially unacceptable. That doesn't mean we should all be converted to straights (even if it were possible). The perceptions should change, not the individuals.