South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

June 24, 2019, 15:11:17 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Circumcision 'reduces HIV risk'

 (Read 12184 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« on: October 29, 2010, 11:25:36 AM »

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/AidsFocus/Circumcision-reduces-HIV-risk-20090415
Quote
"Research on the effectiveness of male circumcision for preventing HIV in heterosexual men is conclusive," said lead researcher Nandi Siegfried, co-director of the centre, which is located at the SA Medical Research Council.

Quote
Siegfried said circumcision might help to protect against HIV by removing cells in the foreskin to which the virus was specifically attracted.

These Langerhans cells had receptors that enabled the virus to enter them.


i don't know about this.  it sounds a little dodge in my opinion...
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2010, 11:47:27 AM »

Apparently a lot of research was done on this, I know in KZN a couple months ago they had a drive and some 3000 men were circumcised. I have no clue as to the validity of the claim though, I do suppose that it improves cleanliness in the area?  Undecided
Logged
Sayman
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2010, 11:55:07 AM »

Hi Smiley

Time for one of the lurkers to make himself known hehehe.  I’m currently doing my degree in biochemistry at WITS. When I did a course called molecular basis of disease, we came across this topic. A lot of research has gone into this as far as I know. I’m too busy studying for my final biochem ...(which is tomorrow  Shocked ) to actually look up the references, but I’ll try to post them soon. There are a lot of cells located in the foreskin that HIV target specifically. However there have been positive and negative studies, but more positive ones.

Now I really need to stop procrastinating doh.


Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2010, 12:22:46 PM »

Welcome, and good luck with your exam! Smiley

'Luthon64
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2010, 12:28:37 PM »

it feels to me, that this is just an excuse for men to not use protection.
this article states, that it 'reduces' the risk of infection for the first two years.
then what?
and what about he woman then?
if the guy is allready infected, how the hell would cutting the foreskin help her?

im sure there is validity in this claim, but in this country, where the accountability for std spreading is nil, such half-baked solutions isnt worth a crap.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Online Online

Posts: 3062



« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2010, 13:37:58 PM »

Yeah but see, that's making the problem more complex than the root question alludes to.

Does circumcision help to prevent transmission? From where I stand, yes.

That is perhaps just one dimension of a much larger matrix of inputs we're dealing with here, but I think the IDEA has merit.

The other problems, to do with people ceasing the use of protection, etc. Is a societal problem that needs to be addressed separately. To be fair, if you're sleeping around in this day and age without protection you are either highly ignorant or very irresponsible, and circumcision won't change that, but it may, to a small degree, protect you.

My point is, you can't just do the cut and think it's a 100% solution. Other protective measures need to be in place too, and people need to be EDUCATED! In this kind of circumstance, if doing the cut can save a certain percentage of people who are acting in these vicarious ways, it has merit FOR THE POPULATION, even if it doesn't seem to make sense on an individual level.

EDIT: To repeat myself once more and for clarity: When you are an individual, and lets say, you have a 5% smaller chance of transmission from getting the cut, it looks pretty shit. But if you're dept. of health, 5% is possibly hundreds of thousands of lives saved.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2010, 14:46:21 PM »

agreed about the education end of things.  but since our government is still punting beetroot and garlic as cures for aids, and so busy enriching themselves, off budgets that could have spread education far and wide....  our goverment is not interrested in saving lives. 
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Online Online

Posts: 3062



« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2010, 16:52:29 PM »

Quote
government is still punting beetroot and garlic as cures for aids

I thought that dogma had been abandoned? no?

(I'm am hopelessly uninformed on the subject)
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2010, 17:10:42 PM »

Quote
government is still punting beetroot and garlic as cures for aids

I thought that dogma had been abandoned? no?

(I'm am hopelessly uninformed on the subject)
so were they BM!
Logged
Cep
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


Keeper of the light switch.


« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2010, 13:34:36 PM »

It is sure to prevent HIV for at least as long as the healing process takes.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2010, 13:37:50 PM »

how do you recon that?
Logged
Cep
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


Keeper of the light switch.


« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2010, 13:42:26 PM »

how do you recon that?...... No sexual activity will take place.
Logged
Cep
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


Keeper of the light switch.


« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2010, 14:48:36 PM »

how do you recon that?
oops as I said.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2010, 15:36:01 PM »

ha ha.  for sure that!
Logged
kollectiv
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Searching for truth! And good red wine.


« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2010, 09:52:52 AM »

Folks: it's a simple issue.  The inside of a foreskin is a nice, damp, sensitive area of epithelial tissue, fairly easily damaged, which lets HIV in, and which has a LOT of the sorts of cells which can take up HIV and present it to CD4+ T-cells to infect them - namely, dendritic cells.

Circumcision removes the sensitive bit, and allows the glans of the penis - also more susceptible in the uncircumcised - to become more cornified, or to develop a thicker layer of dead cells (aka "skin"), which acts as a passive barrier to HIV entry.

There now: not so hard, was it?  Oops, a pun... Cool
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2010, 11:03:17 AM »

Not enough reason to be pro-circumcision though.
Logged
kollectiv
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Searching for truth! And good red wine.


« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2010, 14:44:20 PM »

Quote
Not enough reason to be pro-circumcision though.
Really??  And if you were on a trip to Mars, and you had a finite chance of your appendix rupturing - and a high probability of dying if it did - you wouldn't pre-emptively have it out?

Pretty much the same thing here: if you get circumcised, your chance of getting infected with HIV goes down significantly, for every encounter.  Carry on going long enough, however, and your ship will come in....
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2010, 09:23:48 AM »

Pretty much the same thing here:
really??

Your appendix fails (for whatever reason) - HIV you basically have to go look for to acquire it. (note - both these are simplified for arguments sake only) Analogy fails. However;


...If you don't have sex on the way to Mars, or only with a partner you can trust, I'd suggest keeping the appendix, (take along a doctor that can perform the necessary operation) make sure any blood for transfusion purposes are clean and keep the skin mate. Always keep the skin. I guess that is just me. What is the probability of an appendix failing btw?

Quote
your chance of getting infected with HIV goes down significantly,
Significantly my ass.

Just to be sure though, you are advocating circumcision then?
Logged
kollectiv
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Searching for truth! And good red wine.


« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2010, 16:15:11 PM »

Quote
Analogy fails
I don't think so...it doesn't matter HOW you get HIV; if your risk mounts the longer you go on having sex, it's analogous to waiting for your appendix to burst.
Quote
Significantly my ass.

Just to be sure though, you are advocating circumcision then?

It's your ass then!  You don't think the reduction is significant?  Really?  When the vaccine and the therapies have no better impact, yet are touted as being significant?

And yes: circumcision significantly reduces the chances per penetration event of catching HIV from an infected person, so if you were a non-condom-wearing promiscious uncircumcised male, that's exactly what I would advocate.

After A, B, C - and yes, D (do it yourself - masturbation - sex with the one you truly love...B-)
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2010, 07:42:37 AM »

I don't think so...
You wouldn't. It is your analogy after all. I think it fails on a few important aspects. One being that I don't think the selective appendix surgery is necessary in your Mars analogy in the first place. Not unless you tell me the chances of having a burst appendix is higher than I currently think it is.
Quote
it doesn't matter HOW you get HIV; if your risk mounts the longer you go on having sex, it's analogous to waiting for your appendix to burst.
Well once you tell me the probability of someone's appendix bursting and whether there are extenuating circumstances either way, we can't compare this. But if you are in a monogamous relationship and neither of you have HIV, your chances of actually acquiring HIV (through sex) is zero. Maimed dicks have zero impact. Go figure.
Quote
It's your ass then!
Indeed it is. But how much safer will you actually feel knowing you have a 5% better chance of not getting HIV? Significantly safer? really?
Quote
You don't think the reduction is significant?  Really?  When the vaccine and the therapies have no better impact, yet are touted as being significant?
Really. I don't think it is significant at all. 5% in this case is as good as zero. "You can have all the sex you want. You cannot wear a condom. But we'll cut off a piece of your cock and there is a 5% better chance of not getting HIV!!"  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Quote
And yes: circumcision significantly reduces the chances per penetration event of catching HIV from an infected person, so if you were a non-condom-wearing promiscuous uncircumcised male, that's exactly what I would advocate.
If you are a non-condom-wearing promiscuous uncircumcised or circumcised male you are an idiot an deserves what you'll get. Snipped penii won't (significantly or not) matter. It is almost as bad as thinking a shower will wash it off afterwards!!  
« Last Edit: June 21, 2014, 15:10:07 PM by bluegray, Reason: fix quote link » Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1521



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2010, 13:23:30 PM »

I have to agree with cyghost here. If you are doing the rounds without a condom you are asking for it.
Logged
kollectiv
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


Searching for truth! And good red wine.


« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2010, 20:13:12 PM »

Looks like certain folk just don't get the concept of risk reduction...ah, well; not my problem, I'm circumcised AND monogamous and I trust my partner.

But if you weren't any of those things: every little bit helps.  Even the lack of a little bit...B-)
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2012, 11:31:45 AM »

A German judge has deemed circumcision of boys without their consent as bodily harm and an impediment to religious freedom in later life.   here
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1812



WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2012, 11:56:17 AM »

A German judge has deemed circumcision of boys without their consent as bodily harm and an impediment to religious freedom in later life.   here


In principle I kind of agree with the judge, but if the decision is upheld, I fear it will achieve little more than to create an underground "backstreet circumcision" industry, which will likely do more harm than circumcision does at the moment.

As for the circumcision/HIV thing, I wonder if, among South Africa's mostly fairly uneducated and naive populace, there will not soon exist a belief that circumcision immunizes you against HIV, after which people will happily screw around unprotected even more than they already do, with even more infections resulting. The Xhosas are almost all circumcised; as far as I know they do not have low incidences of HIV/AIDS?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2012, 12:40:56 PM »

Once again we are left to marvel at the utter tripe and undiluted hogwash that religious “authorities” are so quick to confect whenever their special privileges come under threat.  Each of these vocal nutcases has barefacedly averred that the court’s ruling is an infringement on religious rights and freedoms.  Predictably, none of them is able to offer any explanation whatsoever of how it constitutes such an infringement to allow a child to choose freely later on in life what religious beliefs and practices to follow simply by deferring their mutilation by a decade or two (that is, insofar as any free choice in this regard is likely to eventuate anyway, given all the other brainwashing that occurs).

The clamour of self-righteous whining is good, for it marks another own-goal by religiotards.

Edit: In any case, circumcision looks awfully like an implicit negative criticism of the applicable god’s design…

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 12:54:47 PM by Mefiante » Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2012, 13:59:01 PM »

Quote
In any case, circumcision looks awfully like an implicit negative criticism of the applicable god’s design…

brilliant!
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Online Online

Posts: 3062



« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2012, 14:26:03 PM »

I'm all for self mutilation, it's a human being's right to do with their bodies what they want. However circumcision at birth is the mutilation of others.

If I started a religion that demands I cut off a piece of earlobe of everyone who does not follow my religion, would it be reasonable for the state to sanction my rampant mutilation spree?

Didn't think so.
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2012, 16:21:34 PM »

It is reasonable and rational to hold the view that human rights have to become a consideration at some stage during the development of the human foetus.  As with most legal and moral assessments, a clearly defined line does not present itself and a measure of discretion is therefore required.  What can be held with confidence, is that an undeveloped embryo has no rights whatsoever, whereas a baby qualifies as a human being and should have all the rights usually associated with humans, bar certain rights for which adulthood is a prerequisite.  On this basis it is easy to justify early abortion, where the mother's rights should be paramount, while rejecting religious or ritualistic infant circumcision, where the child's rights should prevail.  The ritualistic circumcision of adolescents, as practised widely in South Africa, takes place under tremendous pressure from society and regarding it as free choice is naive.     
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1812



WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2012, 18:19:17 PM »

I'm all for self mutilation, it's a human being's right to do with their bodies what they want. However circumcision at birth is the mutilation of others.

If I started a religion that demands I cut off a piece of earlobe of everyone who does not follow my religion, would it be reasonable for the state to sanction my rampant mutilation spree?

Didn't think so.

A more accurate analog would be if your religion demanded that you cut off a piece of earlobe from your children shortly after they are born, but your point stands nevertheless, because if you did have such a religion the state would probably prohibit the ritual.
Logged
Jacques
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


JacquesR
WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2012, 15:46:07 PM »

The idea that circumcision reduces HIV infection risk is being bandied about as if it's unquestionable. But the meta-analyses that conclusion is based on have been strongly criticised, as you can read in this paper: http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2012, 15:55:10 PM »

There was a similar study some decades ago that found that Jewish women' cervical cancer incidence was lower than the norm...conclusion was that circumcision did the trick...can't remember the reference now but I'll look for it. Sounds like propaganda to me.
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2012, 07:23:17 AM »

There was a similar study some decades ago that found that Jewish women' cervical cancer incidence was lower than the norm...conclusion was that circumcision did the trick...can't remember the reference now but I'll look for it. Sounds like propaganda to me.

There might be some truth in this in my opinion, circumcised men tend to be "cleaner" down there, and I know that women married to uncircumcised men are more prone to vaginal infections, and its a prominent question asked by many GP's when a woman comes in with a blazing infection, and the husband often also receive a script to clear up his bugs that he so freely passes along.
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #32 on: July 04, 2012, 07:30:46 AM »

There was a similar study some decades ago that found that Jewish women' cervical cancer incidence was lower than the norm...conclusion was that circumcision did the trick...can't remember the reference now but I'll look for it. Sounds like propaganda to me.

There might be some truth in this in my opinion, circumcised men tend to be "cleaner" down there, and I know that women married to uncircumcised men are more prone to vaginal infections, and its a prominent question asked by many GP's when a woman comes in with a blazing infection, and the husband often also receive a script to clear up his bugs that he so freely passes along.

Sheesh... Sensitive much for the smite I got for posting my opinion?  Yawn

Care to discuss the horseshit and attempt to change my opinion?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 09:11:56 AM by Faerie » Logged
Jacques
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


JacquesR
WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 04, 2012, 12:09:42 PM »

My column on this, for those who might be interested: http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2012-07-03-the-cutting-edge-of-religion
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 04, 2012, 13:00:43 PM »

Faerie, battle scars become you! Wink

Jacques, I notice with dismay that what is perhaps your most forceful point — viz. that tradition is not in itself a sufficient reason for perpetuating customs, especially harmful ones — does not resonate well if at all with others.  It astounds me how individuals of an ostensibly sapient species can be so firmly bound by the grip of childhood indoctrination and programming.

'Luthon64
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 09, 2012, 19:32:06 PM »

Though somewhat delayed, the predictable repercussions of the Cologne court ruling have begun…

'Luthon64
Logged
Zulumoose
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 92



« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2012, 14:04:09 PM »

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

A few selected quotes from a most revealing article about the HIV circumcision trials.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The “randomized controlled clinical trials” upon which these recommendations are based (I use scare quotes deliberately) represent bad science at its most dangerous: we are talking about poorly conducted experiments with dubious results presented in an outrageously misleading fashion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s assume for a second that the circumcised men really did end up getting infected with HIV at a lower rate than the control-group men who were left intact—even though, as we will see in a moment, we have very little reason to believe that this is so. Why might that outcome have happened?

If you answered, “Because those men knew they were in the treatment group in the first place, had less sex over the duration of the study (because they had bandaged, wounded penises for much of it), and had safer sex when they had it (because they received free condoms and special counseling from the doctors), thereby reducing their overall exposure to HIV compared to the control group by a wide margin” then you are on the right track



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.

That’s right: 60% is the relative reduction in infection rates, comparing two vanishingly small percentages: a clever bit of arithmetic that generates a big-seeming number, yet one which wildly misrepresents the results of the study. The absolute decrease in HIV infection between the treatment and control groups in these experiments was a mere 1.31%, which can hardly be considered clinically significant, especially given the numerous confounds that the studies failed to rule out.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some major issues with trying to roll-out circumcision in particular include the fact that the RCCT participants—who were not representative of the general population to begin with—had (1) continuous counseling and yearlong medical care, as well as (2) frequent monitoring for infection, and (3) surgeries performed in highly sanitary conditions by trained, Western doctors. All of which would be unlikely to replicate at a larger scale in the parts of the world suffering from the worst of the AIDS epidemic. And of course, circumcisions carried out in un-sanitary conditions (that is, the precise conditions that are likelier to hold in those very places) carry a huge risk of transmitting HIV at the interface of open wounds and dirty surgical instruments. So this is a serious point.

What should we conclude? Green et al. get it right: “Before circumcising millions of men in regions with high prevalences of HIV infection, it is important to consider alternatives. A comparison of male circumcision to condom use concluded that supplying free condoms is 95 times more cost effective.”




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2012, 14:22:01 PM »

There is also the danger that some circumcised men may think: "I'm circumcised, so I'm safe.  I don't need to wear them pesky condoms."
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1812



WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2012, 17:00:03 PM »

There is also the danger that some circumcised men may think: "I'm circumcised, so I'm safe.  I don't need to wear them pesky condoms."

Yup. This circumcision mania is going to backfire, big time.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Online Online

Posts: 3062



« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2012, 17:17:12 PM »


There might be some truth in this in my opinion, circumcised men tend to be "cleaner" down there, and I know that women married to uncircumcised men are more prone to vaginal infections, and its a prominent question asked by many GP's when a woman comes in with a blazing infection, and the husband often also receive a script to clear up his bugs that he so freely passes along.

Sheesh... Sensitive much for the smite I got for posting my opinion?  Yawn

Care to discuss the horseshit and attempt to change my opinion?

For the record, I did not smite you. However I can see why someone perhaps would, so I'll tell you why I _think_ you got smited.

a) Can you provide evidence that circumsized men are "cleaner". Wouldn't hygiene determine this much more than a foreskin?

b) Data for women with uncut men having more infections?

c) Is it really a common question? I've been present for the diagnosis of this and never heard it asked. A more prominent question I heard is: "What birth-control do you use?". But then we just have two competing statements with no data to adjudicate. Have references?

Quote
the husband often also receive a script to clear up his bugs that he so freely passes along

Or gets passed to him, which if left untreated, would re-infect the woman. How do you go about determining the causality?
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2012, 07:06:08 AM »

There was a similar study some decades ago that found that Jewish women' cervical cancer incidence was lower than the norm...conclusion was that circumcision did the trick...can't remember the reference now but I'll look for it. Sounds like propaganda to me.
Nothing to do with circumcision.  Bapkas and gefilte fish are powerful anti-carcinogens...
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #41 on: October 02, 2013, 15:18:31 PM »

Stockholm - The Ombudsman for Children in Sweden called Saturday for the country to ban circumcision, a practice he said contravened the basic rights of boys.

“Circumcising a child without medical justification nor his consent contravenes this child's human rights,” wrote Fredrik Malmberg in a text co-signed with health professionals and published in the daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

“The operation is painful, irreversible and can lead to dangerous complications,” Malmberg said.

Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 02, 2013, 15:27:56 PM »

Stockholm - The Ombudsman for Children in Sweden called Saturday for the country to ban circumcision, a practice he said contravened the basic rights of boys.

“Circumcising a child without medical justification nor his consent contravenes this child's human rights,” wrote Fredrik Malmberg in a text co-signed with health professionals and published in the daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

“The operation is painful, irreversible and can lead to dangerous complications,” Malmberg said.



Good sense. Let the baby decide for himself whether or not to have it done when he gets to an age when he can make an informed decision.  Parents do not have the right to mutilate their children for any reason at all.
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2013, 21:23:28 PM »

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/AidsFocus/Circumcision-reduces-HIV-risk-20090415
Quote
"Research on the effectiveness of male circumcision for preventing HIV in heterosexual men is conclusive," said lead researcher Nandi Siegfried, co-director of the centre, which is located at the SA Medical Research Council.

Quote
Siegfried said circumcision might help to protect against HIV by removing cells in the foreskin to which the virus was specifically attracted.

These Langerhans cells had receptors that enabled the virus to enter them.


I'm slways skeptical on this topic. If true, surely, there should  a statistically significant difference in HIV /AIDS infection rates between those traditional communities that circumcise and those that don't? Yet, when all other factors are controlled for, the HIV/ AIDS infection remains pretty constant.


Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1812



WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 23, 2013, 04:54:23 AM »

If it goes on like this, before long circumcision will become mandated by law... :-)

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-10-22-motsoaledi-urges-politicians-to-get-circumcised

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.41 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 11:27:59 AM
Privacy Policy