Circumcision to reduce risk of HIV...

[momto2boys973]

I don't understand this. Circumcision Reduces the Risk of HIV Infection by Half in Heterosexual Men

I mean, I understand that they did these trials in Africa, Uganda, and others... and circumcision seemed to reduce the risk of getting HIV by HALF! That is a significant number. The results are there, but can they really say that it was solely just the circumcision that had impacted this number? Can we say that the fact that for years we have been going over there and preaching about safer sex practices, and such didn't impact this as well? I honestly don't know... Did the circumcision reduce the number of WOMEN who got HIV? How can you control who the men were sleeping with, and do we know that the women (or men) had HIV that those UnCirc or Circ men slept with? In Africa do they have just one sexual partner, or do they sleep with more than one person?  How did they get these results? What caused them to have those results? To many questions that need answering.

Now the CDC has been talking about a Circumcison drive here in the USA. Where for many, many years Circumcision was practiced routinely... and did that help the HIV, AIDS problem in the States? NO! It also states that it works for HETROSEXUAL MEN (theoretically)... So what about the Bi-Sexual or Gay men... it obviously doesn't help them...

Still like any STD, the best practice is abstinance or SAFER sex practices... To many answers that still need answering... like I said I don't understand...

[momto2boys973]

Oct. 15, 2009 at 8:46 PM

Obviously all these trials considered other factors to determine that result. Here's something for you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10770351?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

"These results suggest that differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their sex practices and hygienic behaviors do not account for the higher risk of HIV infection found among uncircumcised men."

Second, did you know that the US has one of the LOWEST rates of HIV infections? What's even more, the US is the only first world country where homosexual men (those not protected by circumcision) continue to be the highest risk group. In other countries, like the UK for example, the high risk group is now heterosexual men. What's even more, even within the US, the groups at a higher risk of contracting HIV are groups that weren't traditionally circumcised a couple of decades ago: African Americans and Hispanics.

Third, the mechanism with which circumcision offers a protective effect is well known and understood. The foreskin is filled with receptors that are very susceptible to HIV infection. These receptors are the point of entry for the virus. A circumcised man has a much lower number of these receptors therefore, the chance of the virus finding this point of entry is lower. 

Finally, yes, the best solution is abstinence and monogamy. But we have to be REALISTIC, not naive. The same goes for condoms. We can preach safe sex and abstinence until death. Truth is, people still engage in risky behaviors. Teens, especially tend to act before thinking. Condoms in Africa aren't as readily available as in the US, where you can go into any Walgreen's 24/7 and get a pack of Trojans. The difficult climate of Africa reduces the shelf life of condoms as well. And bottom line is, in decades of promoting safe sex, the message has gone through in a limited way. Furthermore, no one's is advocating for circumcision programs to take the place of sexual education. It's an ADDED measure, not a substitute for the measures being currently takes.

Hope that clarifies some points.

Sharon