(no subject)
Jul. 2nd, 2007 01:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mockingbirdqMariluna5 (Hi sweetie!) left a comment for me earlier this week I didn't notice until today, asking what I thought about a possible correlation between Circumcision and a lower rate of contracting HIV, based on an Afrrican study a few years ago. At the time the study was released, CNN and other US news sources publicized the study as though it's findings were proven and even now it is quoted in childcare books and parenting magazines.
Here's my response, for those who are curious.
Truthfully? There may be a small element of truth that intact males can acquire HIV more easily since the foreskin is delicate and can get small tears during sex (not visible, but they are there). That said, the studies in Africa have NOT been able to be replicated in any industrialized country. Not only is an unreproducible study generally considered bad science, but it suggests another element besides whether the test subject was circumcised may have been the main factor. It's interesting to note these studies are not generally accepted by scientists outside the US and Africa, and have been directly challengled in France.
Here are some links by those more educated than I :)
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#misreport
BTW, this study in Kenya gave an opposite result - women in the study were MORE likely to become infected with HIV when their partner was circumcised. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8082965&dopt=Abstract
In other words, the verdict is still definitely out, attempts to reproduce the original study have had many conflicting results, and any man who mistakenly believes he can't contract HIV because part of his foreskin was cut off may be just as likely or even more likely to become HIV positive - especially if his intact equivalent is smart enough to use condoms for protection. If you have a son one day, you are better off teaching him the importance of safe sex than cutting off a body part he might rather keep
Here's my response, for those who are curious.
Truthfully? There may be a small element of truth that intact males can acquire HIV more easily since the foreskin is delicate and can get small tears during sex (not visible, but they are there). That said, the studies in Africa have NOT been able to be replicated in any industrialized country. Not only is an unreproducible study generally considered bad science, but it suggests another element besides whether the test subject was circumcised may have been the main factor. It's interesting to note these studies are not generally accepted by scientists outside the US and Africa, and have been directly challengled in France.
Here are some links by those more educated than I :)
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#misreport
BTW, this study in Kenya gave an opposite result - women in the study were MORE likely to become infected with HIV when their partner was circumcised. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8082965&dopt=Abstract
In other words, the verdict is still definitely out, attempts to reproduce the original study have had many conflicting results, and any man who mistakenly believes he can't contract HIV because part of his foreskin was cut off may be just as likely or even more likely to become HIV positive - especially if his intact equivalent is smart enough to use condoms for protection. If you have a son one day, you are better off teaching him the importance of safe sex than cutting off a body part he might rather keep
