Write a Comment
6 Comments
Yes, Marc I question this.
I don't belive that circumcision is the solution to "prevent" HIV, either way, man or woman will still contract HIV without protection, regardless of their sexual orientation. Circumscized men do still get HIV by sexual contact however there is no mention of their hygienic lifestyle/behaviour of their uncircumscized participants/patients. I have the feeling that these study subject were not conservative of their hygiene care. Condoms is the SAFEST WAY!! NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, WHAT'S SO COMPLICATED??
I truly do not think that circumction is or was the true reason for the fall of HIV infection rate. If this were true, 80 percent of those in the US that had it done would NOT have HIV of those that do. It is NOT the only reason for decline. We must put faith in education.
In 6 African countries, men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised - Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. The one RCT into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the circumcised group btw. ABC is the way forward. Promoting circumcision will cost African lives, not save them.
"circumcising 4 million men by 2013." Does anyone question this?
Hugh7
"Studies show that circumcision can dramatically reduce HIV rates" This is a wild overstatement. Three non-double-blinded, non-placebo-controlled, prematurely-curtailed trials of paid volunteers seemed to show less transmission to the circumcised men than the non-circumcised control groups. Contacts were not traced, so it is not even known which, if any, of the transmission was heterosexual. Another trial started to show that circumcising men INcreases the risk to women.
May 15, 2012 • Porirua, NZ