Circumcision cuts HIV risk: study 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - It has long been noted that circumcised men appear to be less likely to become infected with HIV, but whether there's a benefit to actively circumcising adults for this purpose has been an open question.
Now, investigators in France and South Africa report that circumcising men does afford them some protection against HIV.
Dr. Bertran Auvert, from Hopital Ambroise-Pare in Boulogne, France, and colleagues conducted a clinical study to test this prevention strategy. They randomly assigned 1,546 uncircumcised, HIV-negative men ages 18 to 24 years residing in South Africa to be circumcised and 1,582 to a wait "control" group.
Those who underwent circumcision were instructed to abstain from sex for 6 weeks after the procedure.
During 21 months of follow-up, 20 cases of HIV infection occurred in the circumcision group and 49 in the control group, the team reports in the medical journal PLoS Medicine
The researchers suggest several possible ways that circumcision may protect to some extent against HIV infection: "keratinization of the glans when not protected by the foreskin, short drying after sexual contact, reducing the life expectancy of HIV on the penis after sexual contact with an HIV-positive partner, reduction of the total surface of the skin of the penis, and reduction of target cells, which are numerous on the foreskin."
Auvert's group recommends male circumcision for reducing the risk of HIV infection in areas where the disease is rampant. However, they also caution men not to think circumcision gives them total protection. "If perceived as full protection, it could lead to reduction of protection of men who, for example, decrease their condom use or otherwise engage in riskier behavior."
SOURCE: PLoS Medicine, November 2005.
Okay....
Where did they get their sample of adult men who were willing to be circumcised for a study? I'm guessing there was a nice financial compensation package involved, and were these men told to always use a condom, or were they told to go out there and whore it up for science to see how many of them caught HIV?
To me, this study only proves that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in guys who are desperate for money, and sleep around without using protection in South Africa. I guess that is all they are supporting.. circumcision in HIV rampant areas, but I still question their ethics when doing the study.
Funny how they didn't mention whether or not the people who got circumcised as adults had any different perception of their sexual satisfaction.
Anyone else think this is a questionable study?
_________________ Ringo: Wretched slugs, don't any of you have the guts to play for blood?
Doc: I'm your huckleberry.
Circumcision cuts HIV risk: study 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - It has long been noted that circumcised men appear to be less likely to become infected with HIV, but whether there's a benefit to actively circumcising adults for this purpose has been an open question.
Now, investigators in France and South Africa report that circumcising men does afford them some protection against HIV.
Dr. Bertran Auvert, from Hopital Ambroise-Pare in Boulogne, France, and colleagues conducted a clinical study to test this prevention strategy. They randomly assigned 1,546 uncircumcised, HIV-negative men ages 18 to 24 years residing in South Africa to be circumcised and 1,582 to a wait "control" group.
Those who underwent circumcision were instructed to abstain from sex for 6 weeks after the procedure.
During 21 months of follow-up, 20 cases of HIV infection occurred in the circumcision group and 49 in the control group, the team reports in the medical journal PLoS Medicine
The researchers suggest several possible ways that circumcision may protect to some extent against HIV infection: "keratinization of the glans when not protected by the foreskin, short drying after sexual contact, reducing the life expectancy of HIV on the penis after sexual contact with an HIV-positive partner, reduction of the total surface of the skin of the penis, and reduction of target cells, which are numerous on the foreskin."
Auvert's group recommends male circumcision for reducing the risk of HIV infection in areas where the disease is rampant. However, they also caution men not to think circumcision gives them total protection. "If perceived as full protection, it could lead to reduction of protection of men who, for example, decrease their condom use or otherwise engage in riskier behavior."
SOURCE: PLoS Medicine, November 2005.
Okay....
Where did they get their sample of adult men who were willing to be circumcised for a study? I'm guessing there was a nice financial compensation package involved, and were these men told to always use a condom, or were they told to go out there and whore it up for science to see how many of them caught HIV?
To me, this study only proves that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in guys who are desperate for money, and sleep around without using protection in South Africa. I guess that is all they are supporting.. circumcision in HIV rampant areas, but I still question their ethics when doing the study.
Funny how they didn't mention whether or not the people who got circumcised as adults had any different perception of their sexual satisfaction.
Anyone else think this is a questionable study?
I'd be curious to know where the results of this research were originally published. No medical journal will publish any study if the research doesn't conform to established ethical guidelines. I'm guessing that people weren't instructed specifically to have unprotected sex, but it does raise some eyebrows.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
Kevman wrote:
OrpheusDescending wrote:
Circumcision for males is a bad thing in the long run, and men (as well as women) are better without it.
this wins for most outlandish statement without anything to back it up.
Personal experience and common sense tells me it's true, but you can find studies that have shown that men who aren't cut experience greater sensitivity and pleasure than men who are, as do their partners.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:41 pm Posts: 23014 Location: NOT FLO-RIDIN Gender: Male
OrpheusDescending wrote:
Kevman wrote:
OrpheusDescending wrote:
Circumcision for males is a bad thing in the long run, and men (as well as women) are better without it.
this wins for most outlandish statement without anything to back it up.
Personal experience and common sense tells me it's true, but you can find studies that have shown that men who aren't cut experience greater sensitivity and pleasure than men who are, as do their partners.
Well I just lost all hope of sexual nirvana. Bummer.
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:52 pm Posts: 770 Location: New York City Via Buffalo NY
OrpheusDescending wrote:
Kevman wrote:
OrpheusDescending wrote:
Circumcision for males is a bad thing in the long run, and men (as well as women) are better without it.
this wins for most outlandish statement without anything to back it up.
Personal experience and common sense tells me it's true, but you can find studies that have shown that men who aren't cut experience greater sensitivity and pleasure than men who are, as do their partners.
Circumcision for males is a bad thing in the long run, and men (as well as women) are better without it.
this wins for most outlandish statement without anything to back it up.
Personal experience and common sense tells me it's true, but you can find studies that have shown that men who aren't cut experience greater sensitivity and pleasure than men who are, as do their partners.
he's right.
However, most studies these days focus on an increased std/hiv risk when uncircumcised. The medical community will always be more focuse on disease prevention than on sexual satisfaction.
I have yet to see any study that I thought was compelling enough to want to have any child of mine circumcised.
_________________ Ringo: Wretched slugs, don't any of you have the guts to play for blood?
Doc: I'm your huckleberry.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
Kevman wrote:
OrpheusDescending wrote:
Kevman wrote:
OrpheusDescending wrote:
Circumcision for males is a bad thing in the long run, and men (as well as women) are better without it.
this wins for most outlandish statement without anything to back it up.
Personal experience and common sense tells me it's true, but you can find studies that have shown that men who aren't cut experience greater sensitivity and pleasure than men who are, as do their partners.
so you've experienced cut and uncut? amazing.
I've experienced all my girlfriends telling me they like it a lot better.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
And to answer your question, I think this is a very questionable study. Many men who undergo the procedure as adults experience pain and loss of sensitivity; these factors could be very influential in the sex lives of the circumcised men for months after the study. Also, it looks as though the results may not even be significant, depending on the confidence interval established by the researchers. Even if it is, I have a feeling that my high school statistics teacher would be able to find quite a few things wrong with this study if he could examine it closely.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
OrpheusDescending wrote:
And to answer your question, I think this is a very questionable study. Many men who undergo the procedure as adults experience pain and loss of sensitivity; these factors could be very influential in the sex lives of the circumcised men for months after the study. Also, it looks as though the results may not even be significant, depending on the confidence interval established by the researchers. Even if it is, I have a feeling that my high school statistics teacher would be able to find quite a few things wrong with this study if he could examine it closely.
or, as my brother pointed out, the newly circumcised men were told to abstain from sex for 6 weeks, whereas the uncirc men were not, therefore the circ men were having less sex during the 21 mo period (approx 90 wks) so they were having approx 7% less sex (or less time that they could).. so it would reason that they would therefore be exposed to less disease and therefore would have a smaller rate of HIV infection.
so, in his words, "it makes the entires study null and void".
_Casey
(oh, this is AIL forgot to sign out of serj's acct. )
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
I was going to point that out too, but I figured the surveyors told both groups to abstain for six weeks. But like you said, if they didn't, their study is shit.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:36 am Posts: 449 Location: Tomorrow Never Knows
I don't believe this study was true. I am not circumcised and there is no way I would ever be, not even for money. Plus so I guess everyone with an std/aids must be uncircumcised.
Everygirl I have been with likes it better when a guy is uncut. they say they can feel it more. I disagree with circumcision and I think it is body mutilation. I heard that Austrailia is thinking about banning it and even some jewish doctors have spoken out against it.
25 babies die every year from hemmorages resulting from circumcision. My cousin's baby was and they messed it up. He is now a teen and has really bad pain when he gets a hard on. It is just not worth it
I don't believe this study was true. I am not circumcised and there is no way I would ever be, not even for money. Plus so I guess everyone with an std/aids must be uncircumcised.
Everygirl I have been with likes it better when a guy is uncut. they say they can feel it more. I disagree with circumcision and I think it is body mutilation. I heard that Austrailia is thinking about banning it and even some jewish doctors have spoken out against it.
25 babies die every year from hemmorages resulting from circumcision. My cousin's baby was and they messed it up. He is now a teen and has really bad pain when he gets a hard on. It is just not worth it
agreed. The only reason US women think they prefer the circ appearance is because it is more familiar. studies done in european countries show that the women there overwhelmingly prefer uncirc.
My boys' pediatrician is jewish, a fact that I just recently learned and was actually quite SURPRISED to learn because he is adamently against circumcision. I work as a labor/postparum nurse and a lot of patients choose him as their doctor because he is well respected in the community, but if they are planning on circumcising, he doesn't go out without a fight. He'll certainly give you a lecture (in a friendly manner) on all the reasons not to. I overheard another doctor the other day talking about how surprised she was that he was jewish, and I was surprised too!
_________________ Ringo: Wretched slugs, don't any of you have the guts to play for blood?
Doc: I'm your huckleberry.
Post subject: Re: This seems quite unethical to me..
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:05 pm
Got Some
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:58 am Posts: 2105 Location: Austin
Already in Love wrote:
Quote:
Circumcision cuts HIV risk: study 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - It has long been noted that circumcised men appear to be less likely to become infected with HIV, but whether there's a benefit to actively circumcising adults for this purpose has been an open question.
Now, investigators in France and South Africa report that circumcising men does afford them some protection against HIV.
Dr. Bertran Auvert, from Hopital Ambroise-Pare in Boulogne, France, and colleagues conducted a clinical study to test this prevention strategy. They randomly assigned 1,546 uncircumcised, HIV-negative men ages 18 to 24 years residing in South Africa to be circumcised and 1,582 to a wait "control" group.
Those who underwent circumcision were instructed to abstain from sex for 6 weeks after the procedure.
During 21 months of follow-up, 20 cases of HIV infection occurred in the circumcision group and 49 in the control group, the team reports in the medical journal PLoS Medicine
The researchers suggest several possible ways that circumcision may protect to some extent against HIV infection: "keratinization of the glans when not protected by the foreskin, short drying after sexual contact, reducing the life expectancy of HIV on the penis after sexual contact with an HIV-positive partner, reduction of the total surface of the skin of the penis, and reduction of target cells, which are numerous on the foreskin."
Auvert's group recommends male circumcision for reducing the risk of HIV infection in areas where the disease is rampant. However, they also caution men not to think circumcision gives them total protection. "If perceived as full protection, it could lead to reduction of protection of men who, for example, decrease their condom use or otherwise engage in riskier behavior."
SOURCE: PLoS Medicine, November 2005.
Okay....
Where did they get their sample of adult men who were willing to be circumcised for a study? I'm guessing there was a nice financial compensation package involved, and were these men told to always use a condom, or were they told to go out there and whore it up for science to see how many of them caught HIV?
To me, this study only proves that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in guys who are desperate for money, and sleep around without using protection in South Africa. I guess that is all they are supporting.. circumcision in HIV rampant areas, but I still question their ethics when doing the study.
Funny how they didn't mention whether or not the people who got circumcised as adults had any different perception of their sexual satisfaction.
Anyone else think this is a questionable study?
I would do it for free if it hadn't been done to me as a child. I can't speak for a womans preference, but I doubt they are attracted to those sandworms from Dune.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
