HIV Forum
	Log in Register ProfileLog in

Froix Joined: 10 Jun 2008 Posts: 105				Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:12 pm    Post subject: Circumcision     http://www.avert.org/circumcision-hiv.htm Quote: To settle this issue three trials were set up in sub-Saharan Africa, which together involved more than eleven thousand previously uncircumcised men. Quote: The results of the trials were as follows: Location Participants Report published Result in circumcised men South Africa 3,274 July 2005 60% fewer infections 3 Kenya 2,784 February 2007 53% fewer infections 4 Uganda 4,996 February 2007 51% fewer infections 5 Quote: There are several possible reasons why circumcision has this effect. The foreskin creates a moist environment in which HIV can survive for longer in contact with the most delicate parts of the penis, and the inner surface of the foreskin contains cells that are especially vulnerable to infection by HIV. If the foreskin is removed then the skin on the head of the penis tends to become tougher and more resistant to infection. In addition, any small tears in the foreskin that occur during sex make it much easier for the virus to enter the body. Should circumcision then be promoted? encouraged? How about religions and beliefs that oppose it? _________________ Life is what we make it, always has been, always will be. ~Grandma Moses
Back to top

rabscuttle Joined: 10 Jun 2008 Posts: 10				Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:58 am    Post subject:     This is a subject that has both it's proponents and opponents. What study was this by the way? I know that we (in the US some years ago) were taught that circumcision was more hygenic, but this view has come under scrutiny in more recent times.
Back to top

Froix Joined: 10 Jun 2008 Posts: 105				Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:45 am    Post subject:     It was a study of exactly that. Male circumcision and HIV. It's been suspected by scientists quite a while back but only now published recently. We were never taught this during sex ed. either. _________________ Life is what we make it, always has been, always will be. ~Grandma Moses
Back to top

Ricardo Joined: 16 May 2008 Posts: 12				Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:24 pm    Post subject:     Those are very interesting results. I think that we have to remember that there's probably a great deal of difference between uncircumcised men when it comes to how much time the head of the penis remains covered by the foreskin, which may affect each person's vulnerability differently.
Back to top

eyes4 Joined: 05 Jun 2008 Posts: 55				Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:39 pm    Post subject:     The tradition of circumcising a boy on the 8th day was considered religious and unnecessary by many for some time. Religion is not related to the study of science - but can be scientifically accurate. Amazing how many coincidences there are. There is a period of rapid growth and readjustment after birth that is related. The 8th day after birth, a boy's blood coagulates faster than any other time. It is an interesting fact. eyes4
Back to top

sophie Joined: 09 Jun 2008 Posts: 12				Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:40 pm    Post subject:     I don’t get why this is even a topic of discussion. It does not matter what is going on wit your genitals you can still get it. _________________ Carpe Diem
Back to top

Froix Joined: 10 Jun 2008 Posts: 105				Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:54 pm    Post subject:     The point is you get it less likely circumcised than if you are uncircumcised. 50% less as the tests show.
Back to top

sophie Joined: 09 Jun 2008 Posts: 12				Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:19 pm    Post subject:     I can see this being a factor, it makes complete sense to me. Aside from this circumcision is a clean way and it should not be frowned upon because of the HIV scare. _________________ Carpe Diem
Back to top

mamatito33 Joined: 23 Jun 2008 Posts: 60				Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:13 pm    Post subject:     I believe it. uncircumcised men and boys tend to get more of all kinds of infections than circumcised men and boys do. My son was circumcised but for some reason it has always looked like they didn't do it all the way. Meaning, that they didn't cut off all of the foreskin. So it still covers his penis. I have really had to be careful with him. He gets infections easily because of it.
Back to top

DianaR Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 70				Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:10 pm    Post subject:     HUGE flaw here. How many people would have been infected anyway? How many of these subjects had sex with known AIDS patients? It isn't enough to say there were fewer conversions to positive HIV statues based on the presence or absence of a piece of skin. Who paid for the research?
Back to top

Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

HIV forum -> HIV prevention

You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum