"Research on the effectiveness of male circumcision for preventing HIV in heterosexual men is conclusive," said lead researcher Nandi Siegfried, co-director of the centre, which is located at the SA Medical Research Council.
Siegfried said circumcision might help to protect against HIV by removing cells in the foreskin to which the virus was specifically attracted.
These Langerhans cells had receptors that enabled the virus to enter them.
i don’t know about this. it sounds a little dodge in my opinion…
Apparently a lot of research was done on this, I know in KZN a couple months ago they had a drive and some 3000 men were circumcised. I have no clue as to the validity of the claim though, I do suppose that it improves cleanliness in the area? :-\
Time for one of the lurkers to make himself known hehehe. I’m currently doing my degree in biochemistry at WITS. When I did a course called molecular basis of disease, we came across this topic. A lot of research has gone into this as far as I know. I’m too busy studying for my final biochem …(which is tomorrow :o ) to actually look up the references, but I’ll try to post them soon. There are a lot of cells located in the foreskin that HIV target specifically. However there have been positive and negative studies, but more positive ones.
it feels to me, that this is just an excuse for men to not use protection.
this article states, that it ‘reduces’ the risk of infection for the first two years.
then what?
and what about he woman then?
if the guy is allready infected, how the hell would cutting the foreskin help her?
im sure there is validity in this claim, but in this country, where the accountability for std spreading is nil, such half-baked solutions isnt worth a crap.
Yeah but see, that’s making the problem more complex than the root question alludes to.
Does circumcision help to prevent transmission? From where I stand, yes.
That is perhaps just one dimension of a much larger matrix of inputs we’re dealing with here, but I think the IDEA has merit.
The other problems, to do with people ceasing the use of protection, etc. Is a societal problem that needs to be addressed separately. To be fair, if you’re sleeping around in this day and age without protection you are either highly ignorant or very irresponsible, and circumcision won’t change that, but it may, to a small degree, protect you.
My point is, you can’t just do the cut and think it’s a 100% solution. Other protective measures need to be in place too, and people need to be EDUCATED! In this kind of circumstance, if doing the cut can save a certain percentage of people who are acting in these vicarious ways, it has merit FOR THE POPULATION, even if it doesn’t seem to make sense on an individual level.
EDIT: To repeat myself once more and for clarity: When you are an individual, and lets say, you have a 5% smaller chance of transmission from getting the cut, it looks pretty shit. But if you’re dept. of health, 5% is possibly hundreds of thousands of lives saved.
agreed about the education end of things. but since our government is still punting beetroot and garlic as cures for aids, and so busy enriching themselves, off budgets that could have spread education far and wide… our goverment is not interrested in saving lives.
Folks: it’s a simple issue. The inside of a foreskin is a nice, damp, sensitive area of epithelial tissue, fairly easily damaged, which lets HIV in, and which has a LOT of the sorts of cells which can take up HIV and present it to CD4+ T-cells to infect them - namely, dendritic cells.
Circumcision removes the sensitive bit, and allows the glans of the penis - also more susceptible in the uncircumcised - to become more cornified, or to develop a thicker layer of dead cells (aka “skin”), which acts as a passive barrier to HIV entry.
Really?? And if you were on a trip to Mars, and you had a finite chance of your appendix rupturing - and a high probability of dying if it did - you wouldn't pre-emptively have it out?
Pretty much the same thing here: if you get circumcised, your chance of getting infected with HIV goes down significantly, for every encounter. Carry on going long enough, however, and your ship will come in…
Your appendix fails (for whatever reason) - HIV you basically have to go look for to acquire it. (note - both these are simplified for arguments sake only) Analogy fails. However;
…If you don’t have sex on the way to Mars, or only with a partner you can trust, I’d suggest keeping the appendix, (take along a doctor that can perform the necessary operation) make sure any blood for transfusion purposes are clean and keep the skin mate. Always keep the skin. I guess that is just me. What is the probability of an appendix failing btw?
your chance of getting infected with HIV goes down significantly,
Significantly my ass.
Just to be sure though, you are advocating circumcision then?
I don't think so...it doesn't matter HOW you get HIV; if your risk mounts the longer you go on having sex, it's analogous to waiting for your appendix to burst.
Significantly my ass.
Just to be sure though, you are advocating circumcision then?
It’s your ass then! You don’t think the reduction is significant? Really? When the vaccine and the therapies have no better impact, yet are touted as being significant?
And yes: circumcision significantly reduces the chances per penetration event of catching HIV from an infected person, so if you were a non-condom-wearing promiscious uncircumcised male, that’s exactly what I would advocate.
After A, B, C - and yes, D (do it yourself - masturbation - sex with the one you truly love…B-)
You wouldn’t. It is your analogy after all. I think it fails on a few important aspects. One being that I don’t think the selective appendix surgery is necessary in your Mars analogy in the first place. Not unless you tell me the chances of having a burst appendix is higher than I currently think it is.
it doesn't matter HOW you get HIV; if your risk mounts the longer you go on having sex, it's analogous to waiting for your appendix to burst.
Well once you tell me the probability of someone's appendix bursting and whether there are extenuating circumstances either way, we can't compare this. But if you are in a monogamous relationship and neither of you have HIV, your chances of actually acquiring HIV (through sex) is zero. Maimed dicks have zero impact. Go figure.
It's your ass then!
Indeed it is. But how much safer will you actually feel knowing you have a 5% better chance of not getting HIV? Significantly safer? really?
You don't think the reduction is significant? Really? When the vaccine and the therapies have no better impact, yet are touted as being significant?
Really. I don't think it is significant at all. 5% in this case is as good as zero. "[i]You can have all the sex you want. You cannot wear a condom. But we'll cut off a piece of your cock and there is a 5% better chance of not getting HIV!![/i]" ::) ::) ::)
And yes: circumcision significantly reduces the chances per penetration event of catching HIV from an infected person, so if you were a non-condom-wearing promiscuous uncircumcised male, that's exactly what I would advocate.
If you are a non-condom-wearing promiscuous uncircumcised [b]or circumcised[/b] male you are an idiot an deserves what you'll get. Snipped penii won't (significantly or not) matter. It is almost as bad as thinking a shower will wash it off afterwards!!
