How do you respond when someone pulls that "circumcision reduces HIV" card? They often cite that study in Africa. Do we know details about that study? Was it peer reviewed and repeated? Do they have an anatomical/physiological theory to back up their claim?

mikesteane · 2012-07-06T08:24:30+00:00

One of the "researchers" involved is the inventor of a clamp used for holding victims in place while the torture is applied. He makes money on every item sold, so the research was compromised before it started.

theozoph · 2012-07-06T07:32:02+00:00

"The trial was stopped early because of futility"

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2960998-3/abstract

"numerous flaws in three African studies that claim male circumcision reduces transmission of HIV"

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december112011/circumcision-hiv-rg.php

Public Health Association of Australia: "Our conclusion is that such proposals ignore doubts about the robustness of the evidence from the African random-controlled trials as to the protective effect of circumcision and the practical value of circumcision as a means of HIV control; misrepresent the nature of Australia's HIV epidemic and exaggerate the relevance of the African random-controlled trials findings to it; underestimate the risks and harm of circumcision; and ignore questions of medical ethics and human rights. The notion of circumcision as a ‘surgical vaccine’ is criticised as polemical and unscientific..... Circumcision of infants or other minors has no place among HIV control measures in the Australian and New Zealand context; proposals such as these should be rejected."

Royal Dutch Medical Association: "That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions. As such, behavioural factors appear to play a far more important role than whether or not one has a foreskin."

Source: both quotes published in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. Source , Link to original paper (requires login)

A study concludes that circumcision does not affect HIV in US. The U.S. Navy finds that "Multiple logistic regressions were constructed separately to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI. Conclusions: [circumcision] is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population."

A fatal irony: Why the “circumcision solution” to the AIDS epidemic in Africa will increase transmission of HIV

2012-07-06T12:37:37+00:00

Does it even matter? Using that line of thought can lead one to conclude that female circumcision, particularly the kind that sews the vagina closed, should be promoted because the sutures stop the transmission of aids and other stds when kept intact.

Jesus_marley · 2012-07-06T11:49:06+00:00

I suppose the most logical argument as to why the HIV argument is irrelevant to the circumcision debate, setting aside for a moment the obviously flawed "studies" is that infants and children are not sexually active so to say that it is beneficial to impose such a procedure without consent on a person who will likely not engage in HIV risky behaviour for another 15 - 18 years after the fact is simply ridiculous. It is thew equivalent of removing the breasts of infant females to reduce their risk of breast cancer in adulthood.

mikesteane · 2012-07-06T08:20:53+00:00

Why did evolution give us foreskins, if it is better to cut them off?

joetheyfit · 2012-07-06T15:42:47+00:00

Condoms are 100%, Circumcision is not.

joetheyfit · 2012-07-06T22:04:40+00:00

the most obvious response (for me) would be

"while that may be true, the law of unintended consequences teaches us many things. For example, the mandatory introduction of car seat belts in Europe led to a spike in car accidents, as people drove faster, thinking they were safer. With circumcision to prevent/reduce HIV infection rates, arguably this could lead to circumcised men thinking they are immune, and therefore having 1. more sex and/or 2. less safe sex, in turn increasing the rate of HIV transmission over a long time-scale."

exasperation · 2012-07-06T07:30:58+00:00

Say' if that were true, the US would have a lower incidence than Europe.'

Anything they follow that with is a request for education...and then you're not preaching.

Faryshta · 2012-07-06T13:37:57+00:00

So if removing your eyelids would reduce the chances of heart attack would you do that?

Dranosh · 2012-07-06T07:02:12+00:00

the doctors that did the study didn't take the time to factor into the fact that it takes 6 weeks to heal.

iggybdawg · 2012-07-07T02:04:02+00:00

I respond that if the study is true, it proves that condoms are way more effective than circumcision. So it shows that circumcision is not worth doing to protect boys from HIV.

rightsbot · 2012-07-06T06:22:19+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

hardwarequestions · 2012-07-06T06:51:54+00:00

You may also want to ask this to /r/intactivists.

Also, this is a great comment chain you might want to read...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/vtvy3/because_i_prefer_conversation_to_confrontation/c57uszz

wufoo2 · 2012-07-07T01:44:29+00:00

Hugh Young and others take those studies to the mat here.

A more concise academic takedown is here

joetheyfit · 2012-07-06T07:54:37+00:00

Disregarding all pertinent medical FACTS...

The simple, base-line logic simply doesn't hold water.

HIV lives in the blood, and does not last at all long outside of the blood, let alone outside of the body. HIV attacks your immune system, USING your immune system to reproduce while destroying it in the process. There are no cells linked to your immune system appreciably present in your foreskin area. The foreskin is OUTSIDE of the body, as in, it is OUTSIDE of the epidermal layer, which protects your vascular and every other INTERNAL system of your body.

If you could get AIDS by licking the smeg from some dude's foreskin, we'd be hearing about AIDS transmission via armpit sweat or taint sweat.

joetheyfit · 2012-07-06T08:08:52+00:00

right if you people believe that a piece of skin on the end of your penis has anything to do with the transmission of a virus... you know what im not even gonna try... if your common sense is that far out of whack.. whats the use.

roharareddit · 2012-07-06T18:15:26+00:00

http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/28000000-african-men-to-be-coerced-by-u-n-to-make-the-cut/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/politics-money-and-ideology-whos-circumcision-plan/

Read and look at the sources

Comments