Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Before I begin, I may have to say that what I am about to say is not really to offend anyone or to show disrespect. I hope everyone will pardon me in case I seem to be showing a clear lack of knowledge (That was the disclaimer..Now for the real thing)
Circumsition is a form of cleansing. When I say cleansing, it means in the from of physical terms and not the spiritual entity. Muslims have to perform rituals such as prayers which require us to be clean (as in really clean). Now this may get a little graphic (Viewer discretion is advised) Generally, removing the tissue or piece of skin will prevent dirt or bacteria from collecting in these area, making cleaning difficult. When we answer Natures call, it is necessary that we clean ourselves enough.
Furthermore, circumsition is no longer a painful operation. I have been through one myself and I can still remember that the process was generally painless and that the eventual pain came after the operation though it wasn't enough to send me screaming (Ain't boasting!..lol). To me, I have been taught that it was a necessary operation to ensure cleanliness and that we are able to perfrom our daily prayers and rituals.
Once again, would like to reiterate that I mean no offense with what I have posted and please do correct me if I have made any false statements or mistakes. i am still learning and is willing to do so.
Back to the health issue, I would have heard from my local paper that male circumcision can indeed reduce the risk of a man getting caught with HIV and other VD, due to the lesser surface area available for bacteria contact... Am I wrong or do my eyes fail me?
As a young, pre-adult teen... Well I still feel that I must take a side on female circumcision though. I AM AGAINST IT FOR FEMALES!!!
I did hear of some churches in the past(perhaps even present?) circumcising females to remove parts of their sexual organ to stop them from being able to enjoy orgasmic pleasure in an attempt to prevent them from masturbation, which I must say is not very intelligent. It would cause them suffering in the future when they are married for sure (unless you count in "spiritual support" - which seems more like brainwashing in this context). It would not be a wise decision to do so honestly, and I am strongly against it, not as a male of course (heheh... What have I been learning in school? ) but only for the noble cause of the pure happiness of females! :rockon:
Well, to me I still wouldn't want my children in the future to be circumcised by preference... Why? Hmmm, I guess I don't have much of a confident reason to do so, still.
For the Jews and Muslims, I know for a fact that it is by their covenant with God, so perhaps we would not want to enter into an argument based on that. For Christians, well by theory they should, but if they would already have broken away from tradition by accepting Gentiles, I would not have any negative opinions about this.
"I have been taught that it was a necessary operation to ensure cleanliness" Then you've been taught wrong.
While I do agree, ZMG, as my son has no cleanliness issues whatsoever, I have heard that in Arid, desert climates, where sand blows into everything, there are some problems that are not experienced elsewhere. I don't remember where I heard this though, so it may well be wrong.
Which kind of boils down to sitting on the fence. And for me the biggest issue is that it's mutilation, disguised as being for medical purposes when in fact good personal hygiene habits make it entirely redundant.
I was told the same thing about the arid desert climate and lack of water for washing, but in the context of ancient Israelites. I didn't even know Muslims had to be circumcised, that's how ignorant I am.
Don't worry Brigid.. Just yesterday a girl in my class sorta angered Argon with a question on this issue.. Well I answered her, but yes zenmonk, good hygiene makes it redundant, but it all still boils down to individual pros and cons, enviroment and other factors, it is unfair to dismiss it as mutilation just like that, for I'd believe that parents do have their child's interest in mind! :rockon:
I am really getting the feeling that I'm being drawn into this argument.
I have a male and I have a female child. I have their best interests in mind. I WOULD NOT MUTILATE THEIR GENITALS for cleanliness (bullshit reason anyway-totally wrong).
Although, I have noticed that they get dirt under their fingernails-I'm thinking about cutting their fingers off...yes I think I will-I was taught that the removal of digits was necessary for cleanliness reasons...
I was told the same thing about the arid desert climate and lack of water for washing, but in the context of ancient Israelites. I didn't even know Muslims had to be circumcised, that's how ignorant I am.
Brigid,
You are not ignorant.
Many of us have been spoonfed this rubbish since Jesus played Full-back for Jerusalem. If this was true (arid/sandy climate) then both sexes should be done.
I am really starting to tire of this whole business.
I have a friend who has terrible breath-Perhaps using the same cleanliness theory, I'm going to reccomend to him total removal of the tongue, due to its horboring of 95% of the germs that contribute to Halitosis. Or maybe I'll just tell him to brush his teeth and tongue.
I tell you, I recon the worst problem is getting sand in your eyes! what we should do is create a worldwide campaign for the total removal of eyelids from all our children-for cleanliness purposes-of course.
Some logic here. Sometimes washing/brushing oneself cures many problems. Just like washing between your legs, washing your hair and washing your body-if you don't , you stink. simple.
The incorrect spelling has been annoying me for some time.
:grumble:
thanks for the correction xray,i'm not circumsized and i'm not english native speaker so please forgive me for the wrong spelling.imho for muslim or jews since circumcision is a commandment from god, we,the non muslims or non jews,cannot force them to take our view about circumcision.
i've read book about tao healing or something like that written by mantak chia.he mentioned that someone who has been circumcised cannot reach the highest level of chi cultivation.and if i'm not mistaken in tantrayana tradition people who have handicapped or have incomplete body part(finger or hand etc) are not allowed to perform some kind of meditation style,please correct me if i'm wrong.i dont know if circumsized ones can perform this kind of meditation or not
I am reviving this thread because I am having to change my opinion.
There appears to be strong and persuasive evidence that male circumcision is helpful in the prevention of the spread of AIDS. It must, however, be stressed that it does not mean that a man is safe from infection because he has been circumcised.
If this evidence is accurate, we should begin thinking about circumcision as a general practice worldwide. How on earth do we go about it?
I am reviving this thread because I am having to change my opinion.
There appears to be strong and persuasive evidence that male circumcision is helpful in the prevention of the spread of AIDS. It must, however, be stressed that it does not mean that a man is safe from infection because he has been circumcised.
If this evidence is accurate, we should begin thinking about circumcision as a general practice worldwide. How on earth do we go about it?
I would imagine that this is true in countries & cultures with poor hygeinic practices as the foreskin can trap a lot of nastiness. As ZMG said though, good hygeine makes circumcision redundant. In other words, you gotta keep your equipment clean or it might just get dirty.
I would imagine that this is true in countries & cultures with poor hygeinic practices as the foreskin can trap a lot of nastiness. As ZMG said though, good hygeine makes circumcision redundant. In other words, you gotta keep your equipment clean or it might just get dirty.
_/\_
metta
Not entirely, Not1not2. What I have been able to se of the evidence, it would appear that it is not a question of hygiene but of alteration in the epidermis of the glans after circumcision. Indeed, I would be very wary of stating that hygiene is better in the white West than in black Uganda, because I have no evidence of that.
Not entirely, Not1not2. What I have been able to se of the evidence, it would appear that it is not a question of hygiene but of alteration in the epidermis of the glans after circumcision. Indeed, I would be very wary of stating that hygiene is better in the white West than in black Uganda, because I have no evidence of that.
I would really have to see the source article along with the staistics to make any conclusions.
And it's not a black/white issue, though the sanitation in different areas do tend to vary in significant ways. Like I saidthough, I really don't know enough about the study to dispute it. I would be interested if you had a link to follow.
That would likely just create a false sense of security and lead to hiv being more widespread than it already it, and it seems reduntant and invasive when there is a perfectly simple way of avoiding infection and transmission (by sexual means) already. It seems to be that all the time and energy that would be necessary for that would be better spent at education of good practices instead.
That would likely just create a false sense of security and lead to hiv being more widespread than it already it, and it seems reduntant and invasive when there is a perfectly simple way of avoiding infection and transmission (by sexual means) already. It seems to be that all the time and energy that would be necessary for that would be better spent at education of good practices instead.
Hi Aquula,
The quote above seems to remind me of a similar concept that some africans were told, that circumcision prevents AIDS, just as well as sex with virgins prevents it -when this rumour was "Let loose" there was an increase in infection. The new infectees responded when told the news "I thought I was safe because I'm circumcised".
also, I believe that this is still a load of hogwash (Circumcision prevents the spread of HIV). Again let me see the report and I promise to give a valid and reasonable review of it-it may change my mind!
I am waiting for the abstracts of the Toronto conference, where the results of the survey were published.
Of course, Aquula, you are right that, even if circumcision gives some protection, it is not a full barrier. It is, however, a very significant finding.
The most important work currently being done at the level of HIV prevention must be that around microbicides which would give women some control over their own protection. As with control of pregnancy, we can be almost certain that, once women are empowered to take charge of their own health, infection rates will begin to fall. This, unfortunately, is not yet the case.
One more word on the 'hygiene' question: I have noticed that Muslims tend to be much more concerned with good personal hygiene, as an integral part of their understanding of their religious practice, than many a non-Muslim. I found the suggestion that 'Westerners' are 'better' at cleaning themselves another hint at the attitude that is taken towards those of a different culture.
The quote above seems to remind me of a similar concept that some africans were told, that circumcision prevents AIDS, just as well as sex with virgins prevents it -when this rumour was "Let loose" there was an increase in infection. The new infectees responded when told the news "I thought I was safe because I'm circumcised".
also, I believe that this is still a load of hogwash (Circumcision prevents the spread of HIV). Again let me see the report and I promise to give a valid and reasonable review of it-it may change my mind!
Just scanned through some of the abstracts & did a search for 'circumcision hygiene' as well as 'sanitation'. It appears that this study is in such a preliminary phase in its journey through the medical community, that little to no analysis as to the why's of these results have made into publication yet.
The most I can gather is that in the countries where this study was conducted there is a correlation between circumsized men & a decreased rate of HIV. While this is not disputed, there are so many factors at play here, I imagine it will be some time before we can say what part hygeine practices play in these results.
A better indicator of the role of hygeine in spread of AIDS (at this point) would be to compare the rates of HIV in countries with high rates of circumcision versus those with low rates. One would also have to do some studies to see whether or not there are any substantial differences in sexual behaviors between circumsized & uncircumsized groups (how promiscous, use of profilactics, etc).
So, for the moment, the most we can say of this study, is that under the conditions present in Uganda & other countries, there is a substantial link between circumcision & a lower rate of HIV. Beyond that though, we will just have to wait & see what further data comes out.
I agree that there is more work to be done. Initial indications are significant. I hope to be able to give more details when I get hold of the papers themselves (my colleague who was in Toronto has gone of holiday for a few eeks after all that talk!)
I would point out, once again, that hygiene is not the issue. Even the most perfect personal hygiene is no protection against HIV infection.
I agree that there is more work to be done. Initial indications are significant. I hope to be able to give more details when I get hold of the papers themselves (my colleague who was in Toronto has gone of holiday for a few eeks after all that talk!)
I would point out, once again, that hygiene is not the issue. Even the most perfect personal hygiene is no protection against HIV infection.
Actually, an uncircumsized penis, improperly cared for, can trap and hold seminal & vaginal fluids in a moist state in the foreskin for a significant amount longer than the a circumsized one. It is quite conceivable that the lengthened exposure to these infected fluids could be a significant contributing factor to the increased incidence of AIDS contraction in uncircumsized males.
Now, if this is related to hygene, then it is not limited to certain cultures or geographic regions, but rather to the failure to wash up before & after. Prolonged exposure=increased risk of contraction. Similarly, hygeine is arguably the most important factor in the spreading of most communicable diseases. So wash your hands folks.
It is for that reason that I feel we cannot rule out hygeine without seeing data to support us ruling it out. So until that happens, this is still a possible factor.
BTW, I'm really not trying to be contentious here.
I'm ashamed to say that the prime minister of my country, an arch Conservative by the name of Stephen Harper, did not attend a single session of this conference nor did he, to my knowledge, send a representative. His reason? "The issue has become too politicized."
I didn't, of course, vote for him.
I'm hoping, with all my heart, that this conference is able to do what so many others have failed to do, which is to keep up the momentum of the dialogue and effort now that everyone has gone back home.
I wasn't circumsized, but remeber the subject coming up once in a while as a child. It scared me and I tried to change the subject as quickly as possible, tried to hide even myself to avoid that from happening to me.
Hello all, located this article today. Kind of backs up what I thought-interesting stats regarding an actual test case. Sorry of the women involved-I'm sure they were not too happy becoming infected!
SORRY TO OPEN OLD DISCUSSIONS-BUT THIS IRKS ME.
cheers
Xray
Male circumcision to fight HIV poses risk to women
13:49 07 March 2007
NewScientist.com news service
New Scientist and AFP
Tools
Related Articles
Male circumcision: A contentious cut
23 November 2006
Circumcision reduces risk of HIV
29 October 2005
Circumcision protects men against HIV
06 August 2005
Search New Scientist
Contact us
Web Links
Maria Wawer, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
HIV, WHO
UNAIDS
HIV, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Policy-makers must exercise caution when including male circumcision among their tactics for fighting AIDS, researchers said on Tuesday. Early data from a trial in Uganda suggests the practice could increase infections in women.
In 2006, three groundbreaking studies conducted in Africa found that male circumcision halved a man's risk of being infected with HIV (see Male circumcision: a contentious cut). That discovery raised hope that the war against AIDS could be transformed by a simple, low-cost operation.
The new trial, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, explores a different angle – to see if circumcised men who are infected with HIV are any less likely to infect their female partner. US and Ugandan researchers are following almost 2000 HIV-infected men in Rakai, Uganda. Some of them have been circumcised, while the others have remained uncircumcised to act as a comparison.
A proportion of volunteers in both groups had uninfected long-term female partners at the start of the study. These women were also enrolled and monitored. A review at the study's six-month mark looked at 70 couples in the circumcised group and found that 11 of the women had become infected (16%). Among 54 couples in the "uncircumcised" group, four women had become infected (7%).
Time to heal
The study is ongoing and the data is not considered conclusive but the researchers say they are concerned. They believe several of the infections had been transmitted by men who had had sex before their wounds had fully healed from the circumcision surgery. HIV can be carried in both blood and semen.
If the increase in partner infection after circumcision is confirmed, it would mean it could not be endorsed as a prevention strategy without ensuring men and women are fully aware of the need to refrain from intercourse for a month or so until the penile wound has healed, the researchers said.
Volunteers in the Rakai study were repeatedly given safe-sex counselling and provided with free condoms. Women who become infected have been promised access to free HIV care and antiretroviral drugs.
Weighing the data
"We need to err on the side of caution to protect women in the context of any future male circumcision programme," said the study's lead scientist, Maria Wawer, at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, US.
The data was released on Tuesday as a contribution to a meeting of the World Health Organization and UNAIDS in Montreux, Switzerland. The two agencies are mulling the outcome of the three big trials to weigh how far, and how fast, they should endorse circumcision as a prevention policy.
The WHO's Kevin De Cock stressed the need for caution and good preparations: "While male circumcision has extraordinary potential to prevent HIV infection, these new findings remind us that we must proceed with thought and care in developing male circumcision in Africa."
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I was hoping that someone as observant as you would have seen the whole "experimentation" thing -yes Federica i am also outraged. What a foolish and damaging result of an experiment...to prove what we already knew anyway.
just don't get me stareted on mindless studies and experiments, we'll be here all year.
Comments
Circumsition is a form of cleansing. When I say cleansing, it means in the from of physical terms and not the spiritual entity. Muslims have to perform rituals such as prayers which require us to be clean (as in really clean). Now this may get a little graphic (Viewer discretion is advised) Generally, removing the tissue or piece of skin will prevent dirt or bacteria from collecting in these area, making cleaning difficult. When we answer Natures call, it is necessary that we clean ourselves enough.
Furthermore, circumsition is no longer a painful operation. I have been through one myself and I can still remember that the process was generally painless and that the eventual pain came after the operation though it wasn't enough to send me screaming (Ain't boasting!..lol). To me, I have been taught that it was a necessary operation to ensure cleanliness and that we are able to perfrom our daily prayers and rituals.
Once again, would like to reiterate that I mean no offense with what I have posted and please do correct me if I have made any false statements or mistakes. i am still learning and is willing to do so.
-raDmaTist
Back to the health issue, I would have heard from my local paper that male circumcision can indeed reduce the risk of a man getting caught with HIV and other VD, due to the lesser surface area available for bacteria contact... Am I wrong or do my eyes fail me?
As a young, pre-adult teen... Well I still feel that I must take a side on female circumcision though. I AM AGAINST IT FOR FEMALES!!!
I did hear of some churches in the past(perhaps even present?) circumcising females to remove parts of their sexual organ to stop them from being able to enjoy orgasmic pleasure in an attempt to prevent them from masturbation, which I must say is not very intelligent. It would cause them suffering in the future when they are married for sure (unless you count in "spiritual support" - which seems more like brainwashing in this context). It would not be a wise decision to do so honestly, and I am strongly against it, not as a male of course (heheh... What have I been learning in school?
Well, to me I still wouldn't want my children in the future to be circumcised by preference... Why? Hmmm, I guess I don't have much of a confident reason to do so, still.
For the Jews and Muslims, I know for a fact that it is by their covenant with God, so perhaps we would not want to enter into an argument based on that. For Christians, well by theory they should, but if they would already have broken away from tradition by accepting Gentiles, I would not have any negative opinions about this.
While I do agree, ZMG, as my son has no cleanliness issues whatsoever, I have heard that in Arid, desert climates, where sand blows into everything, there are some problems that are not experienced elsewhere. I don't remember where I heard this though, so it may well be wrong.
_/\_
metta
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686
_/\_
metta
I have a male and I have a female child. I have their best interests in mind. I WOULD NOT MUTILATE THEIR GENITALS for cleanliness (bullshit reason anyway-totally wrong).
Although, I have noticed that they get dirt under their fingernails-I'm thinking about cutting their fingers off...yes I think I will-I was taught that the removal of digits was necessary for cleanliness reasons...
with love,
Xrayman
Brigid,
You are not ignorant.
Many of us have been spoonfed this rubbish since Jesus played Full-back for Jerusalem. If this was true (arid/sandy climate) then both sexes should be done.
I am really starting to tire of this whole business.
I have a friend who has terrible breath-Perhaps using the same cleanliness theory, I'm going to reccomend to him total removal of the tongue, due to its horboring of 95% of the germs that contribute to Halitosis. Or maybe I'll just tell him to brush his teeth and tongue.
I tell you, I recon the worst problem is getting sand in your eyes! what we should do is create a worldwide campaign for the total removal of eyelids from all our children-for cleanliness purposes-of course.
Some logic here. Sometimes washing/brushing oneself cures many problems. Just like washing between your legs, washing your hair and washing your body-if you don't , you stink. simple.
regards,
Xrayman
The incorrect spelling has been annoying me for some time.
:grumble:
i've read book about tao healing or something like that written by mantak chia.he mentioned that someone who has been circumcised cannot reach the highest level of chi cultivation.and if i'm not mistaken in tantrayana tradition people who have handicapped or have incomplete body part(finger or hand etc) are not allowed to perform some kind of meditation style,please correct me if i'm wrong.i dont know if circumsized ones can perform this kind of meditation or not
There appears to be strong and persuasive evidence that male circumcision is helpful in the prevention of the spread of AIDS. It must, however, be stressed that it does not mean that a man is safe from infection because he has been circumcised.
If this evidence is accurate, we should begin thinking about circumcision as a general practice worldwide. How on earth do we go about it?
I would imagine that this is true in countries & cultures with poor hygeinic practices as the foreskin can trap a lot of nastiness. As ZMG said though, good hygeine makes circumcision redundant. In other words, you gotta keep your equipment clean or it might just get dirty.
_/\_
metta
Not entirely, Not1not2. What I have been able to se of the evidence, it would appear that it is not a question of hygiene but of alteration in the epidermis of the glans after circumcision. Indeed, I would be very wary of stating that hygiene is better in the white West than in black Uganda, because I have no evidence of that.
I would really have to see the source article along with the staistics to make any conclusions.
And it's not a black/white issue, though the sanitation in different areas do tend to vary in significant ways. Like I saidthough, I really don't know enough about the study to dispute it. I would be interested if you had a link to follow.
_/\_
metta
Hi Aquula,
The quote above seems to remind me of a similar concept that some africans were told, that circumcision prevents AIDS, just as well as sex with virgins prevents it -when this rumour was "Let loose" there was an increase in infection. The new infectees responded when told the news "I thought I was safe because I'm circumcised".
also, I believe that this is still a load of hogwash (Circumcision prevents the spread of HIV). Again let me see the report and I promise to give a valid and reasonable review of it-it may change my mind!
regards,
Xrayman
Of course, Aquula, you are right that, even if circumcision gives some protection, it is not a full barrier. It is, however, a very significant finding.
The most important work currently being done at the level of HIV prevention must be that around microbicides which would give women some control over their own protection. As with control of pregnancy, we can be almost certain that, once women are empowered to take charge of their own health, infection rates will begin to fall. This, unfortunately, is not yet the case.
One more word on the 'hygiene' question: I have noticed that Muslims tend to be much more concerned with good personal hygiene, as an integral part of their understanding of their religious practice, than many a non-Muslim. I found the suggestion that 'Westerners' are 'better' at cleaning themselves another hint at the attitude that is taken towards those of a different culture.
Xrayman,
You may wish to consider the following:
Abstracts of papers to the Toronto Conference on circumcision and HIV transmiussion
The most I can gather is that in the countries where this study was conducted there is a correlation between circumsized men & a decreased rate of HIV. While this is not disputed, there are so many factors at play here, I imagine it will be some time before we can say what part hygeine practices play in these results.
A better indicator of the role of hygeine in spread of AIDS (at this point) would be to compare the rates of HIV in countries with high rates of circumcision versus those with low rates. One would also have to do some studies to see whether or not there are any substantial differences in sexual behaviors between circumsized & uncircumsized groups (how promiscous, use of profilactics, etc).
So, for the moment, the most we can say of this study, is that under the conditions present in Uganda & other countries, there is a substantial link between circumcision & a lower rate of HIV. Beyond that though, we will just have to wait & see what further data comes out.
_/\_
metta
I would point out, once again, that hygiene is not the issue. Even the most perfect personal hygiene is no protection against HIV infection.
Actually, an uncircumsized penis, improperly cared for, can trap and hold seminal & vaginal fluids in a moist state in the foreskin for a significant amount longer than the a circumsized one. It is quite conceivable that the lengthened exposure to these infected fluids could be a significant contributing factor to the increased incidence of AIDS contraction in uncircumsized males.
Now, if this is related to hygene, then it is not limited to certain cultures or geographic regions, but rather to the failure to wash up before & after. Prolonged exposure=increased risk of contraction. Similarly, hygeine is arguably the most important factor in the spreading of most communicable diseases. So wash your hands folks.
It is for that reason that I feel we cannot rule out hygeine without seeing data to support us ruling it out. So until that happens, this is still a possible factor.
BTW, I'm really not trying to be contentious here.
_/\_
metta
Seminal fluids are output (in this case by the Infected person) while vaginal fluids are rarely implicated as a mode of transmission.
So who is actually "at risk" here???
I didn't, of course, vote for him.
I'm hoping, with all my heart, that this conference is able to do what so many others have failed to do, which is to keep up the momentum of the dialogue and effort now that everyone has gone back home.
SORRY TO OPEN OLD DISCUSSIONS-BUT THIS IRKS ME.
cheers
Xray
Male circumcision to fight HIV poses risk to women
13:49 07 March 2007
NewScientist.com news service
New Scientist and AFP
Tools
Related Articles
Male circumcision: A contentious cut
23 November 2006
Circumcision reduces risk of HIV
29 October 2005
Circumcision protects men against HIV
06 August 2005
Search New Scientist
Contact us
Web Links
Maria Wawer, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
HIV, WHO
UNAIDS
HIV, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Policy-makers must exercise caution when including male circumcision among their tactics for fighting AIDS, researchers said on Tuesday. Early data from a trial in Uganda suggests the practice could increase infections in women.
In 2006, three groundbreaking studies conducted in Africa found that male circumcision halved a man's risk of being infected with HIV (see Male circumcision: a contentious cut). That discovery raised hope that the war against AIDS could be transformed by a simple, low-cost operation.
The new trial, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, explores a different angle – to see if circumcised men who are infected with HIV are any less likely to infect their female partner. US and Ugandan researchers are following almost 2000 HIV-infected men in Rakai, Uganda. Some of them have been circumcised, while the others have remained uncircumcised to act as a comparison.
A proportion of volunteers in both groups had uninfected long-term female partners at the start of the study. These women were also enrolled and monitored. A review at the study's six-month mark looked at 70 couples in the circumcised group and found that 11 of the women had become infected (16%). Among 54 couples in the "uncircumcised" group, four women had become infected (7%).
Time to heal
The study is ongoing and the data is not considered conclusive but the researchers say they are concerned. They believe several of the infections had been transmitted by men who had had sex before their wounds had fully healed from the circumcision surgery. HIV can be carried in both blood and semen.
If the increase in partner infection after circumcision is confirmed, it would mean it could not be endorsed as a prevention strategy without ensuring men and women are fully aware of the need to refrain from intercourse for a month or so until the penile wound has healed, the researchers said.
Volunteers in the Rakai study were repeatedly given safe-sex counselling and provided with free condoms. Women who become infected have been promised access to free HIV care and antiretroviral drugs.
Weighing the data
"We need to err on the side of caution to protect women in the context of any future male circumcision programme," said the study's lead scientist, Maria Wawer, at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, US.
The data was released on Tuesday as a contribution to a meeting of the World Health Organization and UNAIDS in Montreux, Switzerland. The two agencies are mulling the outcome of the three big trials to weigh how far, and how fast, they should endorse circumcision as a prevention policy.
The WHO's Kevin De Cock stressed the need for caution and good preparations: "While male circumcision has extraordinary potential to prevent HIV infection, these new findings remind us that we must proceed with thought and care in developing male circumcision in Africa."
Oh goody goody. Lucky them!
Really, the mind boggles!
Was there really no other way of testing this?!
Thanks x-ray, you've made my day. And to think march 8th was international Woman's day.
We sure have come a long way, baby!
Not blaming you Xrayman, just the whole stupid damn thing.... :rant: :nonono:
just don't get me stareted on mindless studies and experiments, we'll be here all year.
cheers all