Going for the snip

[Asher]

Maybe this is the article you speak of.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

Circumcision and HIV infection: review of
the literature and meta-analysis
R. S. Van Howe MD FAAP
Department of Pediatrics, Marshfield Clinic, Lakeland Center, USA

Summary: Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.

Given how much genuinely conflicting information there is out on this, I'd have to question the integrity of doctors who recommend routine circumcision on the basis of "preventing HIV" which:
1) Is scientifically unproven, and in fact it may be the opposite
2) Is stupid anyway, as if you don't want HIV, you use a condom

[elle]

Re: Re: Re: 3 questions, elle

Originally posted by VJ

DL stands for duplicate login or double login... You just look like a typical DL troll of some bored guy who has a long posting history here... coming into a forum which is 98% male and starting to lecture us about our penises, basing all claims on an obviously biased website.

I was "penis lecturing"? Really?
I will now have to go back and read my post VJ. I have never liked one who lectures...especially about genitalia

Ok, better run. My people will contact your people if any apologies are due.

p.s. Is the dl troll thing a compliment, or....

p.s.s. 98%?

[RGBVideo]

p.s. Is the dl troll thing a compliment, or....

I was honestly curious, I hope you didn't take my questions in a bad way or anything.

p.s.s. 98%?

Yeah, we used to have 99.5% but then married men started introducing Apolyton to their wives... Computer games generally don't attract females, and Civilization seems to be an exceptionally male-oriented PC game.

[laurentius]

I'd like to see some evidence on the 98% subject. Or did you just pull it out of your arse?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by elle



Here is a good website about why baby boys should remain intact.

http://www.boystoo.com/anatomy/whatslost.htm

This is from their FAQ page:

Does circumcision affect penis size? A recent article found that the mean penis erect length was 16cm, i.e., about 6 3/8 inches. It further found that the average erect penis length in circumcised men was 3/8" shorter than in normal men.

Now for me, the word normal made me flinch a bit, as circumcison is very normal in many communities. I am not saying that any circumcized man should in any way be made to feel bad about it and also it was not his choice. I am just hoping for future generations we can maybe start to re-think this particular surgery.

Well that link explains why I hate my mother.



Everything else, I could kind of accept.

Estrogen recpetors? More proof that cicumcised men are more manly the "intact" men.

Plus the whole, getting a knife put to your peepee, thing.



ACK!

[Grandpa Troll]

Ok, logging in to say after 47 years me and Darth Vader have enjoyed "pleasurable times" since 14 years old, advancing around the Global World Tour so-to-speak...

Darth Vader has a Helmut and Cape and all works well

Of Course, to get total satisfaction, I often go from Darth Vader To The Green Hornet

Snip?

I think NOT

Remember the 1970's Potato Chip Commercial, even one loves Ruffles because Ruffles has Ridges

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher
Maybe this is the article you speak of.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

Circumcision and HIV infection: review of
the literature and meta-analysis
R. S. Van Howe MD FAAP
Department of Pediatrics, Marshfield Clinic, Lakeland Center, USA

Summary: Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.

Given how much genuinely conflicting information there is out on this, I'd have to question the integrity of doctors who recommend routine circumcision on the basis of "preventing HIV" which:
1) Is scientifically unproven, and in fact it may be the opposite
2) Is stupid anyway, as if you don't want HIV, you use a condom

No, your article is way too old. The WHO studies just recently concluded. Your article does demonstrate some of the pitfalls of meta-analysis. Please note that if you look at the data you find that the most powerful results in favor of circumcision were studies in which the ratio of circumcised to non-circumcised was nearly equal. This sort of statistical analysis can run into a great deal of trouble when comparing greatly unequal poulations. The author admits that there was a problem that some studies equated being muslim with being circumcised even though it is known that not all muslim groups practice circumcision.

Keep looking. Try including WHO ( World Health Organization ) in your search.

[Asher]

Link it for me. I've tried to search and nothing appears to exist.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Asher
Link it for me. I've tried to search and nothing appears to exist.

There is a UN study that is not complete:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr32/en/

It is, however, still ongoing.

ACK!

[Asher]

I keep finding studies that say contradicting things, all of which are African observational studies.

What's relevant is all of the ones who said circumcision did lower HIV transmission rates also said:

experts warned circumcised men in the study still became infected and condoms offered the best protection.

Why, in the Western world, is circumcision being even considered as medically useful? It does not make one immune to HIV or other STDs. If one does not want to get an STD, one would hopefully know enough to wear a condom.

I do not see any rationale whatsoever for mutilating baby boys because if they have unprotected sex in their lifetime they may have a slightly lower chance of contracting a specific disease.

The simple fact is, it's not a fact that circumcision reduces HIV transmission rates. Studies have gone both ways. Meta-analytical studies looking at ~30 studies show circumcision may even increase HIV transmission levels.

This isn't a solid basis to mutilate babies, even if it did affect HIV transmission levels. That is an incredibly weak argument in the Western world.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski


There is a UN study that is not complete:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../2005/pr32/en/[/URL]

It is, however, still ongoing.

ACK![URL]

That looks like all of the other many tens of observational studies completed in Africa. None of which have consistent conclusions because of the very obvious confounding factors that I've already addressed.

I have found comments from the WHO regarding routine circumcisions, though:

At present it is unclear whether encouraging circumcision among boys and men who would not otherwise be circumcised actually has the desired impact on the rates of HIV infection. However, WHO is following the issue very carefully.

[Tuberski]

Even if it helped prevent AIDS, it doesn't completely prevent it.

So you would still need to use a Condom. Getting snipped to redue a chance seems redundant when you would still need to use a condom.

ACK!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Even if it helped prevent AIDS, it doesn't completely prevent it.

So you would still need to use a Condom. Getting snipped to redue a chance seems redundant when you would still need to use a condom.

ACK!

I'm not sure what your point is. We know it doesn't completely prevent HIV transmission.

That's why in a society with trivial access to condoms, it's a ridiculous argument to make in favor of circumcision -- notwithstanding the obvious problems that it's not a scientific fact in the least. It's a bit like the comments from a decade ago where circumcision was scientifically proven to reduce masturbation frequency.

[Dr Strangelove]

The WHO study that is ongoing is randomized and prospective so it will avoid many of the confounding factors which have plagued previous studies. Some tentative data have already been made available.

Out of all of the studies used in Van Howe's meta-analysis only the Bwayo study was prospective and randomized. Male truck drivers were randomly circumcised at the start of the study. As you can see circumcision made a great deal of difference.

[elle]

Originally posted by VJ

I was honestly curious, I hope you didn't take my questions in a bad way or anything.

No worries, VJ. Honest curiosity is a splendid thing. And hopefully you didn't take my answers any more serious than I took your questions.