quote:A study found that circumcision cuts the risk of getting HIV by 70 percent in men who have sex with infected women. Researchers stopped the study "on the grounds that it would be immoral to proceed without offering the uncircumcised control group the opportunity to undergo the procedure."
I know the reason for most circumsicions is either religion or tradition, but we've debated whether or not it has healthful benefits. Looks like there definitely is. That's interesting.
[ July 06, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't understand how such a study could be done. They couldn't have actually had men have sex intentionally with infected women.
Also... maybe someone can enlighten me why AIDS is such a problem in Africa. I don't understand it at all. They can't be unaware of the problem and yet they continue to have unprotected sex? Is there a shortage of condoms? You see, I thought that maybe most of the people in Africa were contracting the disease in non-sexual ways, but if circumcision would help slow the spread of the disease, then a heck of a lot of people over there are having way too much unprotected sex.
I don't understand it. An outbreak of an airborne disease I can have sympathy for--there's not much you can do about it. But when people know the risks and have unprotected sex anyway, creating an epidemic size outbreak--I have difficulty having sympathy. I want to, though--and I believe that I MUST have some of the facts wrong. Maybe someone can enlighten me what circumstances make it so bad over there. (Like maybe people aren't being educated about the risks.) Please don't think that I have no sympathy for individual AIDS patients--I'm talking about when it reaches such large proportions and the society as a whole.
So, I'm not trying to be mean--on the contrary--I'm just trying to understand...
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think this is a biased source...but I googled and found this article that's enlightening about the different cultural attitudes over there.
Most likely, they have false knowledge of risks and ways of getting it and what the disease is.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, AIDS is a huge problem in Africa for, I think, the same reasons that everything else is huge problem in Africa. Not much education, and few resources in place to provide. There's a myth that having a sex with a virgin cures AIDS. Can you imagine how that makes things worse?
I would link to the WSJ article that reports using a draft copy of the study, but it requires a subscription. The other news sources will be out with this soon, I hope.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Such dangerous and frivolous attitudes toward sex and AIDS make me think it would be a good idea to force AIDS victims over there to get a tattoo on their hand or something. But that violates basic human rights--doesn't it? It just makes me so angry that SOME people who get infected think it's okay to bring others down with them. But it's not okay to assume they all do it, I know.
But at the same time, non-infected people have a responsibility to practice safe sex or none at all, too.
-Katarain
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
What's the baseline risk? is it 1% versus 1.7%?
I agree, there's probably a small net benefit, but I'd like to see if there are other benefits to keeping foreskin.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Although the apparent protective effect of circumcision has been noted for more than 20 years, doubts linger as to whether circumcision itself is protective, or whether the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity.
From the article.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Using those stupid jerks' methodology, one could also state that circumcision prevents spending time in prison.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Which stupid jerks, exactly?
I wish I could see the study, but I don't have a subscription to WSJ.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Hey, it does! I mean, I'm circumsized and I've never been imprisoned, so it must work.
Anyone want to buy some tiger repellant?
--Enigmatic
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What methodology did they use, aspectre?
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
The last figures I saw actually provided for hygene differences as a part of the study, and uncircumcised men with good hygene had the same risk as circumcised men regardless of hygene. Not to mention that an uncircumcised virgin would still have a much lower risk of getting that particular disease. I don't think the sstatisics gathered here really account for all variables.
Not that I have any personal stake in the issue. I'm just generally opposed to cosmetic surgery, especially when performed on infants without anesthesia. I mean, if you're religion requires it and causes no lasting harm (like FGM)then it's cool. *shrug*
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm all for a cleaner wiener.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Um, do I know you? I noticed you're in NC, and someone I rec'ed the forum to who is very close to me lives in NC...
Anyway. Had to ask...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
you're the original Olivet, right? What's the story on your friend?
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Yes, I'm Olivet. I was. I could be again, I guess, if I'd bother to get the pasword...
He's my big brother. He moved to Greensboro about this time last year, but only got moved into a house and settled by about Christmas. I have periodically pestered him to join the forum. After he met CT an heard me talk about other buddies I've met here, he seemed interested.
Plus, his name is Steven. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
call your brother. He isn't me, although I live about 35 minutes from greensboro.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I don't have his work number, but I will call him. Heh.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Seems sketchy, but I could buy that it's valid to offer to adult men engaged in rick taking behaviour.
But I worry this this will be quoted out of context to parents with no religious reason to circumsise to convince them to do it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
This is old news, but for some reason it's making headlines again as though it were a new study. After I saw an article on it today I looked to see if I could find the actual study anywhere online, and was delighted to see that it's available on PLOS.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Last year it made headlines because they halted the study, and this year because they published it? Somebody has good PR people. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I don't understand how such a study could be done. They couldn't have actually had men have sex intentionally with infected women.
Also... maybe someone can enlighten me why AIDS is such a problem in Africa. I don't understand it at all. They can't be unaware of the problem and yet they continue to have unprotected sex?
The AIDS stats in Africa are done differently. It would be far too expensive to test so many people, so instead, anyone who is diagnosed with anything on a list of illnesses (including, if I'm not mistaken, pneumonia) is listed as having AIDS.
It'd be fascinating to see how many people in Africa would really test HIV+ and what that would do to AIDS stats, but I don't think it's ever going to happen.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
This study uses a statistical model they developed to predict the reduced incidence of AIDS if every African male were circumcised. They do this basically by projecting the AIDS infection rate among males in cultures where circumcision is common to the parts of Africa where male circumcision is not as common.
The researchers noted that not only were the men circumcised and had much lower incidence of AIDS, but their teeth are straighter too.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Such dangerous and frivolous attitudes toward sex and AIDS make me think it would be a good idea to force AIDS victims over there to get a tattoo on their hand or something. But that violates basic human rights--doesn't it?
How? In many parts of Africa the governing body is little more than a joke. Who would force them to do so? Where would the money come from? Where would the accurate records of who has AIDS come from?
These are all problems in additions to the violation of human rights, of course.
In response to your earlier question. There are a multitude of myths that people believe about AIDS in the US where everyone is provided a decent education and the means to spread accurate information to the populace is available. Most countries in Africa don't have those advantages.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The researchers noted that not only were the men circumcised and had much lower incidence of AIDS, but their teeth are straighter too.
*choke*
*sputter*
Please don't say things like that while I'm DRINKING!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
My work here is done.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
To expand upon what blacwolve said--when I was in Mozambique there were billboards adovocating condom use and all kinds of info on AIDS all over the place. But the info was in Portuguese, the official national language of the country. I don't know the stats offhand, but most of the country does not speak Portuguese. The vast majority of those who are literate and who could actually read that info are men.
Not to mention my beefs with the info itself: one of the billboards I remember showed a truck driver and it said, "When you leave home, use a condom." (there is some purpose behind that: there is a so-called "AIDS Corridor" in Southeast Africa that corresponds with trucking routes.) But still--to me, the implication is that when men leave home, they are going to be promiscuous, and that when they return they can ditch the condom, thus infecting their wives (which I say because if they are promiscuous, the degree to which they've practiced safe sex is dubious). Polygamy is also widely practiced in outlying areas (and most of the country is "outlying.")
I also don't know how widely free condoms are actually available. Most of the people can't afford food, so if it's a matter of purchasing them, forget about it.
There are massive campaigns to educate the people, but the myths and misconceptions abound nonetheless. It is hard to get the info into all the tiny villages. The people don't talk about AIDS even though it's killing them right and left. --someone may be ill and dying of AIDS but that is never discussed as the cause. There's just a big taboo against discussing this feared killer.
Now, that just represents the little part of Africa that I experienced, and I was only there a few months. It's also one of the poorest countries on the continent; but I imagine some of the same obstacles prevail throughout.
[ August 11, 2006, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Uprooted ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: My work here is done.
I knew it! You're trying to drive me to drink!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: My work here is done.
I knew it! You're trying to drive me to drink!
Nah, he doesn't even have his car keys out.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Such dangerous and frivolous attitudes toward sex and AIDS make me think it would be a good idea to force AIDS victims over there to get a tattoo on their hand or something. But that violates basic human rights--doesn't it? It just makes me so angry that SOME people who get infected think it's okay to bring others down with them. But it's not okay to assume they all do it, I know.
But at the same time, non-infected people have a responsibility to practice safe sex or none at all, too.
-Katarain
I'm strongly in favor of massive tests and quarantines of all HIV-positive people in Africa -- starting with a single country, and building up to the continent.
There'd be comparisons to concentration camps, and shrilling about human rights, but I'm not sure the criticisms can overrule the benefits. With the level of ignorance and outright dangerous beliefs of the common African, they're a danger to themselves and everyone they come in contact with. If AIDS victims can be kept isolated until their deaths, untold millions of lives can be saved -- and I'm honestly okay with violating the rights of a relative few carriers to spare an entire continent from their disease.
This is, of course, utterly inconsistent with my stand on civil rights for everyone else. But Africa's been destroying itself for decades with AIDS, and for centuries with other tools -- democracy and civil rights can only work with an educated, informed populace. I'd much rather channel African aid money to education and assuring a future, rather than toward futile efforts to prolong the lives of those who might still kill others.
Also, I wish we'd dedicated the military to ending the murderers in northeastern Africa rather than setting up a Shiite crescent in the Middle East.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: The AIDS stats in Africa are done differently. It would be far too expensive to test so many people, so instead, anyone who is diagnosed with anything on a list of illnesses (including, if I'm not mistaken, pneumonia) is listed as having AIDS.
It'd be fascinating to see how many people in Africa would really test HIV+ and what that would do to AIDS stats, but I don't think it's ever going to happen.
Lisa, is that specifically Pneumocystis carinii (now renamed Pneumocystis jiroveci) pneumonia, or just any pneumonia caused by any old bacteria? *curious
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
By relatively few carriers I assume you mean approximately 10% of the population?
Edit: Changed to make me (hopefully) more correct with my numbers.
Edit Again: 8.4% for Sub-Saharan Africa according to The Population Resource Center Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Although the apparent protective effect of circumcision has been noted for more than 20 years, doubts linger as to whether circumcision itself is protective, or whether the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity.
From the article.
This is actually incorrect. It's ritual washing after sex. </nitpick>
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I believe that there are people who believe (for various reasons) that the aids epidemic in general, and in Africa specifically, is a hoax, and that some scientists are pumping up their numbers using unorthodox methodology such as counting pneumonia as AIDS. I'm not sure if this is what Lisa is edging towards. If not, then just forget I made this post.
10% against the other 90%? I'd say that's relatively few. I don't see much progress being made in Africa without some kind of isolation of the disease and an organized system of education. Implementing one without the other has solved nothing so far.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
No, relatively few is less than 1%. That's a huge chunk of the population. 28.1 million people. Where are you going to put 28 million people? What are you going to do with the people who already were there? What are you going to do with the children who's parents are taken away? Ten percent of a continent is not a small amount.
Discovering a cheap, easily produced and distributed cure for AIDS would be easier and cheaper than trying to quarantine 10% of the continent.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Even if circumcision does protect against HIV (and I don't understand how someone can say definitively that it does; how could you possibly have a control group for this?) what good does that do an infant? Because as far as I know, most infants do not engage in unprotected sex with either men or women who are or are infected with HIV. It will not protect infants from dirty needles or bad blood transfusions either.
In addition, the study says that it began in 2002, but is it taking into account the fact that HIV can hide in the bloodstream for as much as 10 years before someone will test positive or show any simptoms?
Edited to add: My problem with circumcision is that it is most often (at least in America) forced on infant males who (obviously) have no say in the matter. Adults who chose to have the surgery are welcome to do it. (I also don't see much difference between male circumcision, which is often medically promoted; and female circumcision which is denounced by all human rights associations as a horrific violation of human rights.)
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Discovering a cheap, easily produced and distributed cure for AIDS would be easier and cheaper than trying to quarantine 10% of the continent.
A cure, okay. Going though great efforts to handout the modern drug cocktails to the millions, no. Extending their lives so that they can continue to infect people doesn't help, and wastes money that could put to better use on the continent. Besides anything that works to minimize the seriousness of the disease isn't what you want when you're already dealing with prevalent misinformation.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I had to cross my legs when they mentioned examining thin slices of penises. Yowie!
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: No, relatively few is less than 1%. That's a huge chunk of the population. 28.1 million people. Where are you going to put 28 million people? What are you going to do with the people who already were there? What are you going to do with the children who's parents are taken away? Ten percent of a continent is not a small amount.
Discovering a cheap, easily produced and distributed cure for AIDS would be easier and cheaper than trying to quarantine 10% of the continent.
Yes, and when you have that cure, let me know.
As it stands, though, those infected interact freely with those not yet infected, and the number of sub-Saharan Africans infected has leapt from 5 million in 1989 to 25 million in 2003. Also, your statistics don't quite reflect the reality -- true, as a whole, Sub-Saharan Africa has (only?) about 10% of its population infected. But in southern Africa, the numbers are as high as 30% of the population. (And the slowdown in infections may have roots in the fact that many former AIDS victims are now dead, their numbers replaced by new carriers.)
Isolating these cases would help immensely to slow the growth of the disease; and if drastic measures had been taken in 1989, 20 million people might still be uninfected today. Africa's losing a massive number of adults over 30 -- and with the incredible population spike (largely due to international aid, ironically), this means a huge percentage of Africa's population will soon be children raising themselves, with no education or useful skills, amid intense warfare and genocide. Intervention must be drastic, or Africa will be beyond help.
This is prohibitively expensive, and will never happen -- but the half-trillion dollars spent on the Iraq war so far could have been far more effective in wiser hands. Peace is impossible while the incredibly young (and quickly reproducing) population starves amidst disease. Africa will always suffer if the ignorant and uncaring aren't kept from infecting millions more people, almost none of whom have the resources to understand exactly what they're infected with nor how to prevent it. Yes, it's a matter of saving people from themselves, and as a rule I'm usually against such actions -- but after decades, centuries, histories of watching African people suffer for their neighbors' ignorance, I'm tired of standing by and hoping donating food will solve these problems, or do anything but exacerbate them.
I don't know where 28 million people might be kept, unless a small segment of a country is set aside for them to die in. It would be difficult -- and honestly, given that it's Africa, they'd probably be executed rather than quarantined -- but do you really think it's kinder to keep them among the general population? Do you really think it's less of a mass murder if the weapon is disease and not a firearm?
If not isolation of AIDS and immediate institution of decent education (with a powerful military presence), what do you think might help Africa contain its epidemic?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
People...the study is crap with a capital K. Seriously. Their methodology is just math modeling, not real empirical data. They project from their own estimates of AIDS incidence in a selected population that happens to have low incidence of AIDS and high incidence of male circumcision to get modeling parameters.
They didn't study actual individuals. In fact, they probably couldn't tell you if the men who have AIDS in population A versus B were circumcised or not -- it's just probabilities from (dubious?) social preference information and (perhaps equally dubious) health stats.
There is no more reason in this article to start encouraging male circumcision than there is for promoting any other cultural difference between the subject groups. Heck, for all they know, the people with low AIDS rates might have some measure of natural immunity.
I repeat -- they don't actually collect or use ANY DATA.
They take AS GIVEN that circumcision protects from AIDS, and then calculate what the impact would be of universal circumcision.
This work is an interesting mental exercise, at best.
Sorry.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:I don't know where 28 million people might be kept, unless a small segment of a country is set aside for them to die in. It would be difficult -- and honestly, given that it's Africa, they'd probably be executed rather than quarantined -- but do you really think it's kinder to keep them among the general population? Do you really think it's less of a mass murder if the weapon is disease and not a firearm?
Ok, obviously you're not interested in reality. So I'll skip right over all of the logistics involved in quarantining or even killing 28 million people. Or even the fact that the minute people found out an AIDS diagnosis was an instant trip to hell, they'd stop getting diagnosed.
Yes, it is mass murder if the weapon is a firearm. No, it's not if people die of disease.
Everyone dies, they die of disease, of violence, of old age, but everyone dies. You might as well say life is a mass murderer, because it inevitably leads to death. Murder is something you do to someone else. Murder is horrific because it kills someone unnaturally, and because the murderer reveals his lack of all humanity in the action.
quote: If not isolation of AIDS and immediate institution of decent education (with a powerful military presence), what do you think might help Africa contain its epidemic?
I don't think either of these is possible. Even if the whole world decided that mass murder was the solution, which is never going to happen. Africa doesn't have the resources or the infrastructure to do it. Implementation of decent education is equally impossible at this time. How can you implement widespread education in a country that doesn't have widespread government? What powerful military presence are you going to use to enforce this. One doesn't exist in Africa.
Sure, if you could completely isolate the disease and implement comprehensive education there would not be an AIDS epidemic in Africa. That's obvious. It's also not possible. When you have the military presence, the comprehensive records of who has AIDS, the public support for genocide, and the financial resources to implement your plan, I'll have developed and distributed my scientific cure for AIDS a long time ago.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
And for the record, what you're talking about is genocide. On a scale that Hitler could only dream about. And it terrifies me that someone today. Someone who knows the history of the Holocaust, could conceive such an idea and not recoil in horror that the thought ever crossed their mind. I realised that in all my talk about logistics, I'd never made clear the horror this plan inspires in me.
I'm going to be gone for the weekend, without internet access. If this thread is still on the front page on Sunday, I'd be happy to continue the debate then.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
umm...
quote: There'd be comparisons to concentration camps, and shrilling about human rights, but I'm not sure the criticisms can overrule the benefits. With the level of ignorance and outright dangerous beliefs of the common African, they're a danger to themselves and everyone they come in contact with. If AIDS victims can be kept isolated until their deaths, untold millions of lives can be saved -- and I'm honestly okay with violating the rights of a relative few carriers to spare an entire continent from their disease.
Is it genocide if the people are already dead? Because that seems to be the only prognosis when someone contracts AIDS.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
sarcasticmuppet, sick people are not dead.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
sarcastic muppet...really?
People live with HIV+ indefinitely now. If you're saying "once you get 'full blown AIDS' you have no chance" that's one thing, but I've been assuming that the discussion here is centered on corralling HIV+ people, not just those who have AIDS. Otherwise, the effort would be doomed to failure anyway because HIV carriers who are asymptomatic can infect other people with HIV.
If you haven't had a chance to get up to date knowledge on treatments and prognosis, there has been a lot of meaningful progress.
Of course, without access to the super-expensive meds, people do face a pretty bleak future.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:I don't know where 28 million people might be kept, unless a small segment of a country is set aside for them to die in. It would be difficult -- and honestly, given that it's Africa, they'd probably be executed rather than quarantined -- but do you really think it's kinder to keep them among the general population? Do you really think it's less of a mass murder if the weapon is disease and not a firearm?
Ok, obviously you're not interested in reality. So I'll skip right over all of the logistics involved in quarantining or even killing 28 million people. Or even the fact that the minute people found out an AIDS diagnosis was an instant trip to hell, they'd stop getting diagnosed.
Yes, it is mass murder if the weapon is a firearm. No, it's not if people die of disease.
Everyone dies, they die of disease, of violence, of old age, but everyone dies. You might as well say life is a mass murderer, because it inevitably leads to death. Murder is something you do to someone else. Murder is horrific because it kills someone unnaturally, and because the murderer reveals his lack of all humanity in the action.
quote: If not isolation of AIDS and immediate institution of decent education (with a powerful military presence), what do you think might help Africa contain its epidemic?
I don't think either of these is possible. Even if the whole world decided that mass murder was the solution, which is never going to happen. Africa doesn't have the resources or the infrastructure to do it. Implementation of decent education is equally impossible at this time. How can you implement widespread education in a country that doesn't have widespread government? What powerful military presence are you going to use to enforce this. One doesn't exist in Africa.
Sure, if you could completely isolate the disease and implement comprehensive education there would not be an AIDS epidemic in Africa. That's obvious. It's also not possible. When you have the military presence, the comprehensive records of who has AIDS, the public support for genocide, and the financial resources to implement your plan, I'll have developed and distributed my scientific cure for AIDS a long time ago.
Whoa, I should clarify. My reply was sloppy -- to be very clear, I'm not in favor of a mass execution. I am in favor of a mass quarantine. And no, neither is rooted in reality, since nobody will cause either to happen.
And I disagree that keeping a highly contagious and fatal disease among the general population isn't tantamount to mass murder. The disease infects more people every year on a nearly exponential level -- this is the global trend (tragic and increasing, but not all-consuming), and this is the sub-Saharan African rate of infection. Just think how many lives might have been saved if someone had done something a decade ago -- and think how the continent might have been saved, since now Africa will be inherited by a huge, starving, diseased population of children who will be under increasing international pressure to sell what few resources they have remaining. There will be bloodshed in Africa like never before -- and that's really saying something.
As far as the possibility of this plan goes, well, good luck with the cure (I mean that). But given how the HIV virus simply adapts out of the way of all attacks so far, I don't think a permanent cure is likely; or if one is made, that it'll be cheap; or that the virus won't simply shore up what few weaknesses someone manages to find in it, and becomes a supervirus. I don't think a cure is likely, and a far surer way of stopping the disease is to stop its infection -- and the only way I see to do that is to quarantine all those infected.
I really hope you're right, and I hope in a decade we won't see Africa in a (larger) massively bloody war with itself, and I hope it turns out a quarantine is entirely unnecessary. But I don't think it's likely that Africa will solve its epidemic any other way.
Posted by Mathematician (Member # 9586) on :
I don't mean to be the rude voice of reason or anything, but it seems to me like both of you (blacwolve and Lalo) have arguements which are not based on fact, but mere speculation.
Blacwolve, you have NO idea when an AIDS cure is coming, how much it will cost, or whether or not it's even possible to come up with a permanent cure.
Likewise, Lalo, the "I can't think of anything better so this must be best" is a very fallacious argument. Beyond this, you have no concept of how much it would cost to diagnose, capture, force quarentin, contiunually retest the remaining population, etc. This is beyond the ethical issues of tearing parents away from children, etc, which certainly needs to be dealt with.
The point is this: instead of having a debate about who's idea is better (when really, none of you have done enough research to have a clue which one is "better"), why not do some research? Find out what other people have been suggesting. Find out the pros and cons of each. Find out how close "treatment" is to "cure" (I was under the impression that we have infinitely more trouble with virii than bacteria). How long do scientist think it will be before we get a cure? Before we get a cheap cure? Work out some of the logistics for your plan, Lalo. How much would it cost to test THE ENTIRE continent of Africa. What if I want to quarentine them? Against their will? How much would it cost to inform THE ENTIRE continent of Africa about what AIDS really is, how to prevent it, etc? If we're throwing that much money at Africa anyway, would it be better just to spend the money on food and other medicinal supplies for the people?
Wow, that went on a long time. I apologize ;-)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
And for the record, what you're talking about is genocide. On a scale that Hitler could only dream about. And it terrifies me that someone today. Someone who knows the history of the Holocaust, could conceive such an idea and not recoil in horror that the thought ever crossed their mind. I realised that in all my talk about logistics, I'd never made clear the horror this plan inspires in me.
I'm going to be gone for the weekend, without internet access. If this thread is still on the front page on Sunday, I'd be happy to continue the debate then.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Just out of curiousity, how did you (general you) manage to bump the thread with a post that looks like it comes from me? Because that's rather disturbing.
quote:Whoa, I should clarify. My reply was sloppy -- to be very clear, I'm not in favor of a mass execution. I am in favor of a mass quarantine.
Whew, ok, I find that very comforting. I'm glad it was just a miscommunication.
On the topic of the cure: I brought up the cure as an example of how impossible the quarantine plan was. I do think finding a cure is more likely than implementing a quarantine, but I think that both are so near being impossible that the difference is largely irrelevant. That was the only point I was making by bringing up a cure.
Since you agree that a quarantine is impossible (which was all I was trying to say, although I got massively sidetracked), I think we're in agreement.
Btw, I've been dreading coming back to an angry reply on this thread all weekend. Thank you for giving me the benefit of a doubt even though I didn't give you one.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Bob, did you look at reference 9? It is also at PLOS. Although I think this also seems a little sketchy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Two major studies released Wednesday confirmed that circumcision can dramatically slow the spread of HIV among African men, suggesting that widely offering the procedure could prevent millions of deaths in countries most seriously affected by AIDS, researchers said.
The studies, in Kenya and Uganda, supported conclusions from another one last year in South Africa showing that circumcised men are about 50 percent less likely to contract HIV than those who are not. In all three studies, the results were so potent that researchers stopped their experiments several months early and offered circumcisions to all of the subjects, deeming it unethical to withhold a procedure that might prevent an often-fatal disease.
...
In each study, thousands of men were recruited, and half were circumcised. Both groups were counseled, urged to use condoms and routinely tested for HIV. The study found no significant difference in the sexual behavior between the two groups, yet they contracted HIV at sharply different rates.
In Rakai, Uganda, among 4,996 men, 22 of those who were circumcised and 43 of those who weren't contracted HIV, a difference of 48 percent. In Kisumu, Kenya, among 2,784 men, 22 of those who were circumcised and 47 of those who weren't contracted HIV, for a difference of 53 percent.
The protection was less than reported by the South African study, which estimated that circumcised men lowered their risk by about 60 percent, but higher than most potential vaccines under development.
But if the procedure was offered widely in countries with high rate of HIV, it might prevent "many tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of infections over time," said Kevin De Cock, director of HIV/AIDS for the World Health Organization, speaking on the conference call.
...
Yet the announcement of the study results culminated a remarkable shift in attitudes about the usefulness of circumcision as an AIDS-fighting tool. Only a few years ago, advocates were widely disregarded as prevention efforts focused heavily on distributing condoms and encouraging abstinence among unmarried couples. Even last year's South African study was regarded warily by some experts and governments.
The South African government moved to sharply restrict the procedure this year because of concerns about the safety of traditional, ritual circumcisions. And the U.S. government, saying the usefulness of circumcision needed more study, suspended funding in October for a small pilot program in Swaziland that offered subsidized circumcisions in a country where about one third of non-elderly adults have HIV.
The tone was different on Wednesday. "This is not iffy data. This is serious data," said Anthony S. Fauci, director the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the conference call to reporters.
So the "crap" study might have reached the right conclusion by bad methods.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll read up on it this weekend.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Good. I'd love an opinion not filtered through the press. Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I'm sure I'll either be ignored, have my feelings belittled, or sneered at and made fun of, but I don't really care at this point. I hate circumcision. I was, and I absolutely hate it. It's caused nothing but misery for me, psychologically and physically. I didn't have a say in the matter at birth, so as far as I'm concerned, I was robbed. It's left me bitter, depressed, and resentful.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Just how inclined were the circumcised men to have sex afterward? (I'm joking of course, but if the study was too short a period of time, it could just be a result of the men being in too much pain to have sex, and therefore catch HIV).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Isn't there a cultural factor as well? Aren't circumcised men more likely in that part of the world to be Muslim, and might different communities have different incidences?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They circumcised the men at the start of the study.
They also claimed to have controlled for sexual behavior differences.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, gotcha.
Um, ouch. I'm in the "not sure they had as much sex" category... But I'm sure they did consider that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Did it say how long a time period the study was looking at these men?
Because if it was 6 months or more (a year or two would be better), then even factoring in healing time shouldn't make much difference.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
Off-topic, but would you ever let someone circumcise you as part of a study? How much were they paid?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Thanks for the heads-up.
juvenile, I know...but it's late and this just cracked me up...
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
Hmm... That is an interesting study.
I wonder, though, could using circumcision as an AIDS prevention tool actually turn against itself if it would simply make people think "I'm circumcised so I can't get infected"? It does, after all, just reduce the risk, not remove it. I would think that being protected would still be the main means of countering AIDS infections. Of course if it is true that it's that effective it should be used, but it should also be made sure that people understand they'd still have to protect themselves.
Also, aren't HIV infections more prevalent in America as opposed to Japan or Europe even though in Japan and Europe men usually aren't circumcised?
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
The secret to not catching AIDS isn't circumcision. It's: using a condom and not being an idiot, or being abstinent/knowing who the hell you're having sex with and that they're clean.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I'm sure I'll either be ignored, have my feelings belittled, or sneered at and made fun of,
That's...odd. Do you feel that you've gotten a fairly negative reception at Hatrack so far?
quote:It's caused nothing but misery for me, psychologically and physically.
What kind of problems have you encountered as a result of it?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well within the confines of this study (heterosexual sex and the HIV risk between circumcised and uncircumcised men) it looks pretty definitive, though a part of me would like to know how they controlled for the sexual practices (in light of the pain after surgery, combined with a possible desire to exaggerate one's sexual conquests), but it seems pretty good. I still think that condoms ought to be pushed, since they are >90% effective, versus the apparent 50% effective of circumcision, and, of course, abstinence.
One other thought... This bodes well in Africa, but I wonder if there is a difference between adult and infant circumcision, and the benefit? That would be an interesting study too.
-Bok
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm really interested, if we've got this group of adult men who were sexually active and then circumcised, to have them settle the (less medically relevant, but interesting) question of whether it's better un- or circumcised. Every time I see the infant circumcision debate, someone on each side claims that boys who are or aren't have it better when it comes to sex. Here's a chance to settle it definitively!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I was, and I absolutely hate it. It's caused nothing but misery for me, psychologically and physically. I didn't have a say in the matter at birth, so as far as I'm concerned, I was robbed. It's left me bitter, depressed, and resentful.
I am really curious why you feel that way. I was also circumcised, and never gave it a second thought, since I never knew I was 'abnormal' . In fact, I never knew it was abnormal to not have a foreskin until I was probably 19 or 20 or so.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: That's...odd.
I find it odd that you find it odd.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: That's...odd.
I find it odd that you find it odd.
Well, the concern about being ignored isn't surprising--most people here feel that, I know--but I haven't seen Hitoshi being dogpiled elsewhere, and don't see the opinion he expressed as one that's likely to cause dogpiling to begin. I haven't reread this thread, but I remember there being people on both sides of the issue.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, I see. Pardon.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: I was, and I absolutely hate it. It's caused nothing but misery for me, psychologically and physically. I didn't have a say in the matter at birth, so as far as I'm concerned, I was robbed. It's left me bitter, depressed, and resentful.
I am really curious why you feel that way. I was also circumcised, and never gave it a second thought, since I never knew I was 'abnormal' . In fact, I never knew it was abnormal to not have a foreskin until I was probably 19 or 20 or so.
I thought circumcision was more common in the US than not being circumcised
I'm also wondering if they study took into account the problems uncircumised men have using condoms. Most condoms (in the US) at least, are made for circumcised penises and are very difficult to get on if you're not circumcised.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Oh, I see. Pardon.
Water under the bridge, Storm Saxon, water under the bridge.
[ December 14, 2006, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
FWIW, in some African tribal cultures, such as the Masaii, circumcision isn't done to infants. Adolescent boys are circumcized as part of a "becoming a man" ritual. With a really big, scary knife.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I thought circumcision was more common in the US than not being circumcised
Depends where you live. The circumcision rate at the hospital I delivered at most recently is about 27% currently.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
From what I understand, the evidence for and against circumcision varies from decade to decade and year to year, and parents and doctors are, therefore, more likely in some years than others to circumcise.
I've never heard it was more common, though.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
In a thread where we critique the average African male for being too ignorant to undestand the dangers of AIDS and how its spread, I've found quite a few Ignorant statements made by good western folks.
1) Aids is an epidemic in Africa. Its not because they count all the sick people and assume they have Aids.
2) A conom only lowers your chances of catching aids. It doesn't remove it. Similary even people who are not idiots, and who only sleep around with clean women, still may get it. You can't tell by looking at someone if they are HIV+.
On a different tact, I wonder. If we cannot convince guys to cover up their little man with a peice of plastic for protection, do we really think we are going to get them lined up to snip some off?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I've never heard it was more common, though.
At one point the average rate for the U.S. was 70%, including religious circumcisions. However, that number has been falling significantly, and as I said before, there are some areas (mine) where the rate for circumcision is significantly lower.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Huh. Did not know that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There are still areas in the U.S. where the majority of infants are circumcised, although the gap is closing even in those areas. For instance, when I was pregnant with my first child in the Dallas area, I looked into the rate of circumcisions there and it was about 55%. Significantly lower than it had been, but slightly more than half.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Why was I looking into it? In case I had a boy, as part of my convincing my husband that we were not circumcising our sons. Which I did, eventually-- got him mostly over to my side intellectually, then threw in a bargain he liked. )
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*releasing that if I have boys I'll have to worry about this issue* I don't think I'd want to get them circumsised. It seems like it woukd hurt a lot. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Learn something new every day. Thanks, KQ.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
On a different tact, I wonder. If we cannot convince guys to cover up their little man with a peice of plastic for protection, do we really think we are going to get them lined up to snip some off?
Getting circumcised is a one time thing. It's much easier for many people do something painful once, than it is to do something relatively simple every time. Habits aren't easy to form, especially when they're as inconvienent as using a condom.
Also, as I said before, it's fairly difficult to use a condom if you're uncircumcised. It's possible, but it's much more of a pain to do. I'd really like to know if condom usage rates increased in the men after they'd been circumcised.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As interesting as this is, I'd really much rather address the huge problem of AIDS in Africa rather then discuss the possible causation of circumcision towards HIV infection prevention.
The fact that some estimate that 300 million Africans will not be born because of the epidemic really concerns me as it is not showing signs of abating but rather getting worse.
edit: KQ I've heard of instances where the parents were indifferent and simply didn't care if their children were circumsized or not and so it just didn't happen as I believe you have to request it. That could be common it might be fringe, <shrugs>
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:edit: KQ I've heard of instances where the parents were indifferent and simply didn't care if their children were circumcised or not and so it just didn't happen as I believe you have to request it. That could be common it might be fringe, <shrugs>
Both doctors who delivered my children asked me if I wanted a circumcision if I had a boy, because I would need to sign a separate form for pre-registration and it came in the packet but they wanted to know if I needed it. Most hospitals put it in the registration paperwork if you don't know what you're having when you go in. I've never heard of having to request it, most people I know have been asked after their boy is born if they want it whether they have signed the consent form or not. It is no longer standard practice at all hospitals, but enough people still do it that they almost always ask.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
blackwolve: Uh, I'm uncircumcised, and not particularly graceful, and I have had no problems with a condom. There's at most 1 extra step you do, and for many/most uncircumcised men nature takes care of that step for you (pulling back the foreskin).
-Bok
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Whereas
***TMI WARNING***
my husband is, and still often has problems getting a condom on (I'm better at it, but sometimes there are still difficulties. It's a size issue, I think, plus he has some scarring from the circumcision that pulls it slightly to one side, which can be awkward.)
***TMI OVER***
It's probably more individual than one would imagine.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I'm sure I'll either be ignored, have my feelings belittled, or sneered at and made fun of,
That's...odd. Do you feel that you've gotten a fairly negative reception at Hatrack so far?
quote:It's caused nothing but misery for me, psychologically and physically.
What kind of problems have you encountered as a result of it?
Mos of my posts do go ignored during debates, but I figure, whatever. I meant it more because, in a similar debate, people for infant circumcision were not only ignorant of the fact that anyone might not want to be circumcised or wish to be intact later in life, but belittled me for feeling that way and dismissed my pain completely. So, please excuse my bitterness when I brace myself for someone doing the same. I've gotten to used to it to not expect it from someone during a debate.
As for problems, well, this is medically related to the penis, so no snickering, and if details bother you, skip this paragraph, as it might be TMI for some people. Physically, tightness of the skin is a major problem. It used to be so tight that having erections could hurt, and the skin was completely immobile, even though it should be able to move enough to make erections comfortable. Another is that a lot of skin is missing, so skin from the scrotum moves up and covers the shaft of the penis because of the sheer amount of skin removed. For men who are circumcise,d this can be why you have hair growing on the base of the penile shaft. Then there's just the plain aesthetics. I hate the look of the circumcision scar.
Psychologically, I've always been a person who reacts terribly strong to having something done to me while I'm vulnerable, and you can't get too much more vulnerable than being strapped down to a metal table when you're a week or two old. Besides which, I do believe that there is less pleasure. I know some who are circumcised as adults find it more pleasurable, but I wonder if this is because the penis has fully developed by the time it's done, whereas with infant circumcision is done before it's grown and formed.
For the record, infant circumcision is all I'm against. You wanna do it as an adult, go right ahead. But it's my body, so I feel I should have had a right to choose what happened to it, especially in a case where it alters my body permanently.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: In a thread where we critique the average African male for being too ignorant to undestand the dangers of AIDS and how its spread, I've found quite a few Ignorant statements made by good western folks.
1) Aids is an epidemic in Africa. Its not because they count all the sick people and assume they have Aids.
2) A conom only lowers your chances of catching aids. It doesn't remove it. Similary even people who are not idiots, and who only sleep around with clean women, still may get it. You can't tell by looking at someone if they are HIV+.
Was this about what I posted? I didn't say that condoms are 100% effective, just that they should be the primary means of countering AIDS infections. (They are more effective than circumcision.)
Also, I didn't mean to imply that African men are somehow worse or dumber than men elsewhere though I suppose that it may have seemed like so from the way my post was worded. I didn't think through properly before I posted. I'm sorry if I came off as arrogant or caused someone to feel offended.
quote: blackwolve: Uh, I'm uncircumcised, and not particularly graceful, and I have had no problems with a condom. There's at most 1 extra step you do, and for many/most uncircumcised men nature takes care of that step for you (pulling back the foreskin).
Yeah, I'm also uncircumcised and never had problems with a condom.
Incidentally, this same issue is being discussed on another forum that I read, and there someone is stating as a fact that circumcised men can't use condoms at all because they would fall off.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'm circumcised and, honestly, I'm glad it was done to me as an infant. Uncircumcised ones I've seen look really gross and unnatural (oh, the irony) to me, and I'm not sure I'd have the guts to do it to myself as an adult.
On the other hand, a man's entire crotch region is so bizarre and unattractive looking that it's a wonder anyone notices the difference at all.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*shrugs* My boyfriend and I have a ton of problems with condoms, and every advice column on the issue that I've read mentioned that uncircumcised guys have more trouble with condoms than circumcised guys. That's where I got the idea.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
My sister's father in law had to be circumsized at age 60 something, because of all the health problems he had with his weener. As I understand it, his foreskin basically closed up on him and he couldn't pee anymore without pain. When he had it done, it was very painful and he was in a ton of pain for weeks after words. Also, anyone who has listened to lovelines knows about all the calls for Dr Drew where the guy rips his foreskin during sex, or has some kind of health problem with it. It's almost a nightly issue. With all the problems surrounding not being circumsized, I don't understand why anyone would not want to be. I am certainly glad my parents had it done for me.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:On the other hand, a man's entire crotch region is so bizarre and unattractive looking that it's a wonder anyone notices the difference at all.
Oh so very very true.
As a side note to this whole thing, I don't even know which exactly is the scar from the circumcision and what's, well, not. I've never seen an uncircumcised penis and have no desire to see anyone's penis other than my husband's, so my curiosity will remain unresolved.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
the scar, if there is any, is the border between the skin just below the head and the skin just below that. There you go.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
*shakes head* See, that much I know. The question, for me, is how much of that line is scar and how much is naturally occurring. But it's obviously not important enough for me to find out visually, ya know what I mean?
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: On the other hand, a man's entire crotch region is so bizarre and unattractive looking that it's a wonder anyone notices the difference at all.
I wouldn't go that far, necessarily.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis:
As a side note to this whole thing, I don't even know which exactly is the scar from the circumcision and what's, well, not. I've never seen an uncircumcised penis and have no desire to see anyone's penis other than my husband's, so my curiosity will remain unresolved.
I've never seen a circumcused penis and probably never will. I'm still confused about what exactly they cut off. There doesn't seem to be anything that lends itself to cutting.
Before I'd ever seen a penis, I thought they looked like mushrooms, and that circumcision was just cutting off the head of the mushroom. But it's not, so I don't know.
(I'm not asking for an explanation, it would probably violate the TOS, and I could probably find a perfectly good one online. Just commiserating with quid.)
Edit: changed from "seen every penis" to "ever seen a penis". Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Erosomniac:
quote:On the other hand, a man's entire crotch region is so bizarre and unattractive looking that it's a wonder anyone notices the difference at all.
True story, the male naked body is so ugly it really ought not to see the light of day. Unless you are the model Michaelangelo used to sculpt David, if I was him I'd walk around nekkid and strike that pose and I am sure people would pay me to do it.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Just commiserating with quid.
Glad you're commiserating with me. Makes me look like less of an idiot. I think. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Or maybe we're just both idiots. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
If anyone really desires an explaination, you can e-mail me.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)