Re: circumcision

From: Danian (daniani_at_jordi.net)
Date: 07/02/04 

Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 07:08:45 +0200

MIB529 wrote:

> Danian <daniani@jordi.net> wrote in message news:<cc04ct$s8q$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>
>>>Because the "evidence" is just in the form of
>>>"Muslims get it less than non-Muslims." There's
>>>no laboratory evidence at all.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>25% to 50%? LOL! I seriously doubt it's that much,
>>>seeing as most HIV isn't even contracted via the
>>>penis.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Interestingly there were no facts or studies posted only comments. The
>>above two comments need to be questioned.
>>
>>In an earlier post to this thread the following study was cited:
>>
>>Susceptibility to Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infection of Human
>>Foreskin and Cervical Tissue Grown in Explant Culture
>>http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/161/3/867
>
>
> Strange how an Israeli study claims that circumcision prevents HIV
> because the foreskin has FEWER LCs.
>

Strange for whom? Convenient for you perhaps?

I have the theory that when people make claims and fail to post
supporting information it is likely that they are playing fast and loose
with the truth. Please post the URL to the following study and indicate
where it may have findings that contradict the Patterson study and why
the Weiss studys findings are indeed at odds with Patterson why would
that depreciate from what Patterson found? Are you clutching at straws?

> Weiss, Gerald; Sanders, Melinda; and Westbrook Kent.The Distribution
> and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a
> Diminished Immune Response? Israel Journal of Medical Sciences, Vol
> 29 No 1, January 1993
>

Please post at least the abstract of this study so one is able to test
your claims for truthfulness.

> So which is it? Too many or too few?
>

I am not sure which cells you are talking about because you are hiding
the information behind your back.

> They also didn't tell how they preserved them, since the study was
> performed ex vivo.
>
Which study are you talking about now?

> Also, they clearly don't know anything: Retroviruses like HIV have
> RNA, not DNA, so what are "HIV-1 DNA copies"?
>

Again which study are you referring to?

> "In men, an estimated 70% of HIV-1 infections have been acquired
> through vaginal intercourse and a smaller number through insertive
> anal sex."
>
> http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
> http://www.avert.org/stats.htm
> http://www.avert.org/canstatg.htm
>

What is the connection between the quote from Patterson and the urls you
posted?

Patterson was quoting the following study, so do your homework on this
one then:

How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection?
Szabo, Short
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R175234B8

And Szabo/Short got it from the following source:

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. The HIV/AIDS situation in
mid 1996: global and regional highlights. Geneva: United Nations, 1996.
(UNAIDS fact *** 1 July 1996.)

> Stats outside of the English-speaking world don't discuss method
> of transmission, but if this indicates anything, it's that not even
> half are via coitus (traditional intercourse) simply because well
> over half of HIV cases are contracted from other men. Furthermore,
> it's well-accepted that the pedicant (bottom) is at five times the
> risk of the pedicator (top).
>

Different countries/regions/areas have differing patterns of infection.
Once again if you wish to question that heterosexual transmission is
involved in 70%

Both a woman and a "receptive" gay man are infected by a penis (mostly)
and the circumcision status of that penis is of importance.

I quote from one of the studies below relating to female risk to females
  for infection by HIV:

"These data suggest that, among women who are not in high-risk groups,
risk of HIV infection is largely determined by their male partner's
behavior and circumcision status."
Sexual behavior, sexually transmitted diseases, male circumcision and
risk of HIV infection among women in Nairobi, Kenya.
http://www.aegis.com/aidsline/1994/sep/m9490412.html

So lets please stop the smoke and mirrors routine as all you are doing
(like others who have posted to this thread) is proving beyond a shadow
of doubt that you are intellectually dishonest and driven (as has been
said) by a dubious psychosexual agenda.

> Of course, most of their sources were already convinced circumcision
> prevents HIV, so it's the same sort of behavior we see in think
> tanks.
>

Speculation. Perhaps you need to accept that intelligent people when
presented with overwhelming facts tend you accept what they are hearing.
But then again there is still a Flat Earth Society which I believe has a
similar approach to resisting the facts (truth) as the various fringe
groups which comprise the anti-circumcision movement. The people who
don't seem to be sad and pathetic individuals who are driven by dark
side pyschosexual agendas. I know the progression of the mounting
evidence on the link between the lack of circumcision and a higher risk
of HIV infection for the uncircumcised, their wives and their partners
is distressing for you.

>
>>And looking through the references that follow that study there appears
>>to be more "laboratory evidence".
>
>
> Except that they seem to be totally ignorant of HIV. They even thought
> it was a DNA virus! LOL
>

Who is they they?

>
>>My second point is about your just laughing off the projected reduction
>>in infections. Why is it that you have no scientific basis to counter
>>the findings of numerous studies yet are able to just "laugh off" the
>>findings of many others?
>
>
> Projections have about as much scientific basis as Intelligent Design.
>

Funny that everything that finds "against" the foreskin is just ignored,
laughed off and desperately defended against. You see when the
anti-circumcision movement is driven a combination of a gay fetish
fringe group and uncircumcised men who have been at some point been
mocked and/or humiliated then it is all quite predictable and all quite
understandable.

>
>>There is something non-scientific about your
>>attitude towards this issue isn't there?
>
>
> No, it just happens that I treat homeopathy, crystal therapies,
> and urine therapy in the same manner.
>

But where is your scientific rebuttal of the ever mounting evidence? Why
is it that "you people" are never able to produce hard evidence and have
to resort to cute debating techniques? Intelligent people have noticed
that your continual and ever more desperate denials are not based on any
sound scientific footing.

>
>>Finally, that your claim that most HIV is not contracted via the penis
>>is a genuine comment or a deception?
>>
>>Most gay and heterosexual infections have a penis involved in the
>>infection. Women get infected by men. Gay men get infected by gay men.
>
>
> Except that you forget, HIV occurs in the ejaculate. And it's generally
> through the ejaculate that it passes from insertive partner to receptive
> partner via tears in the orifice. Honestly, this is like pre-med 101
> here.
>

What is your point? Of course we are talking "body fluids" here. The
inner surface of the foreskin is many times more susceptible to HIV
infection. That is what makes the foreskin a specific infection risk.
Because the uncircumcised man is more likely to be infected his
wife/partner are at a greater risk themselves through his lack of
circumcision.

>
>>I hope that it is not that you are claiming that vertical and needle
>>injections are the greatest cause of infections?
>
>
> No, I'm saying that most of it is the via RECEPTIVE partner. Even in
> Africa, where women consist of more cases than men.

In Africa one of the risks of infection to women is the lack of
circumcision of their husband/partner.

Fewer women get infected when there are fewer men who are HIV+ ... this
is logic 101.

For those new to the "great circumcision debate" it will become
increasingly clear that those desperately defending the foreskin are
long on cute debating tricks (together with the innuendo, half truths
and lies which we have already seen on this thread) and very short on
facts. Now and again they will drop a URL which (as in this case) has
absolutely nothing to do with the specific conversation as they believe
it lends authority to their position. Also they tend to attack studies
which find a protective effect of circumcision but seldom if ever post
the study they are attacking as 99% of the time their desperate attempts
to stop the tide of information is based on a deliberate
misinterpretation of that study (this was the case here as well). And
finally of course there are findings that they have to post to support
their position. You all need to see these people for exactly who and
what they are. Sad sick people. Don't feed these trolls.

==============================

Sexual behavior, sexually transmitted diseases, male circumcision and
risk of HIV infection among women in Nairobi, Kenya.

AIDS. 1994 Jan;8(1):93-9. Unique Identifier : AIDSLINE MED/94280710
Hunter DJ; Maggwa BN; Mati JK; Tukei PM; Mbugua S; Department of
Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health,; Boston, MA 02115.
Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To study risk factors for HIV infection among women in
Nairobi, Kenya, as the epidemic moves beyond high-risk groups. DESIGN: A
cross-sectional case-control study among women attending two peri-urban
family planning clinics.

METHODS: A total of 4404 women were enrolled after giving written
informed consent. Information on risk factors was obtained by interview
using a structured questionnaire. Blood was taken for HIV and syphilis
testing, and genital specimens for gonorrhea and trichomoniasis screening.

RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen women (4.9%; 95% confidence interval,
4.3-5.5) were HIV-1-positive. Although risk of HIV was significantly
increased among unmarried women and among women with multiple sex
partners, most seropositive women were married and reported only a
single sex partner in the last year. Women with a history or current
evidence of sexually transmitted disease were at significantly increased
risk; however, the prevalence of these exposures was low. Women whose
husband or usual sex partner was uncircumcised had a threefold increase
in risk of HIV, and this risk was present in almost all strata of
potential confounding factors. Only 5.2% of women reported ever having
used a condom.

CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that, among women who are not in
high-risk groups, risk of HIV infection is largely determined by their
male partner's behavior and circumcision status. Interventions designed
to change male sexual behavior are urgently needed.

http://www.aegis.com/aidsline/1994/sep/m9490412.html

==============================

Cervical ectopy and lack of male circumcision as risk factors for
heterosexual transmission of HIV in stable sexual partnerships in Kenya.

Int Conf AIDS. 1990 Jun 20-23;6(1):267 (abstract no. Th.C.570). Unique
Identifier : AIDSLINE ICA6/10057090
Moss GB; D'Costa LJ; Ndinya-Achola JO; Plummer FA; Reilly MP; Kreiss JK;
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of and risk factors for
heterosexual transmission of HIV within couples.

METHODS: HIV+ individuals attending a Nairobi STD clinic were enrolled
in a prospective study along with their spouses.

RESULTS: Of 90 couples, 39 (43%) were concordant (CON) for HIV
infection. Of 51 discordant (DIS) couples, in 31 the index case was male
(DIM), and in 20 the index case was a female (DIF). In a stepwise
logistic regression analysis HIV+ women were more likely than HIV- women
to have cervical ectopy (OR=4.1, p=0.02); HIV+ men were more likely to
have a positive H. Ducreyi IgG (OR=6.9, p=0.002) and a history of
prostitute contact since 1980 (OR=4.4, p=0.02). CON and DIS couples were
similar with respect to age, length of partnership, frequency of sex,
sex during menses, CDC stage of HIV disease, history of genital ulcers,
and STD diagnosis at study entry. Compared to DIS couples, the presence
of cervical ectopy in women (27/37 vs 19/49, OR=4.3, p=0.003) and the
lack of circumcision in men (23/39 vs 19/50, OR=2.3, p=0.08) were more
common in CON couples. In a stepwise logistic regression analysis
controlling for age, oral contraceptive use, and pregnancy, the presence
of cervical ectopy (OR=4.3, p=0.01) and lack of male circumcision
(OR=3.3, p=0.04) were predictors of concordance.

CONCLUSION: The presence of cervical ectopy in women and lack of male
circumcision were predictive of HIV seroconcordance among couples in
stable sexual partnerships in Nairobi, Kenya.

http://www.aegis.com/aidsline/1990/dec/m90c3228.html

==========================

Quantcast