Re: circumcision
From: Danian (daniani_at_jordi.net)
Date: 07/04/04
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)"
- Previous message: DesertCactus: "Re: Could anyone explain this please?"
- Maybe in reply to: Danian: "Re: circumcision"
- Next in thread: Danian: "Re: circumcision"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 00:40:10 +0200
man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message
news:<4ad78f65.0407020942.6221d24d@posting.google.com>...
> Danian <daniani@jordi.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Please post at least the abstract of this study so one
>> is able to test your claims for truthfulness.
>
> What? You can't get a medical journal?
>
My comment was based on the experience of posts alluding to studies
which turn out to either be unavailable or difficult to locate. It means
that you are trying to make it difficult to verify what you are saying
is true. You understand of course that one should should verify what you
say, no offense, just due diligence.
Of course you did not venture to explain just how the Weiss study is in
conflict with either Szabo or Patterson. Why is that? Surely this was
your "killer" point that was introduced to discredit ALL the biological
findings in this regard.
So here is your chance, explain yourself.
Waiting ..................
[snip]
>>
>> What is the connection between the quote from Patterson and the urls
>> you posted?
>
> Because I doubt men who have sex with men are inserting in the vagina.
>
The statement in question was:
"In men, an estimated 70% of HIV-1 infections have been acquired
through vaginal intercourse and a smaller number through insertive
anal sex."
So really you were merely kicking up dust as your comment is not within
the context of the quote.
Clearly if the study relates to the biological mechanism for infection
via the foreskin it is fair to accept that the two principle orifices
for insertion are the vagina and the anus. Of course there is a
sub-group of men who get infected through sexual activity whose penis
plays no part in the infection and those are the passive receptive men.
[snip]
>
> And Szabo/Short claim it has too many while Weiss et al. claim it has
> too few. They could at least make up their minds.
>
That is altogether too glib an answer and should immediately raise the
flag of warning that were one liners are presented without any detailed
explanation. As stated above I await this detail from you.
[snip]
>>
>> Both a woman and a "receptive" gay man are infected by a penis
>> (mostly) and the circumcision status of that penis is of importance.
>
> Only in that the ejaculate traveled through the urethra. HIV is in
> semen. This has been known for over a decade.
>
Not quite if the insertive partner is himself at a higher risk of being
infected (as with uncircumsed men) then obviously this increased risk
passes to the wives/partners of uncircumcised men. This is Logic 101.
Just an aside. Are being deliberately obtuse or would you like me to
type a bit slower?
>> 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
>
> And most of Kenya's circumcised, but it didn't do anything to reduce
> their infection rate: 15%, according to the CIA.
>
Whoa Nellie!
You just don't seem able to help yourself do you. That was another
disgraceful attempt to distort the truth. How do you manage to live with
yourself?
Do the math. If the infection rate among a circumcised population is 15%
and the relative risk for the uncircumcised is 1.5 then what percentage
of uncircumcised are you likely to find being HIV+?
And the answer is ......... 22.5%
Lets take a closer look at the Kenya situation then (which is always a
good thing to do when *these people* use it as an example).
You posted:
> And their ethnic groups, according to the CIA:
>
> Kikuyu 22% (circumcised)
> Luhya 14% (circumcised)
> Luo 13% (circumcised)
> Kalenjin 12% (circumcised)
> Kamba 11% (circumcised)
> Kisii 6% (circumcised)
> Meru 6% (circumcised)
> Other African 15% (varies)
> Non-African 1% (varies)
>
> So then, at least 84% of Kenya's men, probably more, are
> circumcised.
Well for starters the Luo do not circumcise as a tradition.
This is a comment on how this plays out in the statistics of infection
in Kenya:
Average rate of infection (nationally) in KLenya - 11.64 %
Excluding the predominately non-circumcising region around Kisumu,
western Kenya, where HIV-1 seroprevalence is 34·9%, national
seroprevalence would be about 8%."
Viewpoint: Male Circumcision and HIV Infection: 10 Years and Counting
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?doc=2098.4613
Now what are we to do with you now that you have be caught with your
finger in the cookie jar again? Maybe you can help here by explaining
what it is about this subject that turns you into a pathological liar?
[snip]
>>
>> In Africa one of the risks of infection to women is the lack of
>> circumcision of their husband/partner.
>
> No, the risk of infection is having an infected partner, regardless
> of circumcision status.
>
If only that were true. But alas it is not. Lets take a look a study:
"A recent study of 187 HIV-1 serodiscordant couples in Uganda in which
females were infected and males were initially uninfected, reported
that, during just less than 2 years of follow-up, 40 of 137
uncircumcised men seroconverted, while 0 of 50 circumcised men
seroconverted."
Referring to : Viral Load and Heterosexual Transmission of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/342/13/921?ijkey=77b07514d49be79fd5fb237be2afd5947e928793&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2EE458B8
So once again you are caught out with a lie. Clearly there is a
difference. I suggest that your only defence at this stage is to accept
that you have been sold a crock by that cirp web site. It is clear that
honesty is not the stock in trade of the anti-circumcision movement.
>> Fewer women get infected when there are fewer men who are HIV+ ...
>> this is logic 101.
>
> And you still haven't proven circumcision prevents HIV infection.
>
Not convinced yet hey? Quite honestly I don't think you will ever be
convinced as you seem to be carrying a lot of emotional baggage around
this issue. But for those interested here is a little something:
The uncircumcised have a relative risk 6.7 times that of a circumcised
man ... read below:
=====================================
Male circumcision and risk of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted
infections in India
Steven J Reynolds, Mary E Shepherd, Arun R Risbud, Raman R Gangakhedkar,
Ronald S Brookmeyer, Anand D Divekar, Sanjay M Mehendale, Robert C Bollinger
Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University Medical
School, Ross 1150, 720 Rutland Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.
Circumcised men have a lower risk of HIV-1 infection than uncircumcised
men. Laboratory findings suggest that the foreskin is enriched with
HIV-1 target cells. However, some data suggest that circumcision could
simply be a marker for low-risk behaviours. In a prospective study of
2298 HIV-uninfected men attending sexually transmitted infection clinics
in India, we noted that circumcision was strongly protective against
HIV-1 infection (adjusted relative risk 0.15; 95% CI 0.04-0.62;
p=0.0089); however, we noted no protective effect against herpes simplex
virus type 2, syphilis, or gonorrhoea. The specificity of this relation
suggests a biological rather than behavioural explanation for the
protective effect of male circumcision against HIV-1.
To read these findings in more detail free registration on The Lancet
journal website is required via:
http://pdf.thelancet.com/pdfdownload?uid=llan.363.9414.original_research.29166.1&x=x.pdf
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Copper Casting In America (Trevelyan)"
- Previous message: DesertCactus: "Re: Could anyone explain this please?"
- Maybe in reply to: Danian: "Re: circumcision"
- Next in thread: Danian: "Re: circumcision"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
