Studies: Circumcision Lowers HIV Risk

Researchers Say Data Confirms Circumcision Reduces Chance Of HIV Infection By 60%

(AP)  In an "extraordinary development" in the fight against AIDS, a medical journal article published Friday says that conclusive data shows there is no question circumcision reduces men's chances of catching HIV by up to 60 percent.

The question now is how to put that fact to work to combat AIDS across Africa.

The findings were first announced in December, when initial results from two major trials — in Kenya and Uganda — showed promising links between circumcision and HIV transmission. However, those trials were deemed so definitive that the tests were halted early.

The full data from the trials, carried out by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, were published Friday in The Lancet.

"This is an extraordinary development," said Dr. Kevin de Cock, director of the World Health Organization's AIDS department. "Circumcision is the most potent intervention in HIV prevention that has been described."

Circumcision has long been suspected of reducing men's susceptibility to HIV infection because the cells in the foreskin of the penis are especially vulnerable to the virus.

A modeling study last year projected that in the next decade, male circumcision could prevent 2 million AIDS infections and 300,000 deaths. Last year, 2.8 million people in sub-Saharan Africa became infected with HIV, and 2.1 million people died.

Experts say the breakthrough's significance is on par with the identification of the virus and the use of lifesaving combination drug therapy.

The two U.S. studies confirm similar results from an earlier trial in South Africa.

But experts warn that solid evidence is not justification for mass circumcisions, noting that African health systems are already overburdened, and circumcision requires more planning than, for example, an immunization campaign.

"It's a tricky one, but it's something we're going to have to move on," said Dr. Catherine Hankins, a scientific adviser at UNAIDS. "Male circumcision is such a sensitive religious and cultural issue that we need to be careful."

Several African countries have met with U.N. agencies to explore strategies for increasing circumcision.

Together with the United Nations AIDS agency, WHO is convening a meeting in Switzerland in March to evaluate the data and decide the next steps in slowing the AIDS pandemic.

In the Kenyan study, 1,391 circumcised men were compared to 1,393 who were not. And in Uganda, 2,474 circumcised men were compared to 2,522 men who were not. Scientists tracked the men for two years and found that those who were circumcised were 51-60 percent less likely to contract HIV.

[rf35]

First, I'd like to thank my father for refusing to sign the consent form. Education, not mutilation, is the best defense against HIV or any other STD. You can bet that someone stands to get rich on the former, however. The manufacturer for circumcision tools, perhaps. Mostly, pharmaceutical companies that make erectile dysfunction drugs (Viagra, anyone?) see a huge new potential market looking at them from across the ocean. Of course I am sure the relgious right loves this idea.

[random_radar]

If cutting a little bit off helps, I'll bet cutting the whole thing off would solve the problem. Why didn't they think of this sooner?

[dan9111]

It doesn't matter what partial penile amputation is "viewed" as. Despite over half-a-century of cutting, it didn't work to stop HIV in the USA, nor contribute one positive iota among the worldwide statistics. Xenalily, did somebody personal to you say he "doesn't feel wounded at all" by being genitally cut? Very sad. By that logic, the victim has to say directly that child abuse is wrong? It is generally accepted that the "intent" of the perpetrator is not an excuse.

Mutilation is a defined word, not a "viewpoint". Sadly, feminists and male-chauvanists alike have obvious intent. Their sons lack a precious v-agina, which is what you need to get rights over your own body. Of course it is contrary to our laws says that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender.

This "article" is aimed at forcible circumcision. The title isn't "voluntary adult circumcision", nor emphasize the effect of freshness of the wound. I've discovered what we American boys were subjected to -- again without diagnosis of HIV or anything else. Do more research on harms, and tell me how these "researchers" are going to fund the foreskin restoration (like they do for mastectomies) after they realize what you are trying excuse. Worse yet, men today have the double-whammy of being circumcised and having HIV all at once, so they will never know what *** is meant to feel like, nor is it safe for their partner. We see today a recurrance of irresponsible one-sided journalism. Very sad.

[oigen]

This study is a crock. The Lancet site gives the raw data. For the circumcised group 22 out of 1391 (1.58%) became infected. For the uncircumcised group 47 out of 1393 (3.37%) became infected. That%u2019s a difference of a paltry 1.8% in real world absolute terms which is utterly insignificant. The inflated 60% figure bandied about is a percentage calculated in relative terms (1.58% divided by 3.375) which is obscenely misleading. Don%u2019t even think about submitting to the chopping block on such flimsy evidence.

[xenalily]

Dan9111- we get it- you are bitter about circumcision. Please remember though that not everyone views it as sexual mutilation. Sometimes it is chosen for religious or hygenic reasons. I know a lot of men, and though I have not personally examined their genitals, I do believe most of them are circumsised and do not consider themselves mutilated or sexual dysfunctional. I'm sorry that you take issue with it, and are regretting losing your foreskin at birth. However, no one is suggesting that we start mutilating people to stop a disease- that is a ludicrous conclusion on your part. We are talking about a Pandemic that affects the entire world and about how we should treat that- the article is not stating they will be forcing anyone to be circumcised so I am not sure where you are getting that idea from.

[xenalily]

dhmce-"In North America, unless and until a primary form of HIV transmission is from heterosexual intercourse with infected women, the value is limited. Circumcision is not effective when the primary means of HIV infection comes from 'dirty' needles and anal *** - the primary basis for transmission here."

I understand what you are driving at but let me remind you that AIDS infections in the US ARE primarily from heterosexual contact with women being the greatest newly infected. AIDS is not a disease that primarily effects those who practice anal *** and iv drug abuse- it's a heterosexual disease in the US, as it as Africa. If you still think that AIDS is not affecting heterosexuals here in the the US you can check this out on on AMFAR. Also- there are other STDS that can up your chances for getting HIV/AIDS. Circumcision can reduce the risks of those STDS as well. It is still up to the individual to know that any sexual contact carries the risk of diesease, with or without a condom.

[dan9111]

It seems that, aside from American hospitals, mutilating males is rare. So is the sexual dysfunction inflicted. Apparently a dianosis is no longer needed, and we need a "study" to tell us that wounded genitals are less likely to see any bedroom action. Mutilating males to "save our lives" is clearly caused by mental illness, and maybe the researcher Mr. de *** needs a psyche evaluation.

Now why do we have so much HIV, considering that Americans (males only, that is) are already missing half their sensual nerves? Oh yeah, needles and anal penetration. We should ask these researchers whose *** they want to excise? I also suspect that homophobes have given up on bashing ***, and they are now turning circumcising boys to get their kicks.

[dhmce]

This important development is absolutely vital in Africa as a preventative service and may save millions of lives.
In North America, unless and until a primary form of HIV transmission is from heterosexual intercourse with infected women, the value is limited. Circumcision is not effective when the primary means of HIV infection comes from 'dirty' needles and anal *** - the primary basis for transmission here.
A study now underway in Africa about the effect of circumcision on transmission of HIV from infected males to uninfected females will be more significant for us. If circumcision reduces this kind of transmission, our women will be demanding circumcision of males here! Stay tuned - results in 2008.

[xenalily]

Condoms also don't prevent Herpes which is skin to skin- meaning any part of your genital area rubs against someone else's and you can get it.

[fryedbread]

Condoms don't always prevent HPV, it is spread by skin contact.