August 25, 2009 6:25 PM

Circumcision Doesn't Shield Gays from AIDS

By
CBSNews
(AP)  Circumcision, which has helped prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa, doesn't help protect gay men from the virus, according to the largest U.S. study to look at the question.

The research, presented at a conference Tuesday, is expected to influence the government's first guidance on circumcision.

Circumcision "is not considered beneficial" in stopping the spread of HIV through gay sex, said Dr. Peter Kilmarx, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, the CDC is still considering recommending it for other groups, including baby boys and high-risk heterosexual men.

UNAIDS and other international health organizations promote circumcision, the cutting away of the foreskin, as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. There hasn't been the same kind of push for circumcision in the United States.

For one thing, nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised — a much higher proportion than most other countries. Worldwide, the male circumcision rate is estimated at about 30 percent.

Also, while HIV spreads primarily through heterosexual sex in Africa and some other parts of the world, in the United States it has mainly infected gay men. Only about 4 percent of U.S. men are gay, according to preliminary CDC estimates released at the conference this week. But they account for more than half of the new HIV infections each year.

Previous research has suggested circumcision doesn't make a difference when anal sex is involved. The latest study, by CDC researchers, looked at nearly 4,900 men who had anal sex with an HIV-infected partner and found the infection rate, about 3.5 percent, was approximately the same whether the men were circumcised or not.

Government recommendations on circumcision are still being written and may not be final until next year, following public comment. CDC doctors and many experts believe there is a good argument for recommending that baby boys and heterosexual men at a higher risk for HIV be circumcised.

The definition of "high risk" is still being discussed, said Kilmarx, chief of the epidemiology branch in the CDC's HIV division.

Circumcision is a sensitive issue laden with cultural and religious meaning, particularly when babies are involved, Kilmarx acknowledged.

"It's seen by many as more than just as medical procedure," he said. It's possible the government would just recommend better education for doctors and parents about the procedure's benefits and risks, he added.

The prospect of the government promoting circumcision of infants has already drawn fire from an advocacy group called Intact America. The organization, based in Tarrytown, New York, parked a motorized billboard this week outside the hotel hosting the HIV conference, displaying the message: "Tell the CDC that circumcising babies doesn't prevent HIV."

"It's removing healthy, functioning, sexual and protective tissue from a person who cannot consent. You're mutilating a child," said Georgeanne Chapin, the group's executive director.


AP
Add a Comment See all 21 Comments
by toldyouso29 August 26, 2009 11:12 PM EDT
Funny, how the idea is to mandate circumcision for all boy babies but no one thinks of just mandating people stop borking each other in the butt or that all HIV infected people be removed from society and quarantined in a place they can do whatever they want to each other. They should have mandated that all citizens over the age of 12 be tested for HIV long ago and removed from mainstream society. I made this suggestion first in 1985 and everyone said I was being unfair and cruel. Unfair and cruel is knowing a fatal disease is running rampant throughout a population and doing nothing to stop it, except talk and offer condoms.

Quarantine. Isolate the contagion and the carriers. the disease would die out for lack of new hosts.
Reply to this comment
by toldyouso29 August 26, 2009 10:55 PM EDT
DUHHHHHHHH. Guess there is a difference in vaginal fluids being caught behind that small bit of foreskin and a huge pile of butt crap being caught there with viral particles--leave it to CBS to state the obvious. They do not know if circumcision helps anyone--for all they know--those who are circumsized just may be a bit more selective about their partners and somehow avoid those that are already HIV positive or else vaginal secretions are not as hardy a substrate for the virus to survive and proliferate in as a load of boo boo is.
Reply to this comment
by Hosheen August 25, 2009 7:59 PM EDT
If anyone recommended mutilating women in this manner, they outcry would shatter windows all over the world. But, if it's men, that's OK. Of course, teaching proper hygiene would accomplish the same thing (for women, too) but that would not allow for the sadistic pleasure of knowing how many men were going to be mutilated for life.
Reply to this comment
by speakinup23 August 25, 2009 6:46 PM EDT
"Circumcision, which has helped prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa, doesn't help protect gay men from the virus, according to the largest U.S. study to look at the question.- article

Sounds like a law suit in the making...
Reply to this comment
by myeyedea August 25, 2009 6:24 PM EDT
"Previous research has suggested circumcision doesn't make a difference when anal sex is involved."

Or, denn034, if you actually read the article and could process more than your narrow, one-sided interpretation, the conclusion could mean that a male performing anal sex on any partner doesn't experience any change in the transmission rate of AIDS whether or not he is circumcised. It's not only gay men that have anal sex. The article didn't include any results on infection rates for heterosexual couples that participate in anal sex. And, locially, if AIDS is strictly a 'gay disease', lesbians should have the same rate of infection as gay men, and yet, such is not the case...
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday_5 August 25, 2009 7:15 PM EDT
Karen - who says? And if it weren't supposed to occur between same sex, wouldn't it be impossible?
by toldyouso29 August 26, 2009 11:04 PM EDT
According to scripture, perversion is when anything natural is supplanted by something that is not natural that defeats the intended purpose. In the case of homosexuality, the first order God gave to ALL living things from viruses, to plants to animals to man was to be "fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth" Satan's job is to undermine or sabotage all of God's orders if he can by tempting others to pervert God's will.

In this case, God made sex pleasurable so that they could indeed be 'fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" Satan made God's plan a mockery by having men have sex with other men and women with women knowing that such an act could never be fruitful (produce offspring)and was considered an abomination to God. It is an abomination because it is the height of disobedience it is what Satan was cast out of heaven for--disobedience and defiance. So--that is why homosexuality is reviled by God --it defeats the true purpose of sex, and God also wanted women to be the natural complement to men. Same sex relationships defeat this dictate also.

It may simply all come down to the idea that some are seduced by the Devil and instead of resisting that temptation, they give into it, wallow in it and claim it is natural. But if everyone did it and nothing else, mankind would have died out long ago.
by seafang August 25, 2009 6:13 PM EDT
Well AIDS is spread by the behavior of people who have AIDS; not by the behavior of those who don't have AIDS. Women whose "partners" play both sides of the track, are the unfortunate vectors, who convey AIDS to the mainstream. So if you don't control the source; you can't control the disease. This is the first plague that is being controlled (to the limited extent it is) by quarantining those who don't have the disease; to keep them from contacting the spreaders.
Reply to this comment
by IrishWench01 August 25, 2009 6:06 PM EDT
Your point?
Reply to this comment
by denn034 August 25, 2009 6:03 PM EDT
2Ch 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday_5 August 25, 2009 6:50 PM EDT
Please tell me you also are capable of thinking and reasoning by yourself, too. I hope you're not so blind as to put your faith in a re-translation of a re-translation of a book written decades and centuries after Jesus' death.
by AttentionDeficit August 25, 2009 11:21 PM EDT
denn034: quoting bronze age sheepherders means nothing to those who do not accept the validity of your babble
by IrishWench01 August 25, 2009 5:58 PM EDT
by denn034
"It can only also mean that AIDS is God's punishment upon homosexuals. Let me also say that AIDS is God's way of saying that He doesn't mess around and neither should you!!!!!"

Did you read? Can you read? Did you miss the part about it being primarily a heterosexual disease in Africa and other parts of the world?
If God wanted to punish homosexuals, why is the disease not limited to them. Why do heterosexuals contract it? Why do faithful spouses and babies contract it? Is God punishing them for something as well?
Reply to this comment
by Ichabod09 August 25, 2009 10:19 PM EDT
Irish,

The Bible does mention monogamy. And from what I've seen in the Old Testament, the lifestyle issues addressed there by some sort of intelligence tended to be more cause and effect rather than punishment.

Most of the 10 commandments were pretty standard social laws with cause and effect consequence. Don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, don't covet-each rule has a natural consequence for it's violation.

Don't commit adultery-actually advocating monogamy, the violation of which would have consequences then and now. If not God, whoever came up with the rules must have been pretty smart. Just a thot.
by denn034 August 25, 2009 5:39 PM EDT
Circumcision shields all but homosexuals from AIDS can only mean that AIDS is a gay disease. It can only also mean that AIDS is God's punishment upon homosexuals. Let me also say that AIDS is God's way of saying that He doesn't mess around and neither should you!!!!!
Reply to this comment
by dmwj2 August 25, 2009 5:55 PM EDT
You are an idiot...
by Hosheen August 25, 2009 8:01 PM EDT
Just another religious wacko determined to enforce his sick, twisted ideas on everyone. Hey, dummy, there is no god, get over it!
See all 21 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
Better Information. Better Health.
CBS News on Facebook