Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Circumcision Reduces Chances Of Contracting AIDs.

  1. #1
    You do realize by 'gay' I mean a man who has sex with other men?
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Posts
    21,635

    Circumcision Reduces Chances Of Contracting AIDs.

    RIO DE JANEIRO, July 27 (UPI) -- In the first study of its kind, researchers said they were able to reduce the risk of contracting the virus that causes AIDS by medically performing circumcision on healthy young men.

    Numerous observational studies had suggested AIDS might be less prevalent in men who had been circumcised, but doctors and researchers in France and South Africa put the question to the ultimate test: a randomized controlled study in which 1,550 men ages 18 to 24 agreed to be circumcised, while another 1,538 men acted as uncircumcised controls.

    The result:

    "We demonstrated that we could reduce HIV infection by 65 percent through male circumcision in this group of individuals," Dr. Bertran Auvert, professor of public health at the University of Versailles, France, told United Press International. "This is the first randomized, controlled trial demonstrating a strong protective effect of safe male circumcision on HIV acquisition by males."

    The study was performed in the Johannesburg, South Africa, suburb of Orange Farm, a poverty-stricken community that has no farms, nor any orange trees, but has a 32 percent prevalence of infection with the human immunodeficiency virus, the agent that causes AIDS.

    All the men agreed to circumcision before they were assigned either to surgery -- under local anesthesia by physicians -- or waiting through the course of the trial for 21 months before having the penile foreskin removed.

    The men were seen by researchers three months after surgery or inclusion into the trial and then again at 12 months and 21 months. The study began in 2002 and ended prematurely in 2005 because the Data Monitoring Safety Board detected far more HIV infections in the uncircumcised men.

    The study results, presented at the 3rd International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment, were greeted with caution.

    Finding the results "exciting," Dr. Helene Gayle, president of the International AIDS Society, also advised caution before advocating voluntary circumcision on the part of young men.

    "This could be a major advance in prevention," Gayle said at a news briefing on the study, "however, we need to see the results of other trials to confirm these findings. Adult male circumcision should not be implemented as a preventive strategy until other trials are done."

    Auvert acknowledged that his study is not a green light for circumcision, noting the area where it was performed is somewhat unique in its population and HIV infection prevalence. For example, the men were engaging in heterosexual activities and the study was performed only for 21 months, so how long the protective effect continues is unknown.

    He also said the treatment may be effective only in preventing female-to-male transmission of HIV and may not prevent male-to-male transmission or male-to-female transmission

    "The treatment was not 100 percent successful, so safe sex is still important in preventing transmission of HIV," Auvert said.

    About 20 percent of men in the area undergo voluntary circumcision, he said, so the proposal was not a foreign idea. During the scheduled visits to the doctors during the trial the sexually active men were counseled regarding safe sex activities.

    Nevertheless, 69 infections occurred during the trial among the men, all of whom were HIV-negative at its start. Of those infections, 58 occurred in the uncircumcised men and 18 in those who had undergone the operation. That translates into a 65 percent reduction, Auvert said.

    The major adverse side effect mentioned by those undergoing the surgery was pain. No one died in the study from the surgery, and no permanent injuries occurred among men undergoing the surgery.

    "Another way of putting it," he said, "is that we prevented six or seven out of a possible 10 infections" by circumcising the men.

    Edward Susman covers medical research and health matters for UPI Science News. E-mail: sciencemail@upi.com

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/inde...rcumcision.xml

    Interesting stuff, and its hard to really argue with a 65% reduction rate.

    Regards,

    Lee


  2. #2
    On the other hand.... You have different fingers
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,639
    Maybe there was a reduction rate because they stopped having sex because of having their forskin removed.
    Don Mike
    DonMikeCali@gmail.com


  3. #3
    chick with a bass basschick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    7,922
    maybe for this test to be relevant, they'd need to test two groups -

    1. uncircumcised men

    2. circumcised men - NOT guys who were just circumcised, but who have always been circumcised.

    then they'd need to get people in the same age groups and life styles for both groups. then their test would mean something, at least to me.


  4. #4
    BDBionic
    Guest
    I dunno about that study.
    I think it's horribly responsible for a) the people who conducted it to have made such claims and conclusions based on those results and b) the media to present it in the fashion they have.

    There were 3088 men involved in that study. And they're basing their conclusions off of statistics gathered from 69 of them. 2.2% of the cohorts. Ya don't need to be a mathematician or statistician to know what a 2.2% sampling among the whole isn't a substantial enough representation of the entire study group to draw real conclusions off of. Within such a tiny fraction of the overall cohort population, a trend among 2.2% could be entirely attributed to random chance, mere coincidence, and/or a whole host of other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with circumcision.

    Nevertheless, 69 infections occurred during the trial among the men, all of whom were HIV-negative at its start. Of those infections, 58 occurred in the uncircumcised men and 18 in those who had undergone the operation. That translates into a 65 percent reduction, Auvert said.
    No. That translates in to someone not knowing math. 58 + 18 = 76. Not 69. That the press release from the studies authors or the ScienceDaily writer didn't even bother clarifying that mathematical inconsistency clues you in to the carelessness involved here.

    The study was performed in the Johannesburg, South Africa, suburb of Orange Farm, a poverty-stricken community that has no farms, nor any orange trees, but has a 32 percent prevalence of infection with the human immunodeficiency virus, the agent that causes AIDS.
    So in an area with 32% HIV prevalence, they observed a 2.2% rate of seroconversion among 3088 men in 21 months. According to that trend, they might as well claim that "Study Finds That Being A Cohort In A Circumcision Study Dramatically Reduces Risk of HIV Infection". Because the ability to draw shoddy conclusions off of statistically insignificant #s could suggest that it'd take 305 months ( 32% / 2.2% x 21 months = ) for someone to seroconvert when they're a circumcision study cohort. That'd be a pretty foolish conclusion to draw, but one availed through the data just as much as the ones they profess to have discovered.

    He also said the treatment may be effective only in preventing female-to-male transmission of HIV and may not prevent male-to-male transmission or male-to-female transmission
    He's calling circumcision "treatment" and making claims that it has some "effective" qualities and using words like "preventing transmission". Yet we had 69 people out of the entire study who seroconverted (or 76 if one cares about math). 18 of those were circumcised. That's 26% of the total (18/69 = 26%). I think 26% is pretty high to be calling it things like "treatment" and "preventative" and "effective".

    Numerous observational studies had suggested AIDS might be less prevalent in men who had been circumcised, but doctors and researchers in France and South Africa put the question to the ultimate test: a randomized controlled study in which 1,550 men ages 18 to 24 agreed to be circumcised, while another 1,538 men acted as uncircumcised controls.
    Why have numerous observational studies shown that? These scientists would like to suggest that circumcision is the one variable that matters. Maybe circumcised men and their families are more integrated in to the local medical care system (thus their ending up circumcised in the first place) and so had greater access to information, prophylactics and public service guidance. Does their "randomized, controlled study" tell us how many of the circumcised men used condoms because they were afraid they'd hurt their dicks by having unprotected sex within 21 months of circumcision? Because in a study where we're talking about a 2.2% sampling of the total, a dozen guys who used rubbers because they were concerned their cocks might not have fully healed is a fairly significant number in relation to the 69 from where the trend was observed.

    JA Jacquez, JS Koopman, CP Simon and IM Longini Jr published in the 1994 Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in 1994 titled "Role of the Primary Infection in epidemics of HIV infection in gay cohorts"; along with the D Gisselquist, R Rothenberg, J Potterat and E Drucker 2002 study of HIV infections in sub-saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmissions in the International Journal of STD AIDS; as well as the Padian, Shiboski, Glass and Vittinghoff 1997 heterosexual transmission of HIV study in 1997 (that lasted 10 years, mind you... as in they followed HIV discordant - one negative, one positive - couples for 10 years) and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, showed that 1000 unprotected sexual contacts were required to achieve 1 instance of seroconversion. As in chances of infection, even during unprotected sex, was 1/1000. That's 0.1%. So why don't I just say unprotected sex is 5 times more effective than circumcision in preventing HIV transmission (1/1000 = 0.1% vs. 18/3088 = 0.5%)?

    Why? Because I'd be horribly iressponsible in doing so. Just as these guys are in releasing their worthless study results with such broad claims.


    Oh and just cuz I'm nitpicky, "Contracting AIDs" from the title of this thread is misleading. It's HIV contraction they're studying. Not AIDS. Never did they touch upon progression to AIDS after HIV infection in the study and infection with HIV and AIDS are two completely different things. hehe


  5. #5
    I am straight, but my ass is gay jIgG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,081
    fuuuck no

    the day I have to part with my foreskin will be the day I stop having sex.
    My urologist suggested I get cut, because of 1 minor infection that might not even be related to foreskin.

    Hey at least if this catches on, foreskins will be like rare wine and I'd be charing $1000 for a peep :mental:


  6. #6
    MidwestMale
    Guest
    yeah that study is bogus because either way forskin or not you still have the same rate to concept hiv/aids ....its not like a protective block...

    Matt..


  7. #7
    Fetishlady
    Guest
    i don't think it will help reduce the chance of having AIDS cause whether you have foreskin or don't have..if you don't know your partner or who were his/her previous partners then you still can't say.


  8. #8
    The Prince of Dorkness Jasun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    2,283
    and of course, if you'd just put a fucking condom on, it would reduce the risk for both to a whopping 0.1%... but it's easier to mutilate your penis, I guess.

    How stupid and irresponsible can you get?
    Jasun Mark. Crass of the Titans.


  9. #9
    HollywoodHorwtz
    Guest
    this study is ridiculous, how could a forskin make any revelance. isnt it just safe enough to say wrap that shit before you get jiggy...


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •