HIV

by Tatiana 6 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Tatiana

  I thought this was interesting.....

  Circumcision Cuts HIV Risk
  Eight Times Fewer HIV Infections, but Circumcised Men Still Need Condoms
  
  

  By Daniel DeNoon Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD on Thursday, October 09, 2003 WebMD Medical News

  
  
  

  Oct. 9, 2003 -- Circumcised men get eight times fewer HIV infections, a study of Indian men shows.

  But men without foreskins shouldn't stop using condoms, warns Johns Hopkins researcher Steven J. Reynolds, MD, MPH.

  "Condoms are still essential for HIV prevention," Reynolds tells WebMD. "You can't take this study and say, 'Oh, I don't need to use a condom, I'm circumcised.' And circumcision didn't protect against sexually transmitted diseases, which are also important in HIV transmission."

  Reynolds presented the findings at this week's meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

  Reynolds' team studied some 2,300 sexually active men without HIV infection. All were sexually active -- in fact, they volunteered for the study when they came to STD clinics for treatment between 1993 and 2000. The men lived in Pune, India.

  Circumcised men still got HIV, but they got it eight times less often than uncircumcised men. However, circumcision did not offer significant protection against herpes, syphilis, or gonorrhea. The findings confirm earlier reports from several African nations, although some of these reports find more protection against STDs.

  Why is this study important? AIDS is poised to ravage India if prevention efforts fail. Many researchers predict an Africa-like scenario for the south Asian nation, says Kimberly Workowski, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at Emory University in Atlanta.

  "India is the next population to be devastated by HIV," Workowski says. "This study is not groundbreaking stuff. We've seen this data before. But it does confirm what we know from Africa."

  Protection for Uncircumcised Men

  Reynolds says that the foreskin may be particularly sensitive to HIV infection. That's because it's particularly thin-skinned. Just below the surface, the foreskin is rich in CD4+ T cells -- the type of cells HIV best loves to infect.

  It probably isn't likely that many men will seek circumcision based on these findings, Reynolds admits. But he has another idea.

  Drug companies are finally getting interested in finding virus-killing agents that can be safely applied to the vagina to protect against HIV infection. He suggests that these agents -- when, and if, they become available -- can be used to protect the foreskin.

  SOURCES: Reynolds, S.J. Proceedings, 41st Annual Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, San Diego, Oct. 9-12, 2003. Steven J. Reynolds, MD, MPH, research fellow, Johns Hopkins University. Kimberly Workowski, MD, associate professor, division of infectious diseases, Emory University, Atlanta.
• 

  Perry

  Hi Tatiana,

  I heard the same thing around a year ago, only it was about Africa. They were comparing the rates of infection between two tribes who lived relatively close to each other. One tribe practised circumcision and the other did not. The circumsised tribe had far fewer infections.

  I've thought about why that may be so and it never really made sense to me. This sheds some new light on it, and now and makes more sense.
• 

  Matty

  Thanks for BTTT-ing this Perry, and thanks Tatiana for bringing this to our attention.
  
  
  My view?
  
  
  I am deeply skeptical as most studies that recommend circumcision (for instance endless Watchtower and Awake articles) are presented from a standpoint to justify a religious ceremonial ritual that an increasing amount of people see as just an archaic act of religious barbarity.
  
  
  The question always is "Why did God ask us to do this, there must be a good reason!!?" and they try to come up with reasons to prove that God knows what?s best for his people. If God asked us to cut anything else off our anatomy there would be similar studies presented to try to justify why it should be done.
• 

  anglise

  So the conclusion is that the guy in the sky decided his male gender machine was faulty and needed upgrading.

  The holy nation would avoid STD's by being circumised.

  Anglise
• 

  RunningMan

  So, God commanded people to get circumsized as a means of protecting them from STDs? You would think that he would want to punish them for promiscuity, not protect them.
• 

  logansrun

  People envelope good, healthy and practical ideas within a cloud of religiosity. Circumcision appears to be beneficial and therefore the Jews said God commands this so as to promote good health. The good health came first, God came later.

  B.
• 

  Tatiana

  Matty, I agree. I've always thought it was a ridiculous law. Why a piece of skin on a penis, and not a left nipple, or maybe a vulva? I just don't get it.

  Anglise...my question too. If he created it, why cut it off??? Another mistake? Maybe he was using his omnipotent foresight, and foresaw this AIDS virus.

  The only good thing I can see is if it really does cut cases of HIV.

  Reynolds says that the foreskin may be particularly sensitive to HIV infection. That's because it's particularly thin-skinned. Just below the surface, the foreskin is rich in CD4+ T cells -- the type of cells HIV best loves to infect.