Circumcision can reduce HIV

[Stan]

Circumcision can reduce HIV in PNG: expert

Posted September 22, 2011 18:09:43

MAP: Papua New Guinea

An Australian infectious disease specialist says increasing circumcision rates in Papua New Guinea could be the key to reducing the country's high level of HIV transmission.

James Cook University (JCU) professor John McBride is one of three researchers presenting findings at the Cairns Base Hospital in far north Queensland today.

JCU has been working with the Pacific Adventist and Divine Word Universities in PNG to investigate male circumcision rates.

Professor McBride says circumcision has proved effective in Africa as a means of reducing the spread of HIV.

He says there was general support for the idea among the 1,300 PNG men and women interviewed, despite only 10 per cent of men having had the procedure.

"There's another group from the University of Queensland who have been doing similar research to ours, and we are combining our results and presenting this in November to the health leaders in Papua New Guinea and hope that it ... influences them in their development of policy around this issue," he said.

Professor McBride says while only10 per cent of men were circumcised, 80 per cent were prepared to have the procedure if it is shown to prevent HIV.

He says he hopes the research will lead to a pilot program to reduce HIV rates in Papua New Guinea.

"Probably the next step could be some pilot programs ... to really evaluate how feasible it would be in terms of the logistics and the costs and the impact on the health system," he said.

S O U R C E

[John317]

I wonder what the medical explanation is for circumcision reducing the risk of AIDS. Probably the fact that circumcision makes it easier to keep clean.

Anyone know if circumcision helps reduce the risk of other STDs?

[barnz]

For every study that says circumcision reduces the risk of STD's, there's another study saying circumcision does not reduce the chance of STD's. Too be honest, this shouldn't matter because you should be using PROTECTION.

[Igakusei]

For every study that says circumcision reduces the risk of STD's, there's another study saying circumcision does not reduce the chance of STD's.

The evidence that circumcision reduces the chance of heterosexual AIDS acquisition is extremely strong. Three large randomized trials were conducted in Africa between 2002 and 2006, and all three trials were stopped early because the evidence was so convincing that they didn't even need to finish.

Similar studies have not been done on homosexual AIDS acquisision. Observational studies suggest that there may be a benefit, but without rigorous testing it's impossible to tell.

http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/

[phkrause]

Personally I wouldn't even question that. Like I've mentioned a number of times, that when God gave his laws for the Israelites, they were for health reasons also.

[John317]

I wouldn't either, pk. Circumcision is definitely best as far as I'm concerned. I think God had more than one reason for circumcision. It was a sign but it is also to be preferred for other reasons, including health.

[Dr. Shane]

I wonder what the medical explanation is for circumcision reducing the risk of AIDS. Probably the fact that circumcision makes it easier to keep clean.

From what I understand, the blood vessels in the foreskin are very close to the surface so as to allow the virus easy access to the blood stream. Supposedly the blood vessels in the colon are the same. So the HIV virus can get to the blood vessels in the colon and foreskin easily. When we cut away the foreskin, it is more difficult for the virus to gain access to the blood stream.

[fccool]

From what I understand, the blood vessels in the foreskin are very close to the surface so as to allow the virus easy access to the blood stream. Supposedly the blood vessels in the colon are the same. So the HIV virus can get to the blood vessels in the colon and foreskin easily. When we cut away the foreskin, it is more difficult for the virus to gain access to the blood stream.

Actually, quite opposite is true. There are several recent studies that show that circumcised males are more prone to aids infection.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

Circumcised people are more likely to contract STDs due to the layer of protection and lubrication that foreskin serves is gone.

[ClubV12]

If I have to make a choice between "medical studies",,, wait...

I don't have to make a choice. I'll take God's word over man and thats my final answer. What do I win? Eternal life. Awesome! :)

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Shane

From what I understand, the blood vessels in the foreskin are very close to the surface so as to allow the virus easy access to the blood stream. Supposedly the blood vessels in the colon are the same. So the HIV virus can get to the blood vessels in the colon and foreskin easily. When we cut away the foreskin, it is more difficult for the virus to gain access to the blood stream.

Actually, quite opposite is true. There are several recent studies that show that circumcised males are more prone to aids infection.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

Circumcised people are more likely to contract STDs due to the layer of protection and lubrication that foreskin serves is gone.

I don't know much about the CIRP, but that website just screams "don't trust me I'm biased" at me.

[fccool]

If I have to make a choice between "medical studies",,, wait...

I don't have to make a choice. I'll take God's word over man and thats my final answer. What do I win? Eternal life. Awesome!

1 Cor. 7:17 "As God has called each man, in this manner let him walk. And thus I command in all the churches. Was any man called in the circumcision? Let him not try to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in the uncircumcision ? Let him not be circumcised! Circumcision is nothing. And uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called."

[fccool]

Quote:

I don't know much about the CIRP, but that website just screams "don't trust me I'm biased" at me.

It's hard to talk about bias, when medical circumcision takes its roots from ancient religious Judeo-Muslimo-Christian practices.

[ClubV12]

The counsel of the early church did not make circumcision a test of faith, as it was in ancient times. I can see the wisdom in that. That does not negate the health benefits in the Lords intent for a blessing of mankind.

I won't wait for science to confirm, or not, the principles of the bible. I'll move forward in faith, God said it, I believe it, whether "man" has figured it out or not.

Back to the scientific analysis, studies, charts, medical findings, etc. etc., good luck with all that. My "bias" is for the Lord, but I don't have a problem with those seeking some medical confirmation. What ever....

Ellen White is not a test of faith either, but you deprive yourself of considerable counsel designed to increase your love of God and your spiritual connection. You LOOSE a tremendous blessing in rejecting that counsel. But, it's not a test of faith. At some point I believe it WILL be in reality if not in law. Those who reject it will be unprepared to endure to the end.

[John317]

Circumcision is nothing. And uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called."

Paul is saying that circumcision means nothing spiritually. It's of no value religiously.

[Igakusei]

Quote:

I don't know much about the CIRP, but that website just screams "don't trust me I'm biased" at me.

It's hard to talk about bias, when medical circumcision takes its roots from ancient religious Judeo-Muslimo-Christian practices.

Fair point, but in my experience the anti-circumcision people are often significantly more dogmatic about it than those with religious motivations. My sister, for example, completely loses her marbles when it comes to things like circumcision and vaccination.

[fccool]

There's a difference in motivation.

Religious group generally seeks to prove that their God is correct. Thus they will generally slant the argument and make is look as though circumcision by itself plays such a major factor in preventing these diseases that it almost undoubtedly justifies to circumcise any newborn male.

There are other factors that play into the statistics that's avoided. The studies tend to objectively approach the data without feeding in certain cultural aspects that play into STD and AIDS. A Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew, will have much less sexual partners over their life time than those without those religious affiliations. Such people will more likely to be circumcised. A person with religious family background will tend to carry certain attitudes and choices when it comes to sexuality, even when they don't affiliate themselves with religious groups.

The non-religious side of the argument looks at a psychological impact vs necessity, and concludes that there's no need to subject infants to undue pain so early in their psychological development. It becomes the issue of "Welcome to our world, now, let's cut the tip of your most sensitive body part off" .

On top of that, it's fairly hypocritical argument when it comes from the religious side, in light of their view of sexuality and abstinence. Catholic church just recently let go the condom issue. I find it somewhat odd that original intent for religious circumcision is not mentioned at all, with the proponents of circumcision (which pretty much spearheaded it to the mass practice in both US and Britain) were advocating the use to prevent adolescent masturbation.

Dr. Kellog wrote "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." (page 295)

But even that guy was opposed to routine circumcision of infants: "It is doubtful, however, whether as much harm as good does not result from circumcision, since it has been shown by extensive observation among the Jews that very great contraction of the meatus, or external orifice of the urethra, is exceedingly common among them, being undoubtedly the result of the prolonged irritation and subsequent cicatricial contraction resulting from circumcision in infancy."

IMO, it's quite insidious to mess with infant's psychology in such manner, and there are other ways of preventing STDs that work much much better with higher rate of success. A condom will protect you from HIV much more than any circumcision can, which has only minor success as such protection, in any.

[ClubV12]

Religious groups to need "prove" something? Well, if thats what THEY need to do.

As for myself, I will rest on the counsel of God and not be concerned with "proving" some spiritual application. That brings a certain peace and confidence. I don't need to "argue" the point, I'll leave that to the "doctors" and the "studies", I will simply believe the Lord's counsel is the best counsel. No need to "loose my marbles" over it, get angry over it, it is what it is, solid Godly advice I thank the Lord for giving us. Simple for those who just accept it at face value.

My sympathy and encouragment to those who DO have the burden of "proving" something biblical issue to mankind. A work that some need to do, not me, I haven't got enough letters after my name. Thank God the simple man can rely with great confidence on His word, it is enough.

...carry on... :)

[John317]

What do you personally have against male circumcision? Anything?

[fccool]

I have no problem with individuals who decide to put their children through so much psychological and physical distress over something that has so little advantages.

I simply would not do it to my kids. If they want to have it, they can get it later on in life, but I doubt they would.

[ClubV12]

Oh please, when it's done near birth the psychological and physical distress is virtually non-existant. From a "medical" standpoint thats a really weak argument.

[fccool]

You never cease to amaze me

http://www.terrylarimore.com/BabiesAndPain.html

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_psychological_effects.html

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement06.html

[ClubV12]

Your right, this kind of drival never ceases to amaze me!!!

Following that kind of logic we should never go to the dentist or doctor because it might hurt or cause mental anguish.

[fccool]

You don't go to your dentist to pull healthy teeth out. The issue about cleanliness in this case is highly overblown. If person takes care of his hi-gene, there virtually no difference when it comes to this issue. It's not different than washing behind your ears in that aspect. Neither you would be more protected from STDs, as both types get infected.

Sure, I can see a reason for doing this 2500 years ago, when people bathed once a week and had to travel by horse or foot. Today it's unnecessary.

I'm not protesting anyone doing it. I just think it's silly, and I would not do it to my child. He can have that option to decide later on in life. At least, He would have a choice in this matter :)

[ClubV12]

There are many reasons to go the doctor or the dentist, circumcision is only one of those good reasons. There are many reasons where healthy flesh or teeth need to be worked on, to prevent FUTURE related issues. Circumcision is one such example.

...like the Papua New Guinea folks have running water in every hut. :)

[fccool]

If you think it is... good for you. I respect your choice.