Comments on: Male Circumcision Doesn’t Cut Your HIV Risk http://www.blisstree.com/articles/male-circumcision-doesnt-cut-your-hiv-risk/ Family, Health, Home and Lifestyles Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:27:16 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Circumcision No Help Against AIDS in Gays : Blisstree - Family, Health, Home and Lifestyles http://www.blisstree.com/articles/male-circumcision-doesnt-cut-your-hiv-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-451571 Circumcision No Help Against AIDS in Gays : Blisstree - Family, Health, Home and Lifestyles Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:04:24 +0000 http://www.blisstree.com/?p=100537#comment-451571 [...] true or not, it has been found that circumcised men don’t reduce the risk for women though (Male Circumcision Doesn’t Cut Your HIV Risk). Now, new research has found that circumcision doesn’t reduce the risk of HIV spread among [...] [...] true or not, it has been found that circumcised men don’t reduce the risk for women though (Male Circumcision Doesn’t Cut Your HIV Risk). Now, new research has found that circumcision doesn’t reduce the risk of HIV spread among [...]

]]> By: Hugh7 http://www.blisstree.com/articles/male-circumcision-doesnt-cut-your-hiv-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-375321 Hugh7 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:22:20 +0000 http://www.blisstree.com/?p=100537#comment-375321 The fact is that those cells are everywhere: "Langerhans cells, along with other classes of dendritic cells, are universally found in all skin. There is minimal variation between parts of the body in their content of Langerhans cells. They are found in all genital tissue including the glans, foreskin, shaft, scrotum, clitoris, clitoral hood, labia, and vagina." But before anyone tries to explain why circumcision protects, they need to establish that it does. In the randomised controlled trials on which this claim is based, several times as many circumcised men dropped out, their HIV status unknown, as non-circumcised men were infected. So it's quite possible that circumcision doesn't protect at all. The fact is that those cells are everywhere: “Langerhans cells, along with other classes of dendritic cells, are universally found in all skin. There is minimal variation between parts of the body in their content of Langerhans cells. They are found in all genital tissue including the glans, foreskin, shaft, scrotum, clitoris, clitoral hood, labia, and vagina.”

But before anyone tries to explain why circumcision protects, they need to establish that it does. In the randomised controlled trials on which this claim is based, several times as many circumcised men dropped out, their HIV status unknown, as non-circumcised men were infected. So it’s quite possible that circumcision doesn’t protect at all.

]]> By: Peggy Rowland http://www.blisstree.com/articles/male-circumcision-doesnt-cut-your-hiv-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-375025 Peggy Rowland Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:50:26 +0000 http://www.blisstree.com/?p=100537#comment-375025 Hugh, the researchers believe that circumcision helps protect men, though maybe this study didn't prove it. Here's a quote from the CBS article I linked to: "The foreskin of the penis, which is removed during circumcision, is rich in cells that are particularly easy for the virus to infect. The theory is that removing this source of vulnerable cells makes infection more difficult." Hugh, the researchers believe that circumcision helps protect men, though maybe this study didn’t prove it. Here’s a quote from the CBS article I linked to:

“The foreskin of the penis, which is removed during circumcision, is rich in cells that are particularly easy for the virus to infect. The theory is that removing this source of vulnerable cells makes infection more difficult.”

]]> By: Hugh7 http://www.blisstree.com/articles/male-circumcision-doesnt-cut-your-hiv-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-374983 Hugh7 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:36:26 +0000 http://www.blisstree.com/?p=100537#comment-374983 The men were all already HIV+ so this trial told us nothing about the risk to them. 18% of the partners of the circumcised men got infected, compared to 12% of the partners of non-circumcised, but they cut the trial short before it reached statistical significance. (They cut short the trials that claimed to show circumcision protects men, too.) So for all we know circumcision INcreases the risk to women, and it's doubtful whether it protects men. The men were all already HIV+ so this trial told us nothing about the risk to them. 18% of the partners of the circumcised men got infected, compared to 12% of the partners of non-circumcised, but they cut the trial short before it reached statistical significance. (They cut short the trials that claimed to show circumcision protects men, too.) So for all we know circumcision INcreases the risk to women, and it’s doubtful whether it protects men.

]]>