Circumcision: HIV Vaccine?

[Dmitri]

http://www.slate.com/id/2148034/nav/tap1/

Minor Snippet:

The stakes in that question are becoming deadly serious. Of the 5 million people who contracted HIV last year, two-thirds lived in sub-Saharan Africa. In Swaziland, more than one-third of adults have the virus. In South Africa, nearly 30 percent of pregnant women are carrying it. Four years ago, an analysis of 38 studies by the U.S. Agency for International Development, mostly in Africa, concluded that circumcised men were less than half as likely as uncircumcised men to get HIV, apparently because of the susceptibility of foreskin. Last fall, reporting on a randomized controlled trial in South Africa, scientists found that circumcision reduced female-to-male transmission by 60 percent. "Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved," they wrote. It was, they observed, "the first experimental study demonstrating that surgery can be used to prevent an infectious disease."

[surlywench]

i read about this a while ago, it's a pretty interesting finding, provided that the circum.'s are done in a safe and sterile manner.

[Mairi the Herbwench]

And condems prevent it even better than genital mutilation.

[Vixynne Rose]

Minor Snippet:

Am I the only one that thinks it's hysterical that Dmitri chose THAT phrase?

*rotfl* *rotfl* *rotfl*

[surlywench]

And condems prevent it even better than genital mutilation.



Yeah, but the problem with condoms is that they need to be USED.
If the answer was so simple in practice, the AIDS rate wouldn't be spiralling out of control as it has. You can educate all you want, but condoms either aren't available, or aren't used when they are. At least the circumcision is a permanent aide in lessening risk. It's not an ideal solution, but it's better than nothing.

[DoñaNina]

I'm hoping that this information doesn't lead to bad things, like back-ally circumcisions. I do have SOME faith that people will use the information to their advantage, though.

Of course, thing's would be much better if people didn't go around raping one another, or having unprotected sex, but... well... there ya go.

[Dmitri]

Of course, thing's would be much better if people didn't go around raping one another, or having unprotected sex, but... well... there ya go.

Great... take ALL the fun outta life whydoncha!!!!

[surlywench]

Great... take ALL the fun outta life whydoncha!!!!


:facepalm:

oi.

[Torra]

I have to agree with surly. The condoms have to be used in order to work and the attitude that some groups have don't help the usage rate improve. For example, the idea the having unprotected sex with virgins cures the disease or prevents others doesn't incline one to use a condom, whereas the circumcision would at least reduce the risk of contraction.

[Mighty Rontor]

Am I the only one that thinks it's hysterical that Dmitri chose THAT phrase?

*rotfl* *rotfl* *rotfl*

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAA!!!

[Mighty Rontor]

Yeah, but the problem with condoms is that they need to be USED.
If the answer was so simple in practice, the AIDS rate wouldn't be spiralling out of control as it has. You can educate all you want, but condoms either aren't available, or aren't used when they are. At least the circumcision is a permanent aide in lessening risk. It's not an ideal solution, but it's better than nothing.

Personally, I don't see circumcision as mutilation, although I couldn't care less about any parent's decision on the matter one way or the other. Condoms are great if you can afford them, but in a third-world setting, it can be either less food on the plate or a social stigma, especially if there's a reasonable catholic influence. It's a better option for the poor because it's fewer things to have to worry about once the penis is healed.