2009-07-17 BBC News - HIV circumcision study ends early

[Tormod - IRL]

Apologies if this has already been reported on the web site here.

The link is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8154134.stm

In brief: Adult circumcision was found to INCREASE the proportion of HIV in partners of subjects in Uganda. Researchers abandoned the trial because of the "futility" of carrying on with it.

The article also quotes "They said it was not sensible to recommend men with HIV should not be circumcised, or that there should be any down-scaling of circumcision programmes, because of the overall benefits to both uninfected men and to women. " The so-called benefits were not enumerated.

[Someone mundane]

Wish there was a vomiting smiley... Because I am seriously going to hurl at this line.

They suggest a solution would be to circumcise as early as possible.

"Circumcising infants and young boys before their sexual debut would mitigate the challenge of male circumcision in HIV-infected men.

It's just simply disgusting to even bring that up anymore... It's a shot in the dark: You don't know if the kid is going to be part of those groups. So why bother? This one is also quite good, if only for the sheer stupidity.

Other experts say it could become a "sign" of whether a man was HIV positive or not.

I have to wonder how these people get to become "experts" because it seems more like wild fantasizing to me that circumcision status would be thought of or looked into THAT much in everyday life. So, HIV positive men are the next in line to take up the mark? But then how would you separate the poor jews from them? Not mentioning the everyday normal people who were unlucky enough to get cut but have no health problems and aren't a part of these groups. This has dumbfuckery written all over it.

[admin]

WOW! It is so sad that men were cut and that women got AIDS and stuff, but this result is PROFOUND!

18% of the cut men's partners got AIDS vs only 12% for the men remaining intact.

Will this headline be on every paper by tomorow: ??

CIRCUMCISED MEN 50% MORE LIKELY TO TRANSMIT AIDS VIRUS

Somehow I doubt it, but that's the news.

-Ron

[Joseph]

No, but look what the NYTimes has decided to publish instead; more of the same, if not more frantic than any circ for HIV crap I've ever seen before...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/world/africa/20circumcision.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=circumcision&st=cse

[Quark]

Experts say HIV-positive men should still be offered circumcision, but also warned to use condoms.

What's the bloody point? The damage is done, why do more? :mad:

I should really stop reading this news section it gets me too angry.

[1Taoist]

Interesting side note, Ron:

I drive a Suburban. It gets 12 miles to the gallon. The new Tahoe Hybrid, which I considered buying, gets 18 miles to the gallon. They advertise it as "gets 50% better gas mileage". Yet, that's only 6 mpg. That ain't much. And it costs 15k more. Which is much.

A frustrating fact is the marketing strategy to sell it as 50% more, which in our minds "sounds" like a lot. But in reality it is not. There really is no noticeable difference. The only thing happening is an idea- the idea of hybrid.

These are the same numbers as the HIV infection above.

Don't get too excited, Ron. This is a marketing strategy for RIC. Now they are revealing what I suspected they knew- the role of the penis as a propagator of disease, not a receptor -and they are showing us that diseased individuals are a
problem when cut after they are disease-carriers. This is easy to explain. What they don't tell you is that it's a vector if cut or uncut. In an uncut, the propagation may be 50% lower, but in real incidence that's not much. I've heard it said circ does really nothing concerning HIV, and I believe that.

Except in regards to open-wound sex, and unsanitary med conditions.

Nobody gets HIV in their penis. They get it in their ass. Or their veins.

But they give it by the open-wounds on their penis. Interesting that nobody GOT HIV by having open-wound sex, which is to say females aren't transmitting it.

Now that's profound.

[1Taoist]

In addition:

A while ago I proposed that it "might" be possible that the foreskin system is a two-edged sword- that in healthy men it helped protect, in diseased men it helped propagate -and I feel that this recent study revelation may indicate some validity to this

Let's say, per my theory, that they know this. And as I said public policy can't tell people to get cut in order to prevent them from propagating a disease they don't yet have, or even do have. Then the problem becomes how to tackle the problem.

First phase is to cut people and show that less men GOT HIV (even though nobody "gets it" thru their dick). Second phase is to show that HIV infection to women (who aren't propagators) is up...by cutting HIV+ men. Why? You really think these docs thought these guys were gonna use condoms until they healed. Get the fuck outta here. They knew this would happen.

Now, they're showing two things: 1)that HIV can be given AT A HIGHER RATE by infected individuals BECUZ they can't follow directions. Now they get to promote RIC, because that's the logical answer- get em before they're sexually active.

Thru this manuever, they've revealed that the penis is indeed the vector. But, strangely, they promoted this to keep men FROM GETTING IT. Does anybody see this??

[imahokie]

You could be right Tao. If you are its one heck of a conspiracy. As with any conspiracy I would go advertising to people who don't at least already think that circumcision is wrong.

[1Taoist]

Let's consider the following:

What if these HIV+ men were to have abstained from sex until fully healed. Would the result have been opposite? I wonder. Now how would that have fit into the researchers' plan? It would show that circ inhibited transmission...perhaps by the same marginal number (50%?). This interesting finding would lead people to believe circ AT ANY POINT in a man's life (once he's infected?) reduces his ability to transmit HIV (assuming he's acquired it). This leaves men with a choice: do I think I'll get this, and if I do I can do something to degrade my infectious transmission rate.

That is not the plan.

The plan is to TAKE AWAY choice. The very nature of RIC.

I know many don't agree with me that foreskin may help facillitate HIV transmission, and many ardently follow the idea that foreskin is only beneficial. I don't believe this. I don't believe any part of our body is not a double-edged sword. When infected, the body becomes a host, and a vector, and all it's workings are exploited toward spreading infection.

This, by no means, is case for circ'ing. But this odd debate, medically-speaking, is absolutely gray.

To re-iterate- this study discovered that under certain conditions the HIV infection can transmit at a higher rate. But it isn't a sign that the theory is wrong. In my mind it's a distortion of a hidden and exploited double-sided coin. And as in most cases of agenda, only one side is favored.

I believe the glaring evidence is that the penis is the vector of transmission. This is betrayed by the bold-face lie that HIV is propagated by women and acquired via the penis. The attempt to circ Africans, and the big Final Solution to RIC an entire continent.

The easiest way to infect is thru open wounds and unsanitary med conditions. This has been demonstrated by the circ effort in Uganda. They knowingly opened up and compromised women to HIV infection by mutilating the genitals of those infected, knowing full-well they were going to infect their partners.

And the end result is marginal. 6 percent. Not a lot. But like the difference between 49% and 51% in corporate holding, it's just enough.

Makes all the difference in the world.

[cobra]

Well... looks like they accomplished their goal.

As circumcision rates drop in our neck of the woods (and the internet anti-circ movement continues to counter much of their propaganda and drive those rates lower) a new source of human tissue was sorely needed to fuel the worldwide human tissue market.

Looks like they've set up quite an efficient production line. 65 circumcisions per day per technician. Plenty of donors lined up, relieved to be rid of their deadly, disease-riddled body part.

We're slowly winning here, but at the cost of another nation's integrity.

I feel bad for them.

Soon they'll realize circumcision actually drives HIV transmission, but then it will be too late.

It's like a big, tragic dark comedy. The kind where people die and the bad guys win.

[finman]

Quote from the New your Times article:
...at this French-financed clinic for cutting off foreskins

Proves what the English believed all along about the French :p

The men are counselled to continue using condoms since circumcision provides partial, though substantial (a lie) protection

Don't mutilate, just give condoms with 100% protection

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Malaria kills someone every 20 seconds I believe and is so preventable so why is this money being wasted on useless circumcision?