PDA

View Full Version : 2009-07-23 AIDSmap News - Antiretrovirals and condoms will have more effect on HIV in South Africa


admin
July 27th, 2009, 23:49
Antiretrovirals and condoms will have more effect on HIV in South Africa than circumcision, model finds

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/23862073-490F-44F5-AC5E-17893A3764BA.asp

Gus Cairns & Michael Carter, Thursday, July 23, 2009

In preliminary results from a mathematical model set up by researchers from the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, male circumcision was found to have a considerably lower impact than condom use or antiretorviral therapy (ART) coverage on new HIV infection rates and on death rates in men in South Africa.

Researchers seeking to assess the population-level impact of different HIV prevention strategies in South Africa have developed a mathematical model that identifies increased condom use and ART coverage as keys to reducing new HIV infections in that country. Using published data from 2003 to 2008 for calibration, the model compared simulated scenarios involving various levels of male circumcision, condom use and ART coverage up to 2025.

The simulations set male circumcision rates at 51% (current level), 75% and 90%; condom use rates at 14% (current level), 50%, 75%, 80% and 90%; and ART coverage at 21% (current level), 50%, 75%, 80% and 90% with a CD4 cell count of 200 cells/mm3 or lower as the primary criterion for initiating ART.

Condom efficacy with 100% use was set at 90% and the efficacy of circumcision in preventing new infections at 53%. The infectiousness of HIV-positive members of the population was set in six strata: primary infection (less than 12 weeks after infection); chronic infection with viral load under 1000; viral load between 1000 and 10,000; viral load from 10,000 to 100,000; viral load over 100,000; and late-stage disease.

Other assumptions in the current model included that 50% of infected people knew their serostatus and, for the purposes of this initial, simple version of the model, that the both the number of women infected with HIV and their infectiousness would remain the same; obviously in a more sophisticated model which includes both male and female infections, reductions in female infections and infectiousness would have a synergistic effect. The impact of ART, condoms and circumcision in women is currently being calculated.

Impacts on the heterosexual male population aged 15 to 49 were measured.

Presenter Viviane Lima told the conference that scaling condom use up from 14% (the current estimated level) to 50% and antiretroviral therapy coverage from 21% to 80% would result in an estimated 950,000 infections averted in men by 2019. Raising ART use to 50% and condom use to 80% would have a similar effect.

Raising both to 50% would result in 700,000 fewer infections. But raising circumcision rates from the current 51% of men circumcised to 90% would only add another 48,000 infections averted to this total.

Condom use and ART coverage, alone or in combination, were found to reduce new HIV infections by from 64% to 95% by 2025 and to reduce mortality by 10% to 34%. Circumcision brought about a 3% to 13% reduction in new HIV infections and a 2% to 4% reduction in mortality; according to Lima, its impact “was overshadowed when combined with the other interventions.

“We were surprised by how little effect it had,” she said.

The mathematical model is susceptible of a huge number of permutations. Forthcoming studies include testing the effect of different numbers of people coming forward for testing, drug resistance, different criteria for starting treatment, mother to child transmission, and many other variables.

Reference:
Lima V et al. The combined impact of male circumcision, condom use and HAART coverage on the HIV-1 epidemic in South Africa: a mathematical model. 5th IAS Conference on HIV Treatment, Pathogenesis and Prevention, Cape Town, abstract WECA105, 2009.

{Further analysis at http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2009/07/circumcisions-effectiveness-a-distant-third.html}

cobra
July 29th, 2009, 15:06
It's going to be ever so much worse when these freshly healed circumcised men resume sexual activity and begin convincing women that they are immune to HIV now that they are circumcised. It WILL happen.

"No, really, Ana. I got circumcised. You don't have to worry about that!"

"I don't need to wear that condom. I'm circumcised now. There's nothing to worry about!"

"I don't have HIV. Look. My penis is circumcised!"

The proponents of circumcision in Africa are going to be guilty of more deaths than Adolph Hitler when this is all said and done. We are witnessing the beginning of the African Holocaust.

imahokie
July 29th, 2009, 16:35
Hmmmmm considering this do you wish that circumcision works as advertised? Would you be happy to be wrong and have all of these lives saved? I think you are right, I am just curious.

admin
July 29th, 2009, 17:38
do you wish that circumcision works as advertised? Would you be happy to be wrong and have all of these lives saved?
It would be a shame, just like it would be a shame if we had to lop off arms to fight the measles instead of just giving an injection in the arm.

They haven't tried any other method of toughening up the penis to make it more resistant to infection, and they don't seem to care that women's risk increases.

Really your question is not the one I'm answering, since they ARE right. Cutting off a body part DOES reduce the chance for that part to get infected.

My point would be that it has no bearing on an infant's right to keep his whole body and make his own adult informed decision.

-Ron Low
http://TLCTugger.com

cobra
July 29th, 2009, 23:02
I have consented to surgery to save my life. However, my malfunctioning gall bladder and infected pancreas were in fact diseased and threatening to kill me. There have been repurcussions to the removal of my gall bladder, but I do not regret choosing to have it removed.

I would be highly upset if I had my gall bladder removed without my consent and it was a healthy organ.

If someone could prove that the foreskin did in fact create an ongoing increased level of risk for AIDS, then I would have to admit that it might be a good idea to circumcise. However, the opposite is true. Circumcision is only going to cause a temporary decline in transmission rates and then, due to human behavior, a large upswing in transmission. The AIDS/circumcision trials were halted early because the circumcised men were beginning to move into the upward curve, not because it was inhumane to the uncircumcised group.

Africa is a country where many of its inhabitants are already circumcised. There is evidence that AIDS is more prevalent in regions where the men are normally cut anyway. Just like the US. In Africa, female circumcision is also going on, and this is going to make matters worse. Circumcised penises fucking circumcised pussies is going to make AIDS go into overdrive. I can't imagine this is being perpetrated erroneously. Seems more like a purposeful population control scheme to me.

Regardless, I have already written Africa off in my mind. It's a lost cause. We should regroup and concentrate on preserving our own declining circ rates and educational efforts in the US. Africa will be its own horrible testimonial against circumcision soon enough. It would be nice if the groups deceiving them now are held accountable, but they will just look innocent and say, "We were only trying to help!"

1Taoist
July 30th, 2009, 01:12
You just gave me an insight:

Could it be that HIV transmits heterosexually in Africa BEcuz of the FEMALE circ? Bare with me here for a second...

In the US, where circ is high and HIV is almost exclusively homosexually-transmitted, we know that infections happen via the rectum, which is easily damaged BY THE CIRC'D COCK. Since the tissue in the rectum BLEEDS, that would not be unlike a circumcised labia. What I'm getting at is a circ'd vagina, which is a disaster, has probably been facillitating the transmission of HIV all this time, and adding cut cocks to the mix is driving up the rate. But what if it IS possible for a female to transmit HIV to a man's cock via HER circ wounds. This may make it possible to get what in America is penis-to-bleeding-rectum transmission to happen in Africa as bleeding-vagina-to-penis transmission, and then bleeding-penis-to-bleeding-vagina transmission.

The normal vagina does not usually tear to bleeding during normal sex. But apparently the African vagina is not in a normal condition- it's been compromised.

So here's something to make you drink: the same procedure the western world thinks is ok for men but not women, is ok for women in Africa but not ok for men...and now we're bringing together two sets of mutilated genitals.

Humanity's insanity is staggering.

The insight is that female circ probably has a role in "hetero transmitted" HIV in Africa, which is one thing we don't have. We don't have females circ'd. But we do have males circ'd, and they are butt-fucking. Mistreat the body, and it bleeds, facillitating infection. That can mean Jack-hammering your tender rectum with somebody's cock, or circumcising a vagina...or a penis.

Wonder what would happen if gay men in America got circumcised and decided to butt-fuck their buddy before their wounds healed, on the current premise that even though their "bottom" buddy is HIV+ and is not likely to transmit it to the buddy fuckin him...unless his circ is BLEEDING. Would we see rates go up, and the normal transmission routes reverse??

admin
September 13th, 2009, 08:29
Speaking of AIDS maps, here is a map of AIDS infection rates by country:

http://s676.photobucket.com/albums/vv123/Saturnwolf/?action=view&current=800px-HIV_Epidem.png&newest=1

-Ron