View Full Version : 2010-04-10 6minutes - Circ Benefits Not Seen in Australia

April 13th, 2010, 00:12

Circumcision benefits not seen in Australia

by Michael Woodhead

Circumcision does not seem to be justified in the Australian context because it has no protective effects against STIs and does not reduce sexual difficulties, a major new study has found.

A questionnaire survey of almost 4300 men carried out by researchers from La Trobe University in Victoria and the University of NSW found that circumcision was unrelated to STI risk overall, but appeared to increase the risk of non-specific urethritis and reduce the risk of penile candidiasis.

Rates of HIV and syphilis were so low that it was not possible to conclude whether circumcision has any protective against these STIs, the study authors say in the Australia and NZ Journal of Public Health (34: 160) this month.

They say findings from a previous Australian survey that showed higher rates of sexual difficulties among uncircumcised men had been used in support of the procedure. However, the new study showed no such differences. In particular, there were no difference seen between circumcised and uncircumcised men in the over 50s age group, where previously uncircumcised men had previously been shown to have higher rates of difficulty maintaining an erection and having pain during intercourse.

“At the population level, circumcision appears to have minimal protective effects on sexual health in the Australian context,” concludes study author Dr Juliet Richters.

12 April 2010

April 13th, 2010, 00:30
Hope this gets some press in the U.S. but doubt it.

April 13th, 2010, 00:46
Let's get real; the press in the US is pro-circ, and they're not going to print something that goes against their interests.

Post this where it will be seen; other forums, blogs and Spacebook.

April 13th, 2010, 02:22
by Michael Woodhead


(nothing to add; just being juvenile)

April 13th, 2010, 12:17
Further studies show that circumcision increases the risk of foreskin loss by as much as 100%. Scientists are puzzled why circumcised males display no signs of having a foreskin, and where that foreskin might have gone. "It's a mystery where these prepuces disappeared to," Dr. Harvey Cockbanger stated in a recent press release. "We looked under the couch and in the seat cushions, but could not find our foreskins anywhere. Hopefully, the maid didn't vacuum them up last time she was here."

He added hopefully, "If anyone out there has seen our foreskin, please return them. We love them and miss them."

April 13th, 2010, 16:57
Circumcision benefits are not seen in the U.S. either. In all of western Europe they have the same penile cancer rate as the U.S., 1 chance in 100,000 per year. In all of western Europe they have lower rates of AIDS and other STD's than the U.S. Obviously circumcision is not giving the benefits that the U.S. medical community claims circumcision is, it's too bad that the U.S. media does not point that out.

April 13th, 2010, 22:03
I love this article it just made my day :D

Also I left a nice little response to that monster posting on there

Brian please explain why the United States has one of the highest rates of HIV in the modern world while it has one the highest rates of circumcision as well while the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of HIV in the modern world yet has one the lowest rates of circumcision in the entire world. Also explain how circumcision can help contain HIV when research shows women who have sex with circumcised men are around 50% more likely to contract HIV which would easily nullify any benefit it gives men in containing HIV.