Study reveals condoms may prevent sexual transmission of HIV

[slowtug]

Procedure:
Study the affect of three groups of men who regularly sleep with HIV infected partners, 1. a circumcised group, 2. an intact group and 3. a mixed group that uses condoms.
Results:
Groups 1 and 2 the circumcised and intact men all got Aids... too bad for them.

Group 3 the condom users all escaped disease free, yay for condoms!!

Conclusion:
Condoms may prevent Aids

[ctrclckws]

Send that result to the CDC.
and all those other letter organizations.

[WoundedBird]

CDC: "Yeah but we don't want to face our own circumcision trauma. If we stop cutting babies we are going to have to stare at all those sensorial prepuces, and we find that distressing. So I think we're going to go for worldwide mass circumcisions. Thanks though. Toodles."

[1Taoist]

This is retarded. You don't get AIDS from having sex. AIDS is a development from the presence of HIV in the body and subsequent immune complications. Please understand the difference.

[admin]

Originally Posted by 1Taoist

This is retarded. You don't get AIDS from having sex. AIDS is a development from the presence of HIV in the body and subsequent immune complications. Please understand the difference.

Thanks for your comments. I'm changing the thread title from "Study reveals condoms may prevent AIDS" to "Study reveals condoms may prevent sexual transmission of HIV"

[photenman]

slowtug's point is very important, that to avoid getting HIV during sex with an infected female partner, the man has to use a condom, whether he is circumcised or not. Condoms are extremely effective, 99.x%. Since you have to use a condom, circumcised or not, and it's extremely effective, there is no extra advantage to be gained by being cut. In other words, you'd be amputating your foreskin for nothing which would be very stupid to do or to recommend.

Also there is a thread here where someone circ'ed says he has so little sensitivity left that when he uses a condom, he doesn't feel much/can't "perform". I would bet that circ'ed men are less likely to use condoms than intact men b/c they have so little sensitivity to start out with. So circ'ing men probably decreases condom use = increases risk of contracting HIV.

In addition, suggesting that circ. reduces the risk of HIV will be interpreted by some people as meaning that circ. prevents HIV, so they will stop using condoms.

Lastly, cut men have tight penile skin. So cut men are more like to bleed or to suffer abrasions which would increase the risk of getting HIV.

All told, circumcision probably increases the risk of getting HIV from an infected female partner.

[1Taoist]

Actually, that's not true. Studies show intact men, due to their sensitive foreskin, can and do bleed more often. This is a sad fact. Circ desensitizes (keratinizes) and scars over the skin. It makes the skin immobile. The reason neither of these states effect HIV transmission is that it is extremely difficult to transmit this retrovirus without shoving a load of infected blood into the veins.

Circ does nothing.

And HIV transmission doesn't occur female-to-male hardly ever unless with hard drug use. HIV doesn't just get passed like syphilis. The immune cells in foreskin actually block that from happening. HIV is not an ordinary virus- it is a RETROVIRUS. There is no clear evidence it can even be transmitted thru heterosex.

An interesting fact is that the prostaglandins in semen actually act to suppress substances inside the vagina which attempt to destroy sperm. This "war" is natural and decides fertilization. It is a matter of natural balance. The same prostaglandins, deposited in the rectum instead, attack the membranes which have no natural defense. The flora inside are actually destroyed. This reaction, made worse by trauma friction, produces high COX2 expression which is an inflammatory response in the body. Chronic COX2 expression leads to immune disorders. Therefore, the science is that semen in the rectum is highly prone to infectious transmission and immune system suppression.

The question then becomes what's the difference between male-to-male semen and male-to-female (if any)? There is some belief that the simple but minor difference in internal temp and chemical composition between vagina and rectum may extend to men and women on the whole, and may influence and facilitate active HIV transmission. In other words, sodomy between men produces a tendency toward immune suppression. Am I saying male-to-male unprotected sodomy is somehow worse than male to female? That's an important question to ask.

Now, if people use condoms...then that alters the equation. But at the end of the day, this explains why HIV is a problem in the US among homosexuals and is not among heterosexuals, no matter what the CDC "reports" or claims.

AIDS is a collection of disorders that when viewed within an HIV+ index is labeled as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. HIV is viewed as a retrovirus that when present among a collection of risk-factor behavior that suppresses immune function (drug use, promiscuity, anal sex, high antibiotic use) is thought to trigger the development of AIDS.

Condom use doesn't just protect from HIV infection, it may also be considered to protect against the development of AIDS if one is HIV+, due to the fact that more drug use and introduction of more viruses and bacteria thru multiple partner promiscuity may overload the already taxed immune system and further trigger the development of AIDS-related disorders.

[Dragons]

I was reading this topic wondering if I should weigh in on it or not. I shall.

First up, I am HIV+, and single father to two boys, also HIV+.

I was infected sexually, I recently asked my doctor, why I have been infected via this route, but few others are. She said to me quite simply, it depends on the viral load of the female you are infected by, my partner, had a VL at the time of over one million.
Before anyone asks, she had no idea she was HIV+, until 3 months after the birth of our boys, by which time, she has breast fed them, and past her virus on to them, by which time, I tested HIV+ as well, we were not into IV drugs, so that leaves one route of infection, sexual.
So if circumcision saves you from it, it didn't save me.

[1Taoist]

That sounds tragic. In regards to the situation, I think it might help to further clarify some things, if you don't mind.

It seems clear you are indicating that she has infected all you males. How is it that she was infected? Are you by chance African? If not, are you Hispanic, thai (Asian)?

Africa is really the only place we see children getting HIV from mothers, unless you are part of the IVDU population of the US (which you said you weren't). What is curious is she didn't know until AFTER the birth, which tells me you aren't American because she'd have been tested during pregnancy.

Were there other men in the picture for her sexually? Even if she did get it that way (doubtful), what's of further concern is how YOU got it. Viral load is one thing, but what in the world gave her a viral load so high that she was able to infect you? I ask this in regards to her lack of risk-group behavior.

Did she have a blood transfusion during or after the birth?

Even if she had a very high viral load, your doc isn't giving you the full picture. She'd still have a tough time giving it to you sexually, unless she's a prostitute and/or drug user (which I'll assume not).

I will wait to read your answers, but I'm saying flat-out you didn't get this sexually from her. If you've had any sexual experience with men and/or any drug use pertaining to or outside of that, it's highly more LIKELY that is the route of this disaster, which is saying YOU are the one who infected HER (which is far more the case), but that aside, and taking that none of this is a possibility then...none of you have gotten this sexually. If you're in Africa, it's possible you received this in a tainted vaccine.

You see, this topic really has nothing to do with circumcision or sex. It has to do with a retrovirus that is linked to an auto-immune disorder. The only reason it has been linked to sexual behavior is that people have sex in damaging ways that compromise their immune systems and such an opportunistic RETROvirus can take hold. HIV is linked to gay men because of drugs and anal sex (semen in the rectum taxes and suppresses the immune system while delivering retroviral load). Immune system abuse has more to do with the result, and because gay men get this (primarily), it is linked specifically with anal-receptive intercourse, which is in effect shoving the virus up your ass.

HIV doesn't just end up in your house one day. It has to be delivered there by a specific route. Your entire family getting it suggests routes OTHER THAN sex. I'm sorry if I come across accusatory or questioning, but it's important I feel to measure this problem more accurately and with more investigative integrity.

[1Taoist]

You refer to her as your "partner", so I think it's unclear the level of your relationship and the degree of fidelity and/or determination of behavior. You folks fall squarely into a very vague and questionable group. You said yourself you (and her) don't do IVD, "so that leaves one route, sexually".

If that is the case, both of you would have to have gotten it by risk-group sex (male-to-male sex which she was part of, either with you or outside of you, or YOU had male-to-male sex, with her or outside of her, or she had sex outside of you that included hard drug use that you don't know about). The idea that both of you- BOTH of you - got it in the most unlikely way (normal hetero sex, which is exceedingly rare if even possible)...is saying lightning didn't just strike once, it struck twice and in the same spot.

I think something is amiss.

If none of the above is true, then it is highly more likely sex is NOT the route of infection. Simply put.