Circumcision can cut a man's risk of HIV infection by 60 per cent
While true (within a few %), the...................
..................................>
This is being promoted by the WHO and other organisations simply because it is cheap an requires no "user" action (like condoms).............................> Today there is ~2.6 million HIV infections per year. At 0.12%/exposure that would drop to ~1.8 million (using a single-compartmental model*). Not even close to slowing the epidemic.
*this model overestimates the effect, by assuming all infections are female-to-male transmission.
Its also worth pointing out that circumcision does nothing to prevent male-to-female transmission, homosexual transmission, or drug-use/contaminated medial equipment transmission - all major factors associated with HIV world-wide.
Bryan
PS: I find myself agreeing with pre; did hell freeze over? To alter (modify, mutilate; pick your preferred verb) the genitalia of a non-consenting (and unable to consent) child in the name of a modest and dubious medical effect (or religion), is utterly and totally wrong.
[quote=Mike Kremer]
Unfortunately you are makeing an even worse mistake than preearth, since I presume you have read all the text.
So if you did, ImagingGeek, why write a lie, and state that I wrote:-
"Circumcision can cut a man's risk of HIV infection by 60 per cent"
I have written no such thing, in fact from my very
first discussion regarding the benefits that were found back in the 1950's regarding circumcision, I deliberately did not mention "AID's," stating it can be aquired by a number of different routes"
Those were my exact words, go look it up.
You also mentioned HIV infection, yet you did not mention AIDS, I did not mention HIV, ever.....which adds yet another twist to the discussion.
Since there is a subtle difference between HIV infection, and an HIV-AIDS infection, (to give it the correct name).
I also told ml66uk that I had not mentioned AIDS, when he wrote to me stating that:- "Circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AID's."
I must say I do agree with that. For when the African countries first read the UN reports that circumcision helped prevent the spread of Syphilis and Gonorrhea,
a number of (poorer) African countries, went for the circumcision option, sadly actually telling their people that it would cure, or prevent AID's.
It was not a difficult belief for African people to accept.....since they knew that many African Moslems were circumcised (very painfully at 16 years old).
Unfortunately this particular lie, has tended to perpetuate, and even found it to the pen of preearth, and others, within these pages.
I should like to clear up a couple of important points,....HIV-AID's is in the blood.
The proof is that...(it's antibodys can easily be detected).
If someone has HIV-AID's, it can be caught by having anal sex, with that person, having oral sex, saliva and even tear fluid can harbour the disease, as well as the seminal lubricant, and seminal fluid, that comes down the uretha, before ejection.
Now these last two fluid items are very important.
Remember that if man is circumcised, his penis is far less sensitive, and his foreplay will last a good deal longer with the woman of his choice.
Providing he is NOT infected with AID's....he cannot give AID's to his partner, via the ejeculation route.
Conversly......if his partner is infected with either gonorrhea, syphilis, or even a fungal yeast infection.......the natural antiseptic properties in his lubricant will get rid of a number of unpleasant fungal infections.
Furthermore germs cannot so easily travel up the uretha to infect the man, while his fluids are on the way down.
Sometime later after the sexual act is finished, and
his uretha is empty of fluid,
he has no foreskin to trap
and allow any germs to enter his uretha and travel up to infect his body at a later time.That is the whole basis of the original UN report.
Ok, now here comes the crunch, to all you unbelievers out there. Just why did'nt I mention AID's V Circumcision, in my previous posts?
Quite simply because AID's uses various routes to infect, the most obvious ones. being normal kissing and tongueing.
Hopefully it should now be quite obvious to all, for my deliberate omission. You dont have to have sex to aquire AID's.
I have two other points to make, I believe it was Bryan who suggested that circumcision does nothing to prevent male-to-female infection transmission.
On the contrary, a man with no foreskin cannot deliver a load of smegma laden germs, when his foreskin retracts, to his 'casual woman. (I use casual deliberately)
Your mention of homosexual transmission, medical needles and drugs, as you correctly say are major factors in HIV and AIDS .
Hopefully, neither of us want hell to freeze over, so I ought to pass a comment regarding both yourself and preearth talking about mutilation.
Question...has any man that has been circumcised as a baby......ever vocally complained of being mutilated later in life?
I think no,...not ever
You make a good point when you state that a non-consenting..unable to consent child,is totally wrong.
Well I take it that you have no trust in your parents?
Presumably they had made all the decisions for you when you were a child, From deciding what school to send you, to what religion you should adopt.etc.etc.
As I stated previously, western hospitals are offering circumcision to their 8 day old baby boy. A cut which takes a few seconds . no crying and no blood. They suggest it for future health reasons. Exactly the reason that the Jews have done this for the last 5000years.
I must admit I do not know why the Moslems circumcise when they become a 'man' at 16years old it is a very painful operation to undergo,on a very sensitive spot.
If any one can give me the reasoning, and especially why they do not follow the 8 days mentioned in the Bible, I will be very grateful.
My last and final final point on this subject is....The so called circumcision of women, ....many young African girls, as soon as they menstruate and depending upon what tribe they belong to are cruelly
mutilated a midwive or other woman, using a knife or a razor blade- cut their clitoris right off.
It is the most cruellest thing that could ever happen to a young girl.
It is equivalent to having a mans penis cut off. The poor girl has lost half her sexual feelings forever.
Those that practice such a barbaric ritual, believe that the only sexual feelings that she can have in the future, are inside her.
This is supposed to make her a good wife for her husband.
This practice has been banned but it still goes on, and will be difficult to eradicate
Now that is Mutilation, with a capital M.
Again that is why I make a distinction between male and female circumcision
Females are NOT Circumcised they are MUTILATED.
There are women who are genuinly circumcised..... they look in the mirror one day at their naked bodys and notice that their outer Labia are un-symetrical, and looks wrong. Rather than get embarressed in front of their future husband they can get it snipped off, in a local surgery. Its exactly the same equivalent piece of skin that gets snipped of an 8 day old baby.
You dont hear about this but it is often practised.
Hopefully I have covered enough on this subject for everyones satisfaction
If not, I am sure you will let me know one way or another.
