Filed in archive
Diagnostics
, Studies
by Gloria Gamat on February 26, 2007
Another study, this time led by University of Illinois at Chicago, has found that male circumcision significantly reduced the risk of acquiring HIV in young African men.
Led by UI-C professor of epidemiology Robert Bailey, the research team conducted a clinical trial (funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Canadian Institute of Health Research) that involved 2,784 HIV negative, uncircumcised men between 18 and 24 years old in Kisumu, Kenya.
An estimated 26 percent of uncircumcised men in Kisumu, Kenya are HIV infected by age 25.
[The majority of the men in the study were Luo - an ethnic group that does not traditionally practice circumcision.]
According to Dr. Bailey:
The clinical trial found that 47 of the 1,391 uncircumcised men contracted HIV, compared to 22 of the 1,393 circumcised men.
Our study shows that circumcised men had 53 percent fewer HIV infections than uncircumcised men.
We now have very concrete evidence that a relatively simple surgical procedure can have a very large impact on HIV."
Study results have been reported in the February 24, 2007 issue of The Lancet.
Authors of the study emphasized that circumcision is by no means a natural condom but will be most effective in the prevention of HIV infection if it is integrated with other prevention and reproductive health services.
I wonder if this continuing association of male circumcision to lower risk of HIV infection will convince most of the "uncircumcised world" to embrace the practice.
Read the full report.
[Photo Credit: Surgery Encyclopedia]
Trackback: http://publish.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/55188
Addthis
Ask
Blinklist
del.icio.us
Digg
Fark
Facebook
Google
Lycos
Ma.gnolia
Mr Wong
Netscape
Netvousz
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Slashdot
Tailrank
Technorati
Wink
Yahoo
Vote for Male Circumcision Definitely Prevents HIV Infection: New Study Confirms:
|
Rating: 5.60 out of 5 vote(s) cast.
|
Response from:
Brian
(02/26/07 2:19pm)
Response from:
Gloria
(02/26/07 4:26pm)
brian: i am not using this news to push for circumcision. i am just wondering if association to lower HIV risk would be enough for the rest of the world to have their men circumcised. but from your reaction, i guess not. :-D
i may not be the right person to state whether young boys or newlyborn boys should be circumcised because where I came from circumcision is really not an issue to debate...boys are circumcised, period. losing a foreskin doesn't have anything to do with them growing up to be less of a man.
maybe I am out of context again, the topic should be AIDS, and right, circumcision is not the be-all and end-all in its prevention.
i may not be the right person to state whether young boys or newlyborn boys should be circumcised because where I came from circumcision is really not an issue to debate...boys are circumcised, period. losing a foreskin doesn't have anything to do with them growing up to be less of a man.
maybe I am out of context again, the topic should be AIDS, and right, circumcision is not the be-all and end-all in its prevention.
Response from:
Ron Low
(03/03/07 4:46pm)
If you don't want to be seen as looney condoning genital cutting of minors, you might want to be more careful than to claim "Circumcision Prevents AIDS" which is not even what the findings claim.
450,000 US men who were cut at birth have died of AIDS. Even in the African nations of Ghana, Rwanda, Lesotho, Malawi, Cameroon, and Tanzania, AIDS is markedly more prevalent among the circumcised.
Circumcision DOES NOT prevent AIDS, and even if it did, it's still HIS body and HIS decision. It costs the UN just 3 cents to give away a condom. There's your headline.
450,000 US men who were cut at birth have died of AIDS. Even in the African nations of Ghana, Rwanda, Lesotho, Malawi, Cameroon, and Tanzania, AIDS is markedly more prevalent among the circumcised.
Circumcision DOES NOT prevent AIDS, and even if it did, it's still HIS body and HIS decision. It costs the UN just 3 cents to give away a condom. There's your headline.
Response from:
Sean
(03/04/07 3:20am)
Very good news! Circumcsion is very beneficial, and should be promoted actively.
Response from:
joe
(07/04/07 12:50pm)
Ridiculous. Circumcision DOES NOT prevent AIDS. All that study shows is that a particular group of men have a lower incidence of the disease. How was the study conducted? What controls were used? How were the men monitored regarding their sexual activity? The lower incidence could be a result of the circumcised men having fewer sexual partners than their intact counterparts. EDUCATION is still the best prophylactic. Let's not encourage a cruel practice that deprives men of the full range of their sexual pleasure.
Response from:
jessie
(09/19/08 10:12pm)
i agree with other poster. what did this study really show. could it be possibly that in those countries, men who are more upper class, and are better educated are cirmcumsized, while men who are poorer and are less educated aren't. Thus they make poorer decisions, such as having unprotected sex. There are so many variables that we don't know. Plus this is a study in countries where AIDs is very prevelant ( i;m an awful speller i know) how does that effect this study.
Subscribe
Use the search to look for other interesting posts
| RSS |  See all blog subscribe options |
 What is RSS? | |
| Yahoo! |
|
| Addthis |
|
| Bloglines |
|
| Newsletter | |
| Follow us on Twitter! |
Don't use this news to push for more infant circumcision. Circumcision is still surgery complete with risks and the boy may grow into a man that places value on his missing foreskin. Reducing the chance to catch HIV through vaginal sex is no justification for circumcising a newborn.