Male circumcision key in preventing HIV/AIDS – Health Consultant
Dr. Gloria Asare, a Public Health Consultant, has said male circumcision was one key area of HIV and AIDS prevention and appealed to families to circumcise their male children. She said circumcision could also help in the prevention of other sexually transmitted diseases and other infections.
Dr. Asare said this at the Western Regional dissemination forum for the National HIV and AIDS and Sexual Transmitted Infections Policy at Takoradi.
She said the foreskin of the penis could serve as a receptive tank for all manner of germs, bacteria and other harmful viruses and that it could also serve as breeding grounds for the HIV and AIDS virus and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Source: GNA
Cutting off penis parts does not curb HIV spread. Real world data shows no link between missing penis parts and HIV and AIDS prevention.
Some studies show that circumcised men pass HIV to partners at a higher rate and acquire STDs at a higher rate. A recent study from from Puerto Rico noted “Circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection.” In Africa following the circumcision push HIV rates are the same or have risen and cut men are getting HIV at a higher rate than men with ALL of their penis. For example The HIV prevalence rate among circumcised males between the ages of 15 and 49 in Zimbabwe is higher than that of the uncircumcised male” after the circumcision drive. In Uganda the HIV rate continues to rise after the the circumcision drive. from Puerto Rico “Circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection.”
The severe harm to sexual function and pleasure are ignored or downplayed by the penis parts removal pushers. The long term harm is huge with nerve damage and harm to the sensory system. It is estimated that from about 10000 to 100000 specialized nerve endings are cut with this WOUNDING.
The International Journal of Men’s Health published results of a study that showed circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to experience erectile dysfunction due to loss of sensitivity. In a further study, The British Journal of Urology International reports that circumcised men can experience up to a 75 percent reduction in sensitivity compared to men who are not circumcised.
The knowledge of the cut affecting sexual pleasure and function goes back years so there is NO IF as to SEXUAL HARM, it is a matter of HOW BAD IS IT for any particular guy. Maimonides (the Torah scholar) noted that the act that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. Kellogg declared a ‘war on masturbation’ at the end of the 19th century and advocated circumcision to curb male sexual urges by removing the main male pleasure parts.
Ghanaian men are *more* likely to have HIV if they’ve been circumcised:
1.4% of intact Ghanaian men have HIV
1.6% of circumcised Ghanaian men have HIV
(figures from measuredhs dot com)
Other countries where circumcised men are *more* likely to be HIV+ include Cameroon, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe. That’s at least seven African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised, and yet they’re promoting circumcision to prevent HIV. What will it take to stop this madness?
Europeans don’t circumcise, South Americans don’t circumcise, Australians and New Zealanders used to circumcise but stopped, most North Americans don’t circumcise. Why should Africans circumcise?
Africans should circumcise because it works to prevent diseases
as advertised. The American Association of Pediatrics did a 5 year
in depth study of all the research available over the last 15 years.
The found 231 studies showing reduced risk of STI’s.
Your data is simply wrong. Circumcision is the gift that keeps on giving lifelong health benefits.
Many professionals have criticized the studies claiming that circumcision reduces HIV transmission. They have various flaws. The absolute rate of HIV transmission reduction is only 1.3%, not the claimed 60%. Authorities that cite the studies have other agendas including political and financial. Research shows that circumcision causes physical, sexual, and psychological harm. This harm is ignored by circumcision advocates. Other methods to prevent HIV transmission (e.g., condoms and sterilizing medical instruments) are much more effective, much cheaper, and much less invasive.
While some dubious studies have claimed to find that circumcising men is followed by a somewhat less infection with HIV, there is NO evidence at all that cutting babies has the same effect.
“She said the foreskin of the penis could serve as a receptive tank for all manner of germs, bacteria and other harmful viruses and that it could also serve as breeding grounds for the HIV and AIDS virus and other sexually transmitted diseases.”
This is just nonsense, intended to demonize healthy male anatomy. If the foreskin every male is born with is all of this, how much more so must the corresponding part of a woman be! Cut them all off too?
Poor Ghanaian men! With foreskin gone, their penis tip becomes less sensitive and rough. This only reduces joy in lovemaking. In no way cutting off foreskin helps. Only good personal hygiene helps. Teaching young boys and men to daily clean their foreskin and penis will help them keep fine. Circumcision is costly, painful and useless for men community.
Only people against circumcision think the African studies are flawed.
Most researchers acknowledge they are valid. Cochrane does systematic reviews and finds them valid. Rigorous meta-analysis finds them valid. These are only a few of the many studies done over the years showing reduced risk of STI’s and other health benefits of circumcision. The mass circumcision in Africa is in fact working even
better than predicted — 70% reduction in HIV. That’s better than the
current flu vaccine.
As for the harm done by circumcision, there is no valid scientific
evidence showing that. Talk about questionable research and it’s what you would like to believe as true.
By denying the health benefits of circumcision you are doing
a disservice to the people who it has helped.
It’s long overdue that you acknowledge the health benefits of circumcision and stop trying to find reasons not to that don’t make sense.
John, you have to refrain from making stuff up. There have not been 231 studies and the AAP never referred to them. Instead the studies on STI and circumcision have overall failed to find that circumcision has a protective effect. In fact the overall incidence of getting an STI is higher in circumcised men. Do a literature search before you spout off.
It is only the people who are in favor of circumcision who believe the African studies are not flawed. That’s because they got paid to do the studies and as long as they design studies that are flawed to make circumcision look good they will get more money to do more studies. The studies have several fatal flaws, and the researchers know this. How can you tell: they say that to prevent HIV infection you need to wear a condom whether or not you are circumcised. If you always wear a condom, circumcision adds no benefit. So why cut off the most sensitive part of your penis if can get full protection with a condom?
The only people who make up stuff are those against circumcision.
Take a look at this table and you’ll see that the AAP included 231
articles about HIV/STI:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756/T2.expansion.html
In fact, you should read the whole report and not just their policy
statement. They did a good job of explaining exactly what evidence
they looked at and how they came to the conclusion they did:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.full
But sadly, no evidence, no matter how compelling will change your mind.
About your comment on condoms, nobody claims that circumcision is 100% effective at preventing HIV.
John,
It is a fact that in Zimbabwe HIV among circumcised males is higher than that of the uncircumcised males after the circumcision drive.
It is also a fact that In Uganda the HIV rate continues to rise after the the circumcision drive.
The 70% reduction in HIV you mention cannot be observed in any real population data. You aren’t talking about some reduction that the mostly circumcised US has compared to the mostly natural EU are you? (Natural EU has much lower HIV rate than cut US!)
The population data shows that cutting penis parts does not reduce HIV or any STD. And yes OF COURSE cutting off thousands of nerves and changing penile function results in harm to sexual function and pleasure. Are you going to share your VIAGRA?