Male Circumcision Ineffective in HIV Battle According to Future HIV Therapy Report

Salem-News.com called foul on the original reports that circumcision helped reduce HIV/AIDS in Africa, now our belief is proven.

A national and world movement to remove the practice of circumcision will likely be bolstered by this report.

(WEST LAFAYETTE, Indiana) - Promoting male circumcision in Africa is risky and dangerous and could lead to more HIV infections, warns a new paper published in the May issue of Future HIV Therapy.

Promoting circumcision will drain millions, possibly billions, of dollars away from more effective prevention strategies, and cause tens of thousands of infections and other surgical complications.

Promoting male circumcision in Africa is risky and dangerous and could lead to more HIV infections, warns a new paper published in the May issue of Future HIV Therapy.

Lead author Dr. Lawrence Green says, "Having served on both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Community Preventive Services Task Force, which do systematic reviews of research to arrive at government-supported evidence-based guidelines for practice, I believe the African studies on the basis of which some are promoting circumcision as HIV prevention would be classified at best as 'insufficient evidence’ by both panels."

"Promoting circumcision will drain millions, possibly billions, of dollars away from more effective prevention strategies," cautions co-author John Travis, MD, "and cause tens of thousands of infections and other surgical complications, further straining an already overwhelmed healthcare system and undermining the current ABC (abstinence, be faithful, and use condoms) campaigns by creating a false sense of immunity and increasing risk-taking behaviors. African males are already lining up to be circumcised, believing that they will no longer need to wear condoms, and this is a serious concern."

Travis says, "The African studies were conducted in atypically sanitary clinics with highly skilled operators and cannot be extrapolated to the general population. The studies have been criticized for their poor science including: the men were paid to be circumcised, received free condoms and extensive education, and the studies were halted after only 21 to 24 month periods."

During the course of these studies, 77 fewer circumcised than uncircumcised males contracted HIV, however, the circumcised group needed to refrain from sex to recoup from surgery, and they were receiving extensive monitoring and counseling about sexual behavior. Also, hundreds of study participants were lost to follow-up.

"There is not enough evidence to conclude circumcision would offer any real long-term benefit in the HIV battle. Even if circumcision did reduce the risk of HIV infections, condoms and safe-sex practices are still far more effective. If an individual is engaging in high-risk behavior, he and his partner are at risk, regardless of whether he is circumcised or not."

The paper also cautions against neonatal circumcision for HIV prevention, stating it is unethical to circumcise an infant for a possible benefit 15–20 years later, if at all, to reduce the risk of contracting an adult-acquired disease for which there are far more effective prevention strategies available.

Circumcision proponents, hailing from English-speaking countries, have been intensely lobbying world health agencies to adopt male circumcision as an additional HIV-prevention tool based on the release of three African randomized clinical trials reporting reduced HIV infections during their study periods.

Many sources of data contradict the claim that circumcision protects against HIV. The United States has one of the highest rates of circumcision and HIV infection in the developed world. European nations, which rarely practice circumcision, have very low rates of HIV. Numerous regions in Africa show higher rates of HIV in circumcised populations compared to uncircumcised populations.

For example, 2004 data from Lesotho show HIV infection of 15 percent for uncircumcised males and 23 percent for circumcised males. A 2007 study showed that, once commercial sex worker patterns were taken into consideration, circumcision status was irrelevant in HIV infection rates.

Source: Dan Bollinger/International Coalition for Genital Integrity

Salem-News.com called this idea of circumcision reducing AIDS into question with this article on January 15th, 2008: Is Circumcision Another Form of Genital Mutilation?

Dispatches From Afghanistan

Salem-News.com Top Stories
Op Ed: 'Econ 101' Corrupted By Corporate Design Kills Demo-Dreams

---

Celebrating the Independence Holiday as National Prisoners

---

Depression in U.S. is Looming: What are People Going to Do?

---

Long, Hard Job Ahead for Wildland Firefighters in California

---

Iraqi Criminals Receive Chance to Start New Lives

---

For those interested in the full text on which this story was based, it can be found here: http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193

The famous "60% reduction in HIV" amounted to a total of, as the story says, 77 fewer men with HIV - out of 10,900 men who entered the trials. That's nearly 5,500 circumcisions to prevent (or delay) 77 cases. It's hard to believe a proper cost-benefit analysis was done (counting ALL the costs) before the policy was decided on. Several times more circumcised men dropped out of the studies, their HIV status unknown, than the total of men known to have HIV - enough to completely nullify the results. If you'd undergone a painful and marking operation to prevent HIV, and then learnt you had it (and they were encouraged to get tested separately), wouldn't you feel pretty sour towards the scientists who had done that to you? So those men would be more likely to drop out than others. Two different methods of circumcision were used in the trials, one removing much more mucosa than the other - yet the "reduction" in HIV was the same. Doesn't this make the elaborate theories, about how circumcision works to prevent HIV by removing mucosa, suspect? Non-sexual transmission, and the testimony of subjects with HIV that they hadn't had sex, was ignored, and non-sexual transmission is known to be important in Africa.

Circumcision has done nothing to prevent HIV/AIDS in the USA. HIV/AIDS is a behavioral issue, not an anatomy issue. Stop mutilating baby boys genitals.

This has GOT to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard...unless they are planning to surgically install permanent condoms with each circumcision, it just doesn't make any more sense than to say women who have undergone cosmetic surgery have fewer STDs. Wouldn't a manadory class, "CONDOMS; Uses and Effects" for all 10 to 14 year olds, be less expensive, pose fewer health risks, and involve the same counseling and monitoring as the circumcision study group ? Sigh... On the other hand, seriously botched circumcisions, or infections resulting in loss of the penis may be effective...

Name:

Enter the text from the image to confirm you are human.(Cookies are required)

HTML tags and certain characters are removed - (numbers, letters only or post may be cut short.) certain words are banned to stop spammers. All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.