Thu 29 Mar 2007
From the BBC:
Circumcision can cut the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 50%, results from two African trials show…. Dr Kevin De Cock, director of the HIV/Aids department of the World Health Organization told the BBC the results were a “significant scientific advance” but were not a magic bullet and would never replace existing prevention strategies.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Tee hee. Snicker.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Circumcision may help reduce risk, but I believe routine circumcision is extreme and unnecessary. There are other ways to reduce risk of HIV contraction that do not involve cutting off part of another person’s genitalia without his informed consent. If a boy wants to be circumcised when he’s of age, then it’s his body and his choice.
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Just out of curiosity - is this also true in countries that haven’t been decimated by AIDS/HIV? I mean, are they seeing the same results in say, Sweden (where circumcision is also not the norm)? Since this would have to be a correlational study - as they wouldn’t do a causal study with the HIV virus - how did they correct for other factors?
I’m thinking slapping on a condom still is a better protection - for both circumcised and intact boys (and their partners).
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
But yes… the name is extremely funny.
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Two studies were done–Kenya and Uganda. In the Kenya study, 2,784 HIV-negative, uncircumcised men were enrolled in 2002. Half were given immediate circumcisions, half were not. 22 contracted HIV in the circ’d group, 47 in the uncircumcised group. So it was not a matter of circumcised men having better access to education, as I had originally thought. Still, this has not changed my decision to forego circumcision for our boys. As Erin said, they can choose it later if that’s what they want.
http://parenting.ivillage.com/pregnancy/pbabyprep/0,,b10c3lw6,00.html