The Truth about AIDS

[Tropical Joe]

There was never a consensus that circumcision reduces HIV risk until 3 random controlled studies were done in Africa that showed circumcised males are about 60% less likely to get AIDS. After those 3 studies were completed, the WHO stated that those 3 studies conclusively prove circumcision reduces HIV risk for males by about 60% heterosexually. Before then there were studies that showed circumcision reduces HIV risk, but there was never a consensus that those studies were conclusive proof because there are also dozens of studies that show circumcision does not reduce HIV risk, and in many parts of Africa circumcised males have higher HIV rates than uncircumcised males.

Circumcised males still have a lot of inner foreskin remnant left which contains Langerhans' cells. Also the head and shaft skin have a high concentration of Langerhans' cells. So cutting off Langerhans' cells by circumcision I don't think really can reduce HIV risk. The purpose of the Langerhans' cells is to detect invading viruses and bacteria so it can be killed, and according to some studies the Langerhans' cells help prevent HIV infection.

Circumcision cuts off the most highly innerverated parts of the penis. That's according to the Sorrells study, and according to Canadian doctor John Taylor who extensively studied the nerve endings of the penis. According to the Sorrells study circumcision cuts off the most sensitive parts of the penis. And according to Dr. John Taylor circumcision cuts off the most pleasurable parts of the penis. If circumcised males have a lot of inner foreskin remnant left they can see that the farther from the head the more pleasurable the inner is.

The U.S. donates a lot of money to the WHO. A lot of WHO officials and advisors are from the U.S. So maybe I'm wrong, but to my understanding the U.S. has a lot of influence over the WHO if not a lot of control over them.

[Clandestine782]

What's the world coming to when a fuck site has a discussion of meta-analysis? Amazing. LOL. Enjoy (safely)

Sorry about that. I have interests other than unshaved Asian vagina (particularly reading)-- and sometimes they seep through to the discussion site.

[Clandestine782]

Clandestine782,

Obviously I meant adult males who are circumcised are missing about 15 square inches of skin. According to condom companies the average circumference of males is about 5 inches. The average foreskin goes up and down about 3 inches. If a male doesn't believe that he can measure himself to see for himself that the foreskin is about 15 sq. inches. The only reason I brought that up is because I was trying to describe how much circumcised males are missing.

Well, no, it was not that obvious. In any case, we are getting way too technical here. Muslims/ Arabs/ Jews all circumcise their children, and I know that the former (at least) has NO problems with fertility. For that matter, Orthodox Jews also don't have any problems with fertility (look up birth rates in Israel or Kiryas Joel).

The claim that circumcision reduces hiv risk by 60% heterosexually is based just on 3 random controlled studies in Africa. The U.S. controlled WHO claims that those 3 studies conclusively prove that circumcision reduces HIV risk by about 60% for heterosexual males, and many medical organizations in the world just followed what the WHO said like sheep. The WHO though just ignored the fact that in at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males, and that dozens of studies show circumcision does not reduce HIV risk for heterosexual males. Also those 3 randomly controlled studies were done by pro-circumcision extremists, and the funding for those studies was donated to "prove" circumcision reduces HIV risk. A lot of things weren't taken into account with those 3 studies also that made the results inaccurate, to include that the circumcised males had to wait 6 weeks while their circumcision healed, where as the uncircumcised males did not have to wait. So I think those 3 randomly controlled studies are about as credible as if cigirette companies did studies to prove smoking is good for your health. So I don't believe the claim that circumcision reduces HIV risk for heterosexual males.

Can you prove any of this?

1. "There are only 3 studies." That is not true. Going to PubMed/Medline and entering in the words "HIV Circumcision," I get no less than 684 hits.

2. There is a mechanism to explain why HIV is more easily transmitted to circumcised men, and that is because they have Langerhans cells there, which are receptors of HIV virus. The fact that HIV is asymmetrically receptive to certain parts on the body is not news. I was reading the other day that the reason that anal sex is so dangerous is because there are some larger number of white blood cells around the anus and that (plus the tearing) makes it a dangerous place.

3. No, the WHO is not US controlled. Sorry. I know that you want to find a conspiracy here (it never ceases to amaze me how many nutballs there are with time to think up conspiracy theories). So, if the WHO declares anal sex to be dangerous, then is that also a conspiracy? Should men who like anal sex (either as pitcher of catcher) ignore those recommendations just because the WHO wrote them (and it MUST be a conspiracy that the US government is behind)?

4. The link to pubmed medline is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez. You can check for yourself.

5. "...nerve endings." Not sure what to think about this one. I know that male circumcision happens before puberty (way before puberty), and so I have a good idea that there is plenty of time for nerve regeneration. (I know this because I suffered third degree burns on both of my hands as an infant and had to have skin grafted from my hip to repair them.) The sensation on my hands is just fine. In any case, a small cut of circumcision is much less bad than 3rd degree burns.

[Tropical Joe]

We in "the West" practice circumcision on newborns, and the newborn boy's foreskin is much smaller than fifteen square inches.

Muslims practice adult circumcision - ouch!

The U.S. is the only country in the West where circumcising baby boys is common though. Circumcising baby boys also used to be common in Great Britian, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but it's not common in those countries any more. The infant male circumcision rate in the U.S. has dropped down to about 56% however. Claiming that circumcision reduces HIV risk is the U.S. medical community's latest attempt to justify, support, and to spread male circumcision. I don't believe that the U.S. medical community is honest about male circumcision though, so I don't trust anything they claim or say about it. Many U.S. doctors still tell parents that it's just a little snip, that he'll feel little or no pain, and give parents just one sided biased information, which shows how dishonest they are about circumcision.

[Westy]

FIFTEEN square inches? That is a piece of skin coming off a newborn child's penis that is FOUR INCHES ON ONE EDGE. I think that your value for the amount of how much circumcision takes off might be a bit off.

We in "the West" practice circumcision on newborns, and the newborn boy's foreskin is much smaller than fifteen square inches.

Muslims practice adult circumcision - ouch!

[Tropical Joe]

Clandestine782,

Obviously I meant adult males who are circumcised are missing about 15 square inches of skin. According to condom companies the average circumference of males is about 5 inches. The average foreskin goes up and down about 3 inches. If a male doesn't believe that he can measure himself to see for himself that the foreskin is about 15 sq. inches. The only reason I brought that up is because I was trying to describe how much circumcised males are missing.

The claim that circumcision reduces hiv risk by 60% heterosexually is based just on 3 random controlled studies in Africa. The U.S. controlled WHO claims that those 3 studies conclusively prove that circumcision reduces HIV risk by about 60% for heterosexual males, and many medical organizations in the world just followed what the WHO said like sheep. The WHO though just ignored the fact that in at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males, and that dozens of studies show circumcision does not reduce HIV risk for heterosexual males. Also those 3 randomly controlled studies were done by pro-circumcision extremists, and the funding for those studies was donated to "prove" circumcision reduces HIV risk. A lot of things weren't taken into account with those 3 studies also that made the results inaccurate, to include that the circumcised males had to wait 6 weeks while their circumcision healed, where as the uncircumcised males did not have to wait. So I think those 3 randomly controlled studies are about as credible as if cigirette companies did studies to prove smoking is good for your health. So I don't believe the claim that circumcision reduces HIV risk for heterosexual males.

[Zircon]

Ok, this is compared to how many that say that it DOES? This is where a metaanalysis would come in handy. (Since it happens that you can always find some number of studies that say the direct opposite of what is known/ thought to be true.) I guess we will have to wait until a metaanalysis is done to get a more conclusive answer.

FIFTEEN square inches? That is a piece of skin coming off a newborn child's penis that is FOUR INCHES ON ONE EDGE. I think that your value for the amount of how much circumcision takes off might be a bit off.

What's the world coming to when a fuck ite has a discussion of meta-analysis? Amazing. LOL. Enjoy (safely)

[Clandestine782]

That's why we need to be so careful when "entertaining" WGs. The odds of catching it increase tenfold.

and that's at the rate of 10% of your partners being infected. I suspect that the number of non IDU women infected in China is lower that that. If 1% of such women are infected, then that makes your numbers more like 1/100,000-1/200,000 (lower than the chance of dying in a car crash).

[Clandestine782]

At Http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html they list 20 reputable studies that show male circumcision does not reduce HIV risk, 4 of those studies show that male circumcision INCREASES HIV risk. In at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males. In the U.S. around 80% of adult males are circumcised, but the U.S. has the highest AIDS rate of any industrailized country in the world, and the U.S. has the highest STD rates of any industrailized country in the world according to the CDC. So there are also very strong evidences that circumcision does not reduce HIV risk. With organizations that claim it's evident that male circumcision reduces HIV risk, they are just cherry-picking evidences and misleading everyone.

Circumcised males are missing about 15 square inches of penile skin and around 20,000 erogenous nerve endings. So male circumcision does a lot of sexual damage, and it is controversial if male circumcision has any significant health benefits at all. Many medical organizations in the world state that male circumcision has little to no health benefits. Just read what different medical organizations around the world say about it.

Ok, this is compared to how many that say that it DOES? This is where a metaanalysis would come in handy. (Since it happens that you can always find some number of studies that say the direct opposite of what is known/ thought to be true.) I guess we will have to wait until a metaanalysis is done to get a more conclusive answer.

FIFTEEN square inches? That is a piece of skin coming off a newborn child's penis that is FOUR INCHES ON ONE EDGE. I think that your value for the amount of how much circumcision takes off might be a bit off.

[Clandestine782]

I thought this was interesting. I was doing some investigation on Google about STD prevalence in China, and so in order to find the most recent publications I did a restricted range of dates search (within the last year). The article that came up among the first page was this one.

I could not do a thorough back calculation on this, but a back of the envelope calculation goes like this:

1. 1,350 million people, 55% men. 742 million men.
2. Imagine that 50% of those men are sexually active. 371 million.
3. Now imagine that 3% of those men are MSMs. 9 million.
4. This article demonstrates that about 9% of the MSMs are infected. Assume that this percentage is constant over space. That works out to 810,000 infections in the whole country-- which is actually a few more than officially reported.

Article, below. http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fullte...th_Men.13.aspx

Objective: To assess the prevalence of HIV and selected sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Chengdu, China, and the risk factors associated with HIV infection.

Methods: A cross-sectional study using a snowball sampling method was conducted from March to July 2007. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire about sexual history, high-risk behaviors, STD infection history, HIV knowledge and testing, and an assessment of depression. Blood samples were taken for antibody testing for HIV, herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2), and syphilis.

Results: A total of 538 MSM were recruited, and 513 (95.4%) consented to complete the questionnaire. HIV, HSV-2, and syphilis prevalence were 9.1%, 24.7%, and 28.1%, respectively. The rate of consistent condom use was low and varied by types of sexual partners. The highest was with casual male partners (38.6%), and the lowest was with wife or girl friend (17.8%). Money boys were 6 times more likely to be infected with HIV compared with clerks/students. Infection with either HSV or syphilis increased the risk of HIV infection more than 4-fold.

Conclusions: The prevalences of HIV and STDs were high among MSM in Chengdu. To prevent HIV/STDs, campaigns promoting condom use are needed not only to boost the frequency of condom use but also to educate MSM about proper condom use.

I also noted in another article (http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Hig...ead_of_HIV.pdf) specifically about sex workers that 1.4% of them had HIV (and this is in Guangzhou--Africans all over the place-- and the average girl had been working for ONE YEAR at the rate of 7 clients per week), but that 6% of them had injected drugs before (THE BEST way to get HIV bar none).

Can it be that MSMs account for over 90% of all HIV infections in China and that straight men have a lower chance of getting infected through any heterosexual encounter than of dying in a bicycle crash? This gets even more likely if the assumption that 50% of men are sexually active is too low. If you go up to 75%, then the number of HIV infections that should exist is actually much greater than what the PRC government has even said.

Just some food for thought.

[Johnny Maldiva]

A Wall Street Journal article on AIDS reports that the chance of contracting HIV from random unprotected sex with non-IV drug using heterosexuals is "smaller than the risk of ever being struck by lightening."

Chance your partner was infected, say 10%. Chance you were infected if she has HIV, 1 in 1000 tops (probably closer to 1 in 2000). That makes your odds of having HIV 0.1 x 0. 001 = 0.0001. That's 1 in a 10,000.

About the same odds of bowling a 300 game or winning an academy award.

That's why we need to be so careful when "entertaining" WGs. The odds of catching it increase tenfold.

[Tropical Joe]

There is now very strong evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission from women to men by around 50%, which is enough to justify its promotion as an HIV prevention measure in some high-prevalence areas. However, studies of circumcision and HIV suggest that the procedure does not reduce the likelihood of male-to-female transmission, and the effect on male-to-male transmission is unknown.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/AMC12_QA.htm

There is the link if you want to read where this study was done or the technical aspects of it.

At Http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html they list 20 reputable studies that show male circumcision does not reduce HIV risk, 4 of those studies show that male circumcision INCREASES HIV risk. In at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males. In the U.S. around 80% of adult males are circumcised, but the U.S. has the highest AIDS rate of any industrailized country in the world, and the U.S. has the highest STD rates of any industrailized country in the world according to the CDC. So there are also very strong evidences that circumcision does not reduce HIV risk. With organizations that claim it's evident that male circumcision reduces HIV risk, they are just cherry-picking evidences and misleading everyone.

Circumcised males are missing about 15 square inches of penile skin and around 20,000 erogenous nerve endings. So male circumcision does a lot of sexual damage, and it is controversial if male circumcision has any significant health benefits at all. Many medical organizations in the world state that male circumcision has little to no health benefits. Just read what different medical organizations around the world say about it.

[Member #2041]

There is now very strong evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission from women to men by around 50%, which is enough to justify its promotion as an HIV prevention measure in some high-prevalence areas. However, studies of circumcision and HIV suggest that the procedure does not reduce the likelihood of male-to-female transmission, and the effect on male-to-male transmission is unknown.


http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/AMC12_QA.htm


There is the link if you want to read where this study was done or the technical aspects of it.

Comes down to the simple mechanics of who's pitching, and who's catching. The male is generally always passing bodily fluids along to the internals of the female. The female's bodily fluids only contact the surface of the male's skin, unless he has an open wound or sore. It's more difficult to contract HIV when it merely contacts your skin. Being circumcised means the fluids with the HIV are less likely to be trapped and maintain skin contact for lengthy periods of time, rather than be wiped off or killed by exposure to the air. Same is true with male gay sex - one individual is pitching, and one is catching - the risk is always greater for the catcher, but being uncircumcised would increase the risk for the pitcher in the same manner as it would in Hetero sex.

[Jon32]

There is now very strong evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission from women to men by around 50%, which is enough to justify its promotion as an HIV prevention measure in some high-prevalence areas. However, studies of circumcision and HIV suggest that the procedure does not reduce the likelihood of male-to-female transmission, and the effect on male-to-male transmission is unknown.


http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/AMC12_QA.htm


There is the link if you want to read where this study was done or the technical aspects of it.

[Jon32]

http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

10% of new hiv cases of men per year in 34 states is high risk heterosexual contact. (e.g. sex with needle drug users). Not sure how many prostitutes use needles, but it's probably a high percentage.