Reuters: Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men

Reuters is reporting that circumcision does not protect against HIV in black and Latino men, consistent with the Sydney study, in the first media-wide reports on this new survey.

Unfortunately, the reporter can't resist repeating unproven speculation as to why an intact penis has been cited to be dangerous, citing unlikely methods of entry through "tears" during intercourse.

Link: Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men: study | Health | Reuters.

Comments

[Adrienne]

Remember the community discussion that was being conducted by the NY City Health Dept. earlier this year to see if at risk men would be interested in getting circumcised? I hope they will cease to solicit the procedure after this news.

[David]

That was a text book case of New York's DPH and in particular Thomas R. Frieden's poor execution of public health policy ... advocating without evidence, playing on cultural insecurities, and generally irresponsible and inappropriate interjection of personal preference and bias.

[SunkenShip]

Wooo, talk about a knockout. That should shut people up.

But it seems quite illogical to assert that circumcision has no role in HIV prevention in the US, but is a "silver bullet" in Africa. Something stinks.

[J]

I guess the reporter didn't see

Doctors believe circumcision protects men because of specialized cells in the foreskin of the penis, which is removed in the procedure. The foreskin is filled with immune cells called Langerhans cells, which are the immune system's sentinels and attach easily to viruses -- including HIV.

[Joe in CA]

Yeah, it seems people make it a concious decision to ignore reports like this as well...

[anon]

You forgot to mention the key point that this study was in men who have sex with men, whereas the African trials were in heterosexual men. Biologically, it makes complete sense that male circumcision protects against heterosexual transmission but not homosexual transmission, where most transmission occurs to the receptive partner, and his circumcision status is not relevant. It is nothing to do with US men vs African men. A foreskin is a foreskin.

[Joe in CA]

"Biologically, it makes complete sense that male circumcision protects against heterosexual transmission but not homosexual transmission..."

Where do you get your information, anon?

Male circumcision does not protect against heterosexual transmission. If this were the case, then circumcised heterosexual men, African, or American, would not contract the disease.

There are studies that claim that it MAY slow it down, but they are questionable for several different reasons. In fact, even if the studies were accurate, 40% of the circumcised men still contracted HIV. That's a very large number.

Biologically, it doesn't make sense that men would be born with a foreskin that would require its amputation for "protection." In fact, a current study shows that the Langerhans cells convicted by circumcision advocates as the "prime port of entry for HIV" actually help protect AGAINST it.

[Joe in CA]

The recent HIV studies do not correlate with reality.

All of the purporters of the recent African HIV studies seem to intentionally fail to mention other African countries where their "study" didn't correlate.

Such as, Kenya, Lesotho, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and, of course, the good ol' US of A.

What do these countries have in common? They all have soaring HIV epidemic, despite the fact that they already practice routine circumcision.

Biologically, it doesn't make sense that men would be born with an entire organ that begs its removal for "protection."

Medically, it doesn't make sense to preach circumcision as an "HIV prevention method" to a population that already circumcises but still manages to suffer an HIV epidemic.

Instead of focusing on finding an alibi for male routine genital mutilation, actual scientists could be developing a vaccine that protects against the HIV virus.

It makes no logical sense to focus on a "prevention method" that doesn't work (ie - foreskin amputation) for one that has. (HIV awareness and condom use)

[Adrienne]

Anon - You are right, devils are in the details. But this study included bisexuals, not just gay men: "We also found no protective benefit for a subset of black MSM (men who have sex with men) who also had recent sex with female partners." Granted it is still not an analysis that is comparable to the African studies, but it did examine the group most vulnerable to the disease in the US. Unlike in Africa, the most prevalent route of transmission here is not heterosexual sex. The NY City Health Dept. earlier this year addressed the gay community with the African findings, albeit admitting that no evidence exists that circumcision would reduce transmission in gay men. Now there is evidence that circumcision status does not matter in this population.

[SunkenShip]

This study specified that they studied men who had sex with women as well and guess what? Circumcision offered no benefit.