Oh yes, lets just tell them to cut the tip of their dick off rather than provide them with the financial support or the drugs that they need.

On a more personal note, I am damn sick of these headlines that stigmatize uncircumcised men. Every couple of years theres always some study that says that circumcision is fantastic. Plus it is one study that has not been confirmed to be true in the United States. By the way some people talk you would think we were fucking lepers.

What's does the guy in the huge turtlneck have to do with ... oh, right, nevermind.

How does it stigmatize uncircumcized men? The idea is to prevent African men's need for financial support or drugs by, you know, keeping them from getting infected in the first place.

Forgive me for being skeptical, but how exactly does removing the foreskin lower the transmission rate? It's a blood borne virus.

Also, isn't a condom the best way? Other than, of course, abstinence(I'll give the fundies that small point). Just wondering...

Holding out? I'm anti-circumcision, but I'm not threatened by headlines like this. Okay, that's partly true. I am threatened by that headline because it's incomplete. It should include the word adult before circumcision. That's the problem.

Denying the science would be stupid and unproductive, specifically because it's not the issue. Applying this science to sexually-inactive infants and children is. Any adult man who feels that safe sex isn't sufficient can have himself circumcised and I won't care. When parents decide that it isn't sufficient for their children, that's when we move into the irrational and unethical. Their job is to educate their children, not cut them because it's easier. It's also not effective, because unsafe sex will catch up with them, circumcised or not.

Essentially, this announcement is compatible with his body, his rights.

Let's see

Risk of getting HIV with condom use-20%
(I think it's only 5% with perfect use)

Risk of getting HIV with circumcision- 50%

I think I'm sticking with condoms regardless of a boy's turtle or crew neck decision.

1. Tony, Red Queen, Mike and Brandon are my heroes as the mom of an intact 6 yr old.

2. From what I read at the FAQ site for nih http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/AMC12_QA.htm the men were "recruited" and "closely followed" during the two years of the study, and from Dan's initial link "were given safe sex advice" though "PRESUMEABLY (emphasis mine) did not take it."

What measureable data allows for THIS presumption yet does not allow for the presumption that being recruited, given advice, closely followed and retested regularly would not cause participants to modify their behavior to engage in safer sex whether they chose to be circumcised or not?

And the numbers of men who actually caught the virus: 22 of 1,093 circumcised men (.021%) vs. 47 of 1,391 uncircumcised men (.034%) If my math is right, we're talking about 1/100th of a percentage difference here. How can this be significant?

Until I see what the DSMB sees, I remain unconvinced.

Agree with Tony. Great if there's a way to further cut down on AIDS in Africa. Since superstition is the law of the land among the population hardest hit by AIDS, not to mention don't-trust-anything-that-deprives-you-of-skin-to-skin, hopefully this won't be seen as one more excuse not to use condoms.

cut, don't cut. whatever.
But is that Frankie from DAYS OF OUR LIVES?!?

I am mubatu from a small village in ethiopia. A few years ago, a white man wandered into my village and told me that, if I chop of the tip of my weiner, I will probably not catch aids. So I let him snip away. Then I ran through the village shouting at the women "I AM MUBATU, SUPERMAN WITH LARGE WIENER WHO CAN NEVER CATCH AIDS!" well, needless to say,I stuck my newly trimmed pole into every woman in the village. THe white man lied. I have aids now. LIAR!!

I am dr snipsdong and I have tried to introduce this in america as well. I put on my turtleneck, grabbed a pair of scissors, and wandered over to compton california to spread the word. The resident males were not very receptive to my message.

Meanwhile, lopping off a woman's breasts will probably significantly reduce her risk of breast cancer. Let's make that a standard preventative medical procedure for all women.

Let's also remove all male babies' prostate at birth too, while we're at it. That will put a stop to prostate cancer, won't it?

Meanwhile, lopping off a woman's breasts will probably significantly reduce her risk of breast cancer. Let's make that a standard preventative medical procedure for all women.

Let's also remove all male babies' prostate at birth too, while we're at it. That will put a stop to prostate cancer, won't it?

Tony, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Tony, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Circumcision isn't "chopping off the tip of a man's penis." That is false. When you say things like that, you are intentionally lying to your audience.

Perhaps you anti-circumcision people are having trouble relating (or should I say, even participating at the most basic level) in this debate because when pressed all you can do is run to the extreme end of the rhetoric spectrum.

Circumcision is a choice. For those of us in the first world, there are no benefits nor drawbacks to the procedure except in rare (did I say "rare"? I meant "incredibly, stupendously rare") circumstances. For those who do not have the procedure, there are few if any drawbacks (cleaning smegma isn't all that hard).

But there do seem to be real implications for opposition to circumcision in the 3rd world, and not one of you is taking that seriously. Instead, you're claiming that you, personally, are victimized by AIDS research; that your son's weenis is somehow holy for being uncut (really, lady: stop talking to strangers about your eight-year old's penis!); or that everyone else is part of a vast circumcicsion conspiracy, where we're all under mind-control by the evil professional medical establishment.

Why don't you get serious and actually address the issue? That "ooga-booga" post upthread is not serious engagement. Your collective back-slapping and ridiculous pronouncements, like "lopping off women's breats can protect them from breast cancer!" are enough to make me immediately gravitate away from whatever you're saying (which wasn't very good to begin with. Seriously, do you want to belittle breast cancer survivors like that? Why don't you make sure you actually have some higher ground to stand on before you try to tell me what to do with my body and my children's bodies?).

Long story short: you all have shown once again why most people don't listen to anti-circumcision voices. You lack focus, maturity, and tolerance. Rather than making a reasoned argument, based on facts, you choose to throw any and all allegations at an opponent, hoping something sticks.

Mike-

Check out the NY Times article and the link to the Q & A with the researchers. I am pasting a bit of their answer on the possible mechanism of prevention:

"The foreskin’s inner mucosal surface is more susceptible to HIV because it has more immune cells vulnerable to HIV infection than the external surface. Furthermore, the foreskin acts as a physical barrier, trapping HIV next to the mucosal surface of the penis for a longer period of time. In this moist environment, the virus can also survive longer, potentially increasing the risk of infection."

As a scientist and virologist, it sounds to me like these are very reasonable theories why circumcision might reduced transmission. In any event, the observation was that there was a difference.

And Amazonmidwife: You are correct that the counseling etc. that the men received might have induced them to be more careful. However, both the circumcision and control groups were given the same counseling, and you would expect it to have the same effect in either group. That is the very meaning of a controlled trial and why things are done this way. As for the numbers being small, yes they are. But in assessing the reduction in a RISK, what matters is the percentage change, not the absolute number. Cutting the risk in half is highly significant provided that the overall numbers in the trial are large enough to provide statistical significance.

I agree with Josh. Why is the uncircumcised crowd so flustered by this? An uncircumcised penis will hold more smegma and, presumably, more HIV-tainted bodily fluids. I suspect that's the source of the higher likelihood of contracting HIV. But there's nothing stigmatizing about uncircumcised penises. And why does this study have to be confirmed in the US? Do American penises function differently than African penises?

Certainly condom use is more effective than circumcision, but a parent must ask themselves, "do I want to do this procedure on my baby now, with its inherent risks but minor potential benefits, or leave it up to my son when he's an adult?" It's the same moral dilemma parents face when choosing to give their daughters the HPV vaccination at age 10 or 11.

Testing only 69 people who contracted HIV seems a bit of a small sample size to me. Furthermore, even if there was a correlation, who's to say that it's actually caused by being circumcised or not? What if, for example, uncircumcised men were more sexually active (or more sexually unsafe)? I'd say this study was inconclusive and I'm not sure how they can justify this hype.

I really don't know much about medicine ... so what are the merits of comparing the circumcision of an infant with the vaccination of a prepubescent child?

For the cost of circumcising a man you could hire an educator and distribute thousands of condoms. The lowest levels of HIV in the world are in europe where they have %2 circumcision rates and wide availability of education and condoms.

I think that the funds would be better spend elsewhere.

My issue is not with the effectiveness of circumcision and whether or not it should be implimented in 3rd world nations, my beef is with the headlines and how they are going to be used in 1st world countries as proof, once and for all, that you need to have your kid circumcised when that is not the case. (artlover makes a good point about the actual effectiveness). As for the contention that it circumcision is not cutting off the tip of your dick, well, thats a matter of perspective.

Josh: No, circumscision is NOT a choice in the USA, and that's the problem. The child has this surgical procedure performed on him without getting the chance to choose it. And I happen to know a number of men who do resent this imposition on their bodies, and are now undergoing foreskin restoration--a lenghty, difficult, and often unpleasant process. I am not against adult men deciding to get circumcised, but I do not think it should be done to someone without their consent.

As for the "lopping off breasts" comment, I don't see why it's so ridiculous. Having a mastectomy WOULD reduce a woman's chance of breast cancer, as there would be less tissue in which to potentially develop the cancer. (Similar to the logic of a foreskin causing greater risk due to "more immune cells vulnerable to HIV infection.") However, we recognize that breasts are a valuable bodypart and that surgical removal of them should be saved as a last resort, not a basic prevenative measure. Why is a foreskin different? Why would we consider it mutilation if the parents of a 14-year old girl had her undergo a mastectomy without her consent just on the basis that she "might" develop cancer, but we think it's okay to remove the foreskin without the consent of the boy?