Aids risk 'cut by circumcision'

[alivin]

This is medical so no innuendos,etc please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3570223.stm

6:1 is a huge percentage. wow

[Gomer]

This is medical so no innuendos,etc please.

In what direction are you expecting this discussion to go? Rather, what is the topic we are to discuss?

I guess what I am driving at, is while this is an interesting article, I don't see what sort of comments you are looking for. Is this just an FYI?

[alivin]

I just find it kind of interesting that such a huge difference of infection rates has gone un-noticed and this is the first positive thing I have heard related to cicumcision.
Also the other thread that lightly touches the subject,
http://www.techimo.com/forum/t105164.html

I would never want to really control what direction threads go but this is a bit of a serious subject, thats all.

[U-96]

It would be interesting to see if religious culture was a factor. If circumcision is prescribed in a particular faith, then perhaps that faith's moral guidelines could have as much to do with infection rates as circumcision itself.

[Mickwish]

I'm with U-96. There is no real reason I can think of to suggest male circumcision would decrease the risk for HIV transmission by itself. It may have more to do with the type of risk behaviours those who are circumcised engage in.

The "thin foreskin more susceptible to HIV" idea doesn't sound like scientific fact to me. HIV is in fact not particularly good at penetrating tissues - it really needs direct blood-to-blood contact to be efficient. So unless the foreskin is torn more in non-circumcised males, it is not likely to be a factor. And since the African transmission data are more likely to be due to heterosexual contact, this is unlikely, IMO. It may possibly be a factor in homosexual transmission, though.

I would surmise more about cultural beliefs and practices in circumcised males than anything else.

Cheers
Mick

[Epidemic]

Another thought Might include the lack of air to aids contact when the foreskin is in its relaxed position it might not kill the virus as effectively. Giving it more time to penetrate the skin surface.

What ya think?

That's what I was thinking Epidemic.
But you know the more I think about it, the whole thing is too strange.
I'm going to have to file this with the gay pigs and sheep, then wait to hear something else more substantial....

[Mickwish]

Originally posted by Epidemic
Another thought Might include the lack of air to aids contact when the foreskin is in its relaxed position it might not kill the virus as effectively. Giving it more time to penetrate the skin surface.

What ya think?

Epi, like I said, HIV won't penetrate skin. It's a very fragile virus, and needs to be transported within the white blood cells it survives in to be transmitted. That basically means blood to blood transfer. Which is why some sexual acts are MUCH more likely to transmit the virus.

Surreal, I think filing this with gay sheep makes good sense.

Cheers
Mick