Foreskins A'OK after all.

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eric P

Member
edit: tinyurl

Men's circumcision status and women's risk of HIV acquisition in Zimbabwe and Uganda.

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND SOCIAL
AIDS. 21(13):1779-1789, August 20, 2007.
Turner, Abigail Norris a; Morrison, Charles S b; Padian, Nancy S c; Kaufman, Jay S a; Salata, Robert A d; Chipato, Tsungai e; Mmiro, Francis A f; Mugerwa, Roy D f; Behets, Frieda M a; Miller, William C a

Abstract:
Objective: To assess whether male circumcision of the primary sex partner is associated with women's risk of HIV.

Design: Data were analyzed from 4417 Ugandan and Zimbabwean women participating in a prospective study of hormonal contraception and HIV acquisition. Most were recruited from family planning clinics; some in Uganda were referred from higher-risk settings such as sexually transmitted disease clinics.

Methods: Using Cox proportional hazards models, time to HIV acquisition was compared for women with circumcised or uncircumcised primary partners. Possible misclassification of male circumcision was assessed using sensitivity analysis.

Results: At baseline, 74% reported uncircumcised primary partners, 22% had circumcised partners and 4% had partners of unknown circumcision status. Median follow-up was 23 months, during which 210 women acquired HIV (167, 34, and 9 women whose primary partners were uncircumcised, circumcised, or of unknown circumcision status, respectively). Although unadjusted analyses indicated that women with circumcised partners had lower HIV risk than those with uncircumcised partners, the protective effect disappeared after adjustment for other risk factors [hazard ratio (HR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-1.53]. Subgroup analyses suggested a non-significant protective effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition among Ugandan women referred from higher-risk settings: adjusted HR 0.16 (95% CI, 0.02-1.25) but little effect in Ugandans (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.72-2.47) or Zimbabweans (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.65-1.91) from family planning clinics.

Conclusions: After adjustment, male circumcision was not significantly associated with women's HIV risk. The potential protection offered by male circumcision for women recruited from high-risk settings warrants further investigation.

(C) 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Click to expand...
 
I thought the topic meant your foreskin was ok after some sort of trauma. I clicked on this thread all full of concern.
 
castle007 said:
A foreskin is a natural condom.

kthnx
Click to expand...
it is together with this:

387149.jpg
 
Conclusions: After adjustment, male circumcision was not significantly associated with women's HIV risk.
Click to expand...

I thought the benefit of circumcision was to reduce chances of men getting STD's such as HIV. So since that hasn't been dis proven then this article has no large significance for males.
 
border said:
This only covers HIV infection in women, where it doesn't seem to matter if an infected partner is circumcised or not.

Circumcised men are still 53% less likely to contract HIV from an infected partner. (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133721 ) This study does nothing to dispute that.
Click to expand...


How in the hell are they supposed to actually know that number? 53% less likely? Do they test out a guy with a circumcised penis vs. a guy not circumcised and expose them to the same infected partner? There have to be many other variables in play here. Statistics are BS.
 
border said:
What "other variables" account for a 50% gap in infection rate, in two different studies?
Click to expand...


Off the top of me head (no pun intended), how about how many times you're exposed to an infected partner? Example, what if a circumcised guy has been exposed to an infected partner only 2 times but the uncircumcised guy has been exposed 25 times? How can you possibly compare the two?
 
Wait a second, this is misleading. The big benefit to being circumcised is that it lessens the chances of the man getting HIV from a partner. This just says that "male circumcision was not significantly associated with women's HIV risk" without mentioning the chances of a circumcised male getting it from a woman.
 
Over a large enough sample group, that becomes insignificant......unless there is some reason that circumcised men would be having less sex, or be less likely to have sex with infected partners.
 
BobLoblaw said:
Wait a second, this is misleading. The big benefit to being circumcised is that it lessens the chances of the mangetting HIV from a partner. This just says that "male circumcision was not significantly associated with women's HIV risk" without mentioning the chances of a circumcised male getting it from a woman.
Click to expand...


Like I said, stats are all BS when it comes to health. You can't possibly have all the various factors equal to come up with a definite number. The only way you could do that is in a controlled testing environment and that's not possible with stuff like AIDS or cancer or any other health issue.
 
If it's all just a bunch of noise that's too variable and impossible to measure, then every study in the medical field would be seeing different results. But they don't -- results are replicated by separate tests.
 
Is it the end of the month already? I didn't realize it was time for the monthly foreskin discussion.
 
I think Mother Nature knows what's best, otherwise we'd all be born circumcised.

I don't see you snipping off your earlobes or the end of your tongue!
 
Manics said:
Like I said, stats are all BS when it comes to health. You can't possibly have all the various factors equal to come up with a definite number. The only way you could do that is in a controlled testing environment and that's not possible with stuff like AIDS or cancer or any other health issue.
Click to expand...
So smoking's A-OK too then?
 
Wii said:
I think Mother Nature knows what's best, otherwise we'd all be born circumcised.

I don't see you snipping off your earlobes or the end of your tongue!
Click to expand...

Or your appendix, or your cancer tumor etc.
 
Manics said:
Off the top of me head (no pun intended), how about how many times you're exposed to an infected partner? Example, what if a circumcised guy has been exposed to an infected partner only 2 times but the uncircumcised guy has been exposed 25 times? How can you possibly compare the two?
Click to expand...
By... taking the numbers into account?
 
Squirrel Killer said:
So smoking's A-OK too then?
Click to expand...


There's been FAR more smoking studies done. Also, those results aren't 100% accurate either based on environmental effects on individuals, diet, exercise etc. Individuals can also be less prone to contracting lung cancer for example than other person based on family history of it as well. So no study can tell you for a certainty that if you smoke you're X% more likely to develop cancer than someone who doesn't smoke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Most aesthetically pleasing computer of all time?
Opinion  2
84
3K
The Lunch Legend replied
One Battle After Another | Official Trailer | Leonardo DiCaprio | Benicio Del Toro
7
617
Ikutachi replied
The dire wolf has been (partially) resurrected from extinction after 10,000 years
2 3
106
4K
falling into hell replied
Salute to all Veterans today
9
493
IDKFA replied
Grummz drama after journalists discover his porn folder for article research
Drama Cringe  2 3
109
7K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Top Bottom