Eight Times Fewer HIV Infections, but Circumcised Men Still Need Condoms
Circumcised men get eight times fewer HIV infections, a study of Indian men shows.
But men without foreskins shouldn't stop using condoms, warns Johns Hopkins researcher Steven J. Reynolds, MD, MPH.
"Condoms are still essential for HIV prevention," Reynolds tells WebMD. "You can't take this study and say, 'Oh, I don't need to use a condom, I'm circumcised.' And circumcision didn't protect against sexually transmitted diseases, which are also important in HIV transmission."
Reynolds presented the findings at this week's meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Reynolds' team studied some 2,300 sexually active men without HIV infection. All were sexually active -- in fact, they volunteered for the study when they came to STD clinics for treatment between 1993 and 2000. The men lived in Pune, India.
Circumcised men still got HIV, but they got it eight times less often than uncircumcised men. However, circumcision did not offer significant protection against herpes, syphilis, or gonorrhea. The findings confirm earlier reports from several African nations, although some of these reports find more protection against STDs.
Why is this study important? AIDS is poised to ravage India if prevention efforts fail. Many researchers predict an Africa-like scenario for the south Asian nation, says Kimberly Workowski, MD, associate professor of infectious diseases at Emory University in Atlanta.
"India is the next population to be devastated by HIV," Workowski says. "This study is not groundbreaking stuff. We've seen this data before. But it does confirm what we know from Africa."
Protection for Uncircumcised Men
Reynolds says that the foreskin may be particularly sensitive to HIV infection. That's because it's particularly thin-skinned. Just below the surface, the foreskin is rich in CD4+ T cells -- the type of cells HIV best loves to infect.
It probably isn't likely that many men will seek circumcision based on these findings, Reynolds admits. But he has another idea.
Drug companies are finally getting interested in finding virus-killing agents that can be safely applied to the vagina to protect against HIV infection. He suggests that these agents -- when, and if, they become available -- can be used to protect the foreskin.
Source: WebMD Medical News
October 09, 2003
I have to say that I agree with a lot of what Jracer has to say, but whatever the study says, nothing should really replace safe sex and the study still confirmed that “circumcision didn't protect against sexually transmitted diseases, which are also important in HIV transmission."
Information like this can be damaging in countries where it’s very hard to get men to use condoms in the first place, now they’ll be going “I’m circumcised, I don’t need to wear them.
I have wondered myself that if doctors where salaried, thereby not being paid per circumcision, weather they would promote it as much as they do.
I have to say the study is not only tainted but endorsed by pro-circ groups and doctors. In the reality of the world only the USA practices routine circumcision and promotes it like cash back offers for new cars. Truth is over 80% of the world is not cut and this includes countries such as germany, france, england russia and india. I have to really question why nude statuary depicts a uncircumcised male even in the USA and crafted by an american? I also have to wonder why other countries that are as advanced as america shun the procedure or even have laws on the books banning the practice? (NO,UK, RU) These countries don't have a "marked" increase of HIV-1 infections nor do they recommend circumcision as a means of reducing the chances of infection. Here in the midwest USA the circumcision rate is still around 80% while no formal control group exists I would believe the rate of HIV infections remains a constant throughout the groups of gays/straights cut and uncut.
To date no formal hard evidence exists that can prove or disprove the incidences of HIV infections nor has there been a real formal study, only opinions of various doctors who group small numbers of people into categories as a means of a study. To be blunt no hard evidence exists.
Now as a midwesterner who barred the doctor from circumcising my only son I can only wonder why other parents allow doctors to misinform them about circumcision. Whos body is it anyway? Sure isn't mine. As stated my son is intact, all 3 nephews are intact and doing quite well along with perhaps millions of other boys in the USA alone who are intact. Yes I'm anti-circ and for good reason, I was cut and also know the reasons behind it according to my parents... It was done just becasue everyone else was.
I studied human sexuality in collage and over time I have learned the real reason for the propaganda and half hearted studies. Its money in the doctors pockets and nothing less. Question that? Ask my mother who is a MD in pediatric medicine.
JR
MSEE
i agree with u naddy, u need to understand everything u can about a problem to try to solve it, almost every little detail can help .....
.. what i dont like is when these studies are misenterpretated either by people who take them too litterally, lack of understanding before judging, or by organizations that purposely take a one line quote from the study to instill fear or to support their opinion... like i bet if u go to some pro circumscision website they try to coerce parents by saying "CIRCUMSCISION WILL PREVENT YOUR BABY FROM GETTING AIDS ACT NOW".... that kind of stuff annoys me..... happens all the time.... this food will prevent this cancer, carbs are the devil, bla bla....
I disagree!
The things with research is the more you know about every little aspect of a disease, the closer you can come to a better prevention or a cure.
And although this might seem like a pointless study, who knows what was actually being done but this result became apparent. And personally, I think it's good to know what risk factors are for different things that I might be exposed to.
Just my thoughts ;)
I totally agree with mike. I just hope this is by-product information and not money spent that could be put toward a cure or prevention.
It amazes me that time, energy and money are wasted on studies such as these. After all, why would we want to put all of those towards education, providing condoms, or *gasp* finding a cure/prevention, when we can say "if you aren't circumcised and have unprotected sex you have a slightly greater chance of getting HIV." (this forum needs a good rolleyes smilie here)