Circumcision of HIV+ males increases risk to women

[Steve Hayes]

Circumcision of HIV+ males increases risk to women http://su.pr/1rVic4

Some have advocated universal male circumcision because some studies have
shown that it could statistically reduce the rate of HIV transmission and Aids
infection.

But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be
counterproductive.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Martin]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:02:45 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Circumcision of HIV+ males increases risk to women http://su.pr/1rVic4
>
>Some have advocated universal male circumcision because some studies have
>shown that it could statistically reduce the rate of HIV transmission and Aids
>infection.
>
>But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be
>counterproductive.

Post this to alt.circumcision. Everyone there will be your friend for
life. :)
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>
5,305 days and counting...

[Peter Brooks]

On Jul 23, 7:02 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Circumcision of HIV+ males increases risk to womenhttp://su.pr/1rVic4

>
> Some have advocated universal male circumcision because some studies have
> shown that it could statistically reduce the rate of HIV transmission and Aids
> infection.
>
> But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be
> counterproductive.
>

It's a bad idea, the early studies have been shown to be flawed.
There's no justification for it at all.

[AGG]

"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jlrf659caid9ooglq...@4ax.com...

> Circumcision of HIV+ males increases risk to women http://su.pr/1rVic4
>
> Some have advocated universal male circumcision because some studies have
> shown that it could statistically reduce the rate of HIV transmission and
> Aids
> infection.
>
> But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be
> counterproductive.

***Your second paragraph is ludicrous. True, people are not statistics, but
everything in the world, including people, constitute a statistic of some
sort.

[Catherine Jefferson]

Steve Hayes wrote:

<snip>

> But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be
> counterproductive.

I'll leave discussions of the issue of circumcision and HIV to health
professionals, but "...people are not statistics..." is something we
need to repeat -- to ourselves and to our politicians, regardless of
which country we live in.

Under His mercy,

--
Catherine Jefferson <ar...@devsite.org>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>

[Moira de Swardt]

On Jul 23, 7:02 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Circumcision of HIV+ males increases risk to womenhttp://su.pr/1rVic4

The studies done, if I remember correctly, were done in groups where
infant circumcision is the (religious) norm. Again, if I remember
correctly, the studies showed only a marginal "improvement" (20% is
the figure I seem to recall) over the non-circumcised group. Even at
the time and amongst the small sample it was a theory that the
religious beliefs of the groups may have also played a role in the
lower percentage of HIV.

The only accurate way of preventing the spread of HIV is through the
threefold process of knowing one's HIV status, taking ARVs (reduce
viral load) if one is HIV positive and TO USE A CONDOM FOR EACH AND
EVERY SEX ACT NOT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO END IN PREGNANCY. (Even in
a monogamous marriage).

[Bodie]

"Peter Brooks" <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fcb85136-940e-4851...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...

Only certain studies.
Other studies support it.