CIRCUMCISIONED MALES MORE LIKELY TO CONTRACT STD's
Intact
barrier against infection. That theory is born out by a new study from
the U.S. Army ... [which] found that circumcised males were 1.65 times
as likely to have the most common sexually transmitted disease there
is, Chlamydia." (Dean Edell, MD, San Francisco Chronicle, June 17,
1987)
Read all about it at
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/raw.htm
Winding Highway
>From: brol...@mail.com (Intact)
A classic case of delusionial fantasy -- in a world where, as a large and
growing body of evidence indicates, foreskins are a major risk factor for hiv
infection. But shrieking Brollocks will never acknoweldge it.
Brollocks is known here as a true fanatic, who long ago joined the reckless
gang who believe it is better to be sick or dead with a foreksin then alive and
well without one.
These people (notwithstanding their rote protestations about human rights, etc)
do not care a jot or a tittle about disease and death linked to foreskins, no
matter how many millions suffer and die. Their fetish for foreskins corrodes
their compassion and subverts their reason.
Winding Highway
>The vast majority of men who've been given
>the option choose to keep their foreskin and are satisfied that any extra
>risks they may incur are insignificant.
Im sure you are right, for men in most parts of the world (probably not for
countries like uncircumcised Botswana, were hiv infection rates run at 40
percent of the sexually active population). But you are correct that most men
do not believe they will get hiv -- including most of the tens of millions who
actually got it, or the millions more who will get it this year and next and in
the years and decades to come.
My point, however, was not about whether men accept their circumcision status.
Almost all men, cut or uncut, are quite happy about their status and never
give the matter a second thought. My point was that there is a particular
brand of fanatics who are in total denial of the large and growing body of
research evidence that foreskins provide a portal for hiv infection. A risk
factor that might involve millions or tens of millions of deaths should be of
sufficient concern to any decent human being that they would not dismiss the
research out of hand, surely? Yet some contributers here like Brolloks, Hugh
Young, Kenny Thomas, etc, are on record as rejecting outright any possiblity
that uncut men are at greater risk for hiv infection than cut men, no matter
what the research so far indicates, and no matter that much more research is
yet to be be done.
Their denial is on purely ideological grounds -- they dont want foreskins to be
involved, just because they are fixated on foreskins, therefore to them,
foreskins CANNOT be involved, no matter what the facts are. Try this thought
experiment: suppose research found exactly the same kind and quality of
evidence for some other factor -- say, too much dietary zinc -- do you really
think there would be such uproar and denial? Of course not: by now, there
would be major campaigns to warn the world about zinc in diet.
>you're exactly the same as
>him but on the other side, fanatic about removing foreskins rather than
>keeping them.
Hardly. I would not favor circumcision for a moment if I thought it
contributed to the spread of hiv. Only a fanatic, utterly conscienceless and
careless about human life, would do such a thing.
Briar Rabbit
>
>
> Hardly. I would not favor circumcision for a moment if I thought it
> contributed to the spread of hiv. Only a fanatic, utterly conscienceless and
> careless about human life, would do such a thing.
>
That describes a skin freak quite nicely I would say.
PBS Kids Go!
Yay! Remain intact for a healthier life. :-)
Briar Rabbit
There is only one certainty when it come to the skin freaks and that is
that you can never take what they say on face value.
Here are the facts:
"CONCLUSION: Uncircumcised men in the United States may be at increased
risk for gonorrhoea and syphilis, but chlamydia risk appears similar in
circumcised and uncircumcised men. Our results suggest that risk
estimates from cross sectional studies would be similar to cohort findings."
=========================
From the following study:
Circumcision and STD in the United States: cross sectional and cohort
analyses.
Diseker RA 3rd, Peterman TA, Kamb ML, Kent C, Zenilman JM, Douglas JM
Jr, Rhodes F, Iatesta M.
Kaiser Permanente Research Department, Nine Piedmont Center, 3495
Piedmont Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30305-1736, USA. robert....@kp.org
BACKGROUND: Male circumcision status has been shown to be associated
with sexually transmitted disease (STD) acquisition in some, but not
all, studies. Most studies have been cross sectional.
OBJECTIVES: We examined the association between circumcision status and
the prevalence and incidence of gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and syphilis.
METHODS: We analysed cross sectional and cohort study data from a
multicentre controlled trial in the United States. Between July 1993 and
September 1996, 2021 men visiting public inner city STD clinics in the
United States were examined by a clinician at enrolment and 1456 were
examined at follow up visits 6 and 12 months later. At each visit, men
had laboratory tests for gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and syphilis and were
examined for circumcision status. We used multiple logistic regression
to compare STD risk among circumcised and uncircumcised men adjusted for
potentially confounding factors.
RESULTS: Uncircumcised men were significantly more likely than
circumcised men to have gonorrhoea in the multivariate analyses,
adjusted for age, race, and site, in both the cross sectional (odds
ratio (OR), 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9 to 1.7) and in the
cohort analysis (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.6). There was no association
between lack of circumcision and chlamydia in either the cross sectional
(OR, 1.0; 95% CI 0.7-1.4) or the cohort analysis (OR, 0.9; 95% CI
0.5-1.5). The magnitude of association between lack of circumcision and
syphilis was similar in the cross sectional (OR, 1.4; 95% CI 0.6 to 3.3)
and cohort analysis (OR, 1.5; 95% CI 0.4 to 6.1).
CONCLUSION: Uncircumcised men in the United States may be at increased
risk for gonorrhoea and syphilis, but chlamydia risk appears similar in
circumcised and uncircumcised men. Our results suggest that risk
estimates from cross sectional studies would be similar to cohort findings.
More on circumcision at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unashamedly_procirc/