Circumcision May Reduce HIV Risk for Some Men

The Center for Disease Control is considering new recommendations promoting circumcision for newborn boys. The news comes after a study in Africa showed that circumcised men are less likely to contract H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. The CDC may also recommend the procedure for adult men who are at high risk of developing the virus.

The study, conducted in Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda, showed that circumcision cut men’s risk of contracting H.I.V. by 50%. However doctors acknowledge that promoting the procedure would not have as dramatic an impact in the United States as circumcision does not seem to reduce the risk for men who have sex with men, the highest risk group in the United States.

Circumcision rates have dropped in recent years from 80% in the 1940s to 65% in 1999, and the American Academy of Pediatrics no longer considers the procedure “essential to the child’s current well-being.” However the Academy is considering revising its opinion to be more favorable of the operation.

While some individuals oppose the new recommendations saying that the surgery is unnecessary and the benefits dubious, doctors like Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of H.I.V./AIDS prevention at the CDC, say that anything that could slow the spread of H.I.V. should be seriously considered.

“We have a significant H.I.V. epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,” says Dr. Kilmarx. “What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

AUTHOR: Kristina Canizares

3 Responses to “Circumcision May Reduce HIV Risk for Some Men”

Posted by PJ on September 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Another African study found that male circumcision increases the risk of women acquiring HIV by 50%, the same risk that questionable African studies showed circumcision reduces the risk for men. (See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6717872.ece ) It appears that the CDC is not very concerned about women!

The U.S. , with nearly 80 percent of adult males already circumcised and with one of the highest HIV rates in the Western world, already has proof that circumcision does not prevent HIV here. The CDC appears to be more concerned with promoting a religious point of view than it is with using common sense.

The CDC at its meeting in Atlanta ridiculed and demeaned the 80 percent of males worldwide who are intact with its offensive slide by Operation Abraham’s Dr. Inon Schenker which portrayed an intact male as an elephant. (Ask the CDC about that!) The Israeli group Operation Abraham and the CDC owe all normal, natural, intact males an apology for their offensive slide!!! Sexually mutilated genitals are not the norm worldwide, and the practice of circumcision is rightfully rejected by Christianity.

Posted by Mark Lyndon on September 2nd, 2009 at 3:05 PM

In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they’re Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI’s including HIV.

Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Cameroon, the HIV rate is 4.1% among circumcised men, but only 1.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.

Posted by Frank OHara on September 4th, 2009 at 6:26 AM

The researchers of the African studies claim a similar efficacy to the polio vaccine that eliminated the disease from the American populace in less than a single generation. The difference is that the polio virus was well established in the population. With 80% of adult American males “vaccinated” via circumcision, the virus has still become well established. This is prima facie evidence that male circumcision is a worthless intervention against the disease and does not have any significant effect on the virus. If male circumcision were an effective intervention, there would be stark differences in infections between circumcised and non-circumcised. These differences are not observed anywhere in the world.

The studies are not only flawed and false, they are apparently intentionally deceptive. Both of the main motivators of this scam and campaign have a history or rabidly promoting male circumcision. They along with Dr. Kilmarx are also epidemologists and know the claims they make can not possibly be true.