This is what HIV educators are battling, and world-wide. The same kind of fear, irresponsibility and arrogance exists in India, China, even here to a lesser degree. You give these people an OUNCE of belief that some hocus pocus can cure/prevent HIV, and they jump on it.

So, you read that article. READ THIS ONE. Ask yourself how the subtle nuances of this preliminary study and its interpretation will be received by people who rape infant girls and go to witch doctors for cures. We are looking at a future where the entire continent of Africa will be politically destabilized by HIV death.

We can't afford this kind of irresponsibility.

You'll have 'cut' men feeling invincible and convincing their equally ignorant partners that they are safe, rather than taking the only REAL course of action that can protect them by avoiding promiscuous sex altogether and using a condom EVERY time they fail to do so.

Sure...but the same thing happens with condom use too. Should we hush up studies which suggest they're the most effective tool save abstinence against STDs? That would really learn those irresponsible young folks.

Same with those damn fools who go skiing. They should be denied medical treatment, because it only encourages them.

To get off my sarcastic high horse, I really don't see what the problem is with spreading this knowledge. Idiots may well take it for an invulnerability cure, but if so what, pray tell, could be said to them to prevent them being idiots anyway? They obviously don't listen to reason in the first place.

Their problems are caused more by ignorance, paranoia, and superstition than anything else, and I agree that it this becomes common knowledge it will contribute to the spread of AIDS, rather than a reduction due to the increased number of circumcisions.

Rubbish. I don't see how it will have any effect, especially when the medical workers who perform the operation explain that it's only a slight reduction rather than a guaranteed preventative measure. It's something to be used in combination with condoms and the rest, not as a single approach.

As for the ignorance and paranoia those will get cured in the plague. The ignorant will, eventually, die and those left will have some pretty clear evidence of what needs to be done to save themselves.

It's probably for the best anyway. Europe was saved from feudalism by the Black Death, maybe tribalism and the warlords will be banished by AIDS. We can only hope that some kind of silver lining hides behind this cloud.

"Should we hush up studies which suggest they're the most effective tool save abstinence against STDs?"

Funny that when abstinence is the topic how this conversation gets reversed. Supposedly it's a boon to the world to teach that unprotected sex with a circumcised penis gives you a chance of not getting HIV, but teaching that abstinence is 100% effective is somehow laughable.

I've yet to see anyone here provide any kind of perspective that argues this as meaning any damn thing at all. The fact remains that if the absence of a foreskin is what you are counting on, then you're already doomed. If you are using condoms, then the foreskin isn't an issue.

...what REALLY means something, and what you'll never hear, is the instances of HIV in those 80% that subsequently get circumcised. This study will be the cornerstone of idiotic blog arguments, regardless of whether or not ten times as many contract HIV after the study is over and they get their magic circumcision.

You give these ass-backwards, paranoid, and superstitious populations far too much credit, cacto.

Not really. I just know from the Indonesian sexual health and population control programs of the early 1960s that they were complete failures for the first decade or so, right down to the quite funny examples of villagers cutting the ends off US-made condoms so they'd fit. But their kids didn't make the same mistake.

I can't see any good reason why Africa will be any different when its governments actually get serious about the problems their citizens face.

Funny that when abstinence is the topic how this conversation gets reversed. Supposedly it's a boon to the world to teach that unprotected sex with a circumcised penis gives you a chance of not getting HIV, but teaching that abstinence is 100% effective is somehow laughable.

You'd have to admit abstinence is an extremely unnatural thing. It takes a great deal of ugliness of body or soul for a person to be abstinent without making a supreme effort of will. It's a cheaper and more efficient use of time to teach alternative methods that aren't 100% effective than something that is 100% effective but has no likelihood of widespread acceptance.

Speak to a prelate and they'll tell you their abstinence policies don't seem to be having much effect. The Anglicans in particular have sunk a lot of time and money into both abstinence and conventional programs and, from the figures, have concluded the second is the most effective. You only have to look at their PNG efforts to see how they've come to that conclusion.

But you're probably right, it's nature's way of weeding the stupid out of the gene pool, so we shouldn't even be sending them anti-retro-virus drugs in order to prolong the lives of the infected. It just gives them more time to infect others, right? Or is that the plan all along?

I gave up on conspiracies years ago. I honestly don't know what to do about Africa. The things the average person in Africa tolerates makes me want to shake them like a British nanny with a baby. Like most populations everywhere they need to grow up and yet they seem to refuse to do it. I don't know whether we're to blame for mothering/fathering them or they're to blame for letting us. But there should be limits to what we give them. Education, yes. But retrovirals to give peasant farmers a few more years where they can't work to support themselves and only spread their diseases further - what purpose does that serve? Our western fear of death should have no place in our aid programs. Good health is for those who can make best use of it, otherwise Tolstoy's right and it's just prolonging misery.

By the way, sorry Xythe for dragging this off-topic, but this is an interesting tangent in my view.

By the way, sorry Xythe for dragging this off-topic, but this is an interesting tangent in my view.

Not a problem Cacto, it's all rather interesting to me as well.

What I do not understand, how this medical study, that happens to shed some potential light on one of the worlds greatest menaces is a bad thing. Baker seems to feel the entire study is fruitless and a waste of time; thats how I'm reading him anyway.

Face it, no matter how anybody wants to juggle numbers, infer this and that hypothetically and/or philosophically, the fact remains that this study shows yet another potential enemy of HIV.

Now personally, I don't screw every pretty girl I see today as I did in my youth, simply because of my fear of HIV; condoms or no.

HIV is a threat to human kind, at least I see it that way and much of it is spread via every humans prime objective; simply to get laid and procreate. Guess what people, believe it or not, this medical study says that whether you use a condom or not, if you're circumcised, your chances of getting HIV/AIDs via heterosexual intercourse, are potentially 50% less.

Some of you have done a fine job of manipulating statistics to suit your needs, and bent the entire subject to another thesis. I never said, nor did anything in the report talk about circumcision as an alternative to condoms, in fact quite the contrary is true. What this article and report does say that medicine may have found another weapon in slowing down the spread of HIV.

These facts have nothing what so ever to do with how stupid people are, or what kind of sex they practice other than to say you may be less inclined to contract HIV/AIDS via heterosexual intercourse; nothing more, nothing less.

Now it seems to me as Baker would toss this study and its conclusions out the window as trash, and take to heart some philosophical debate over physical evidence. Me, I tend toward the empirical rather than the esoteric, and random thoughts of a thinker. After all, it's science that gives credence to the thinker.

This that and the next thing, emperical evidence shows that circumcised males, regaurdless of who they are, where they live, or what level of education they have, are potentially up to 50% less likely to contract HIV when screwing a woman....Period.

To me this seems a good thing. Its not uncommon for some people to turn a good thing into the bad, for whatever resons they may or may not have.

"Baker seems to feel the entire study is fruitless and a waste of time; thats how I'm reading him anyway."

Yep. You keep saying it is meaningful, but you refuse to say how it translates to saved lives. People who have unprotected sex won't dodge the bullet forever. You may get by for two years, but eventually the coin will land on the other side. Since you admit that this isn't 100% effective, you have to admit that people who use this as an answer will eventually be unlucky in the odds.

"What this article and report does say that medicine may have found another weapon in slowing down the spread of HIV."

• Unprotected sex is not a weapon against HIV.
• The only way your foreskin matters is if you are having unprotected sex.
• The only people who would feel empowered by this study are people who have unprotected sex.
• Individuals infect numerous others, that's the nature of the disease.
• If the study promotes *any* extra unprotected sex, it has caused an INCREASE in cases, not a decrease, as those 22 people who contracted it pass it off to multiple partners.

Frankly Xythe, I don't think you know a damn thing about the disease, nor do I think anyone else here lauding this study does. I have daily contact with the phenomenon, how it works, how it is dealt with socially by the people who have it. I know how ignorance, myth, and self-delusion perpetuates this disease, and frankly anyone that hails circumcision as a "weapon" is perpetuating an environment that kills people.

If you tell people that cutting off their foreskin will make unprotected sex safer, you are killing people. Period. Any myth of safer unprotected sex is a HARM, not a help. I don't see the point in continuing a conversation with someone who would believe otherwise, because they just don't live in reality.

Yep. You keep saying it is meaningful, but you refuse to say how it translates to saved lives.

Why do I have to do this? I never read where I, or the original article said anything to do with people living or dieing, only that if one is circumcised, that you may be up to 50% more likely NOT TO CONTRACT HIV WHE SEXUALLY ACTIVE WITH A WOMAN. This is what is meaningful; potentially fewer people contracting HIV in this way. If lives are saved, all the better.

People who have unprotected sex won't dodge the bullet forever.

This article is not about unprotected sex, it's about a potential way to reduce HIV. I's a preliminary study, for which I feel certain will continue on. Once more is known, perhaps we can talk about lives being saved.

Like all other matters of this sort, education, prevention and treatment is what it takes to save lives.

Unprotected sex is not a weapon against HIV.

Nobody says that it is. Even protected sex does not prevent aids by a small percentage. But it does potentially reduce the likelyhood of contracting HIV.

The only way your foreskin matters is if you are having unprotected sex.

Yes, that is what the study is about; unprotected sex between man and woman.

The only people who would feel empowered by this study are people who have unprotected sex.

This is your speculation. With all due respect, I can't imagine how you know what the world finds as empowering. I personally find it emporering in that this study will continue on in some form, and may lead to further, more concrete conclusions.

Individuals infect numerous others, that's the nature of the disease.

Common knowledge.

If the study promotes *any* extra unprotected sex, it has caused an INCREASE in cases, not a decrease, as those 22 people who contracted it pass it off to multiple partners.

I dont see where it promotes anything of the like, but rather IF you do have unprotected sex between man and woman, then you may be potentially safer from contracting HIV.

Did you read this part?:

"Male circumcision alone cannot bring the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa under control. Even circumcised men can become infected, though their risk of doing so is much lower,” the journal cautioned in a commentary."

THIS IS WHAT THE STUDY SAYS!

Frankly Xythe, I don't think you know a damn thing about the disease, nor do I think anyone else here lauding this study does.

I'm not a medical professional, so my knowledge of the disease is limited to what I know from my own studies, and from several folks I have associated that are infected by HIV. The people that lauding this study are in fact medical researchers, and I'm certain they know enough about HIV to perform a study, and produce preliminary conclusions. You may know more than these people Baker, and really, you might look them up for employment. Some of them make damn good money.

The rest of this seems little more than some crusade as nobody is promoting unprotected sex anyplace in this article or in the original report itself.

""Male circumcision alone cannot bring the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa under control. Even circumcised men can become infected, though their risk of doing so is much lower,” the journal cautioned in a commentary." THIS IS WHAT THE STUDY SAYS"

People who thrive on hearsay and myth won't read the study. They'll just read your headline, or get it third-hand when it has turned into "You're immune if you are cut".

"I never read where I, or the original article said anything to do with people living or dieing, only that if one is circumcised, that you may be up to 50% more likely NOT TO CONTRACT HIV WHE SEXUALLY ACTIVE WITH A WOMAN."

...

"This article is not about unprotected sex, it's about a potential way to reduce HIV."

...

"Yes, that is what the study is about; unprotected sex between man and woman."

...

"The rest of this seems little more than some crusade as nobody is promoting unprotected sex anyplace in this article or in the original report itself."

'nuff said. You're just as conflicted and ignorant as the study itself, frankly. Every day doctors the doctors and workers in clinics that I am acquainted with mourn this kind of foolishness. BILLIONS of your tax dollars are going to go to treat people who believed they were safer with a cut penis. Thanks for this xythe, it's right up there with your Britney Goes Commando blog.

This just in: Study finds that less bullets in the gun makes russian roulette safer!!! Morons worldwide breath a sigh of relief and reschedule their roulette parties!!!

People who thrive on hearsay and myth won't read the study. They'll just read your headline, or get it third-hand when it has turned into "You're immune if you are cut".

Ahhhh, I see your point.

Is it really hearsay though? And I definately see your point on the second part "You're immune..."

Thanks for this xythe, it's right up there with your Britney Goes Commando blog.

I love you man *kiss*

Baker, you took a long time to get to the nut of the thing. Basically you are saying anything but abstinance is a death sentence, and that education on safer, but not 100% safe alternatives gives people a false sense of security.

Ok, so people are stupid. What else is new? But 100% of people are stupid? I dont think so. Is it always a waste to educate people? Or perhaps we can save one soul at a time.

I will not argue the point after posting my article today. I have grave doubts about most people. So I guess the rest of us get penalized for the majority of lemmings in the world.

And that I do not agree with. For that is just like a nanny law except it is a nanny knowledge statement.

What I read here is people seeing this from a 1:1 perspective. One person takes a risk, one person dies. Do the math and try to make the explosion in India, China, Africa work out with only a 1:1 infection. That's not how it works at all.

One person takes a risk, then they, being too ignorant or frightened to get tested, take the results of that risk home to their wife. Their marriage sours, they get divorced. A couple of years into their next marriage they don't feel well, go to the hospital and find out. The first wife has already passed it to her new husband through anal sex. The new wife has it, too, and has probably passed it to their newborn.

One mistake, NUMEROUS victims. That's also assuming that none of the effected partners don't have a partner or two on the side. If they do, then add the other innocent wives and ex-wives and kids and arresting officers and EMT personnel they pass it on to. Call it blown out of proportion, but it happens every day.

So the guy is sitting at the truck stop going over in his mind why he shouldn't worry about it, after all, it is only once. Oh, and anyway he heard that if you are circumcised you've got an even better chance of not getting it. He spins the cylinder and points the barrel at a lot of different people all at once.

There are people who have to tell the wives, ex-wives, kids, etc., of these people that they have HIV every day. I know them. What I am describing is first world infections, too. Now imagine the socio-economic problems in a place like my links above describe, and where this "study" was perpetrated.

No, telling the circumcised unprotected sex is safer than once thought is NOT a good thing to do. Period.

No, telling the circumcised unprotected sex is safer than once thought is NOT a good thing to do. Period.

I'm not entirely certain thats whats being done here Baker. It seems as whats being said is circumcised men MAY be better off than not being circumcised.

Imagine if you were circumcised and used a condom?

" It seems as whats being said is circumcised men MAY be better off than not being circumcised."

I don't see the word 'may'. The article you link says matter-of-factly:

"So if men were circumcised, fewer would become infected and thus could not infect their female partners."

How would that translate to someone trying to talk themselves into not worrying about unprotected sex? Do you think even tagging the word "potentially" in there is really going to negate the promotion of the idea that circumcised males don't have as much to worry about as the uncircumcised? Come on, this is going to go in the list of myths that in ten years we have to combat with sex education.

"Imagine if you were circumcised and used a condom?"

People who use condoms have a 1-2% chance of condoms failing, and the number of people who are actually exposed during the event, even when the other partner is HIV positive are a small fraction of that. Then take that infinitesimal number and divide it by half of those who might actually be protected by the absence of a foreskin.

Then, contrast that to the effects of a new myth that being circumcised will protect you. There are estimated to be 40 million people worldwide with HIV, many of which know what they have and continue to spread the disease. How do you see the harm/benefit balance falling?

I don't see the word 'may'. The article you link says matter-of-factly:

AAhhhh. Selective reading on your part. I suggest you re-read the titles of both my article and that of the main article itself. Then please let me know if you see the word MAY.

There are estimated to be 40 million people worldwide with HIV, many of which know what they have and continue to spread the disease.

Personally, Id like to see them all exterminated. To bad Im an actual human being. Because honestly, I do not care about these people at all. I look at them as being a public threat. Get rid of those 40 million, and the spead of HIV would seriously be reduced then..huh? Then the world can stop wasting its money on stupid studies such as this one that are nothing but "myths".

You should really consider taking a trip to Uganda and teach these folks all about sex education. Let me know how it turns out. Then we can talk myths some more.