sort it out, if answers are really what you are looking for rather than assumptions.
Here is one relatively neutral website which offers basic information on circumcision
http://www.cirp.org where you can find the following on rates of HIV invections, as an example (from
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/ )
<snip>
Studies from developed countries
According to Laumann et al., data from the National Health and Social Life Survey in the United States indicate that, in 1992, of 1511 men surveyed who were between 18 and 59 years of age, 77 percent of U.S. born men were circumcised; this high percentage is unique among the industrialized nations.24
World Heath Organization data24 from 1995 show the following AIDS rates for that year:
Nation AIDS cases per 100,000 population
USA 16.0
Australia 4.5
Canada 3.8
France 3.5
Netherlands 3.1
United Kingdom 2.4
Germany 2.2
Sweden 2.0
Norway 1.6
New Zealand 1.2
Finland 0.9
Japan 0.2
The United States HIV incidence rate is 3.5 times higher than that of the closest advanced industrialized nation. Storms 28 and Nicoll 32 noted that the high incidence of male circumcision in the US did nothing to prevent the spread of this infection. Nicoll, in fact, states that "the US is the industrialized country most burdened with HIV."32
These observations should not necessarily lead us to conclude that circumcision increases HIV risk. However, it does suggest that attempts to control HIV by imposing mass circumcision on populations are unlikely to be successful.
Sociocultural confounding factors. Poland makes it clear that circumcision is not performed at random. Circumcision is a socio-cultural marker that may indicate wide differences in social and cultural practices among different groups and tribes. For example, circumcision incidence in the U.S. is lower among poor and Hispanic people.6 Circumcision (and, conversely, intactness) are socioeconomic indicators that may relate to differences in sexual behavior, hygienic behavior, and access to medical care. Failure to control for these confounding factors is a frequent source of error in such studies.
Circumcision changes sexual behavior. Circumcised men have a greater tendency to engage in riskier, "more highly elaborated" sexual practices.31 Such behavior includes unsafe sex (less frequent use of condoms, which deaden sensation even more for circumcised men; anal sex, or sex with multiple partners). This may contribute to the high rate of HIV infection in the United States, where circumcision rates are still of epidemic proportions.
Other factors. Hooykaas reported more STDs amongst circumcised men in the Netherlands.8 Pépin has identified pre-existing lesions from STDs as entry points for HIV.10
The protective effect of the natural anatomy
In 1982, Prakash and colleagues reported finding lytic material (lysozyme) in the sub-preputial wetness beneath the prepuce.1 Lysozyme is an enzyme secreted in human bodily fluids that acts to destroy bacteria, fungi, and other infectious agents. Bacteria are capable of producing lesions through which the HIV virus can enter the body. Lysozyme has long been known to destroy the cell walls of bacteria. Fleiss et al. have elaborated the natural protective properties of the prepuce. Compellingly, Lee-Huang and colleagues reported in 1999 that lysozyme is an effective agent for killing HIV directly in vitro.41 Hill has prepared a summary of the evidence for the hypothesis that the intact prepuce may offer a protective effect against HIV infection.
The effectiveness of lysozyme at destroying HIV in or on the body has not been tested. More research is needed to establish what direct protection, if any, is afforded by the lysozyme found in the subpreputial wetness of the anatomically complete penis as designed by nature.
Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe describe the immunological protections that the foreskin provides against infection.29 In another review, Van Howe found that men with circumcised penises were at statistically greater risk of acquiring HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis.32 This is consistent with the results of Dezzutti, who discovered that intact epithelium (skin and mucosa) is resistant to penetration by HIV.28 The possible role of circumcision in the high rate of HIV infection in the US needs further study.
Meta-analyses
de Vincenzi and Mertens found that the existing evidence did not control sufficiently for confounding factors concerning the relationship between circumcision and HIV infection.17 They warned that caution was necessary: Implementing surgery as a strategy for controlling the spread of AIDS was not recommended based on the existing evidence.
Van Howe also concluded that circumcision could not be recommended to prevent HIV infection.44 This conclusion was based on a statistical analysis of all of the data from multiple published studies. In fact, the analysis indicated that circumcised men had a slightly greater chance of contracting HIV.
Angus Nicoll of the British Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre recommended that circumcision should not be used to control HIV infection.32
<snip>
More information is available at sites like these which obviously have a particular view.
http://www.noharmm.org/http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/http://www.nocirc.org/Male Circumsion is, to my mind, a terrible practice. We are born the way we are because generations of evolution have given our form an advantage. To hack parts off without due cause, without anesthesia, and to do so without the consent of the person on whom the hacking is performed is barbaric. Of course this is my humble opinion.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
