HIV still killing people

[Professur]

HIV circumcision study ends early

Condoms are still necessary to stop the spread of HIV

Circumcising men who already have HIV does not protect their female partners from the virus, a study in Uganda has found.

Circumcision is known to protect men from acquiring HIV.

But the research, from the Lancet, showed no benefit in those who already had the virus and was stopped early because of the continued risk to women.

Experts say HIV-positive men should still be offered circumcision, but also warned to use condoms.

The US researchers, from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, say not offering the procedure to men with HIV would stigmatise them.

Other experts say it could become a "sign" of whether a man was HIV positive or not.

Healing

Previous research had suggested women could be protected from HIV if their partner was circumcised.

In this study, 922 uncircumcised, HIV-infected, asymptomatic men aged 15-49 years with HIV were enrolled in the Rakai district of Uganda.

Men were then selected to have immediate circumcision (474 men) or to be given circumcision after two years (448 men).

Almost 170 uninfected female partners of the men were also enrolled, and followed up at six, 12, and 24 months.

However, the trial was ended early because of what the researchers called the "futility" of carrying on, and the second group were not circumcised.

Only 92 couples in the immediate circumcision group and 67 in the control group were included in the final analysis.

It was found that a higher proportion of women were infected with HIV in the intervention group (18%) versus the control group (12%).

The researchers suggest the higher transmission rate could have been due to couples resuming their sex lives before the circumcision would have properly healed.

Abstinence

Writing in the Lancet, the team led by Dr Maria Wawer said: "Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months; longer-term effects could not be assessed."

They said it was not sensible to recommend men with HIV should not be circumcised, or that there should be any down-scaling of circumcision programmes, because of the overall benefits to both uninfected men and to women.

But they added: "It's inevitable that men who are infected with HIV will also require to be circumcised, partly to avoid stigmatisation.

"The findings suggest that strict adherence to sexual abstinence during wound healing, and continuous condom use thereafter must be strongly promoted when HIV-infected men receive circumcision."

They suggest a solution would be to circumcise as early as possible.

"Circumcising infants and young boys before their sexual debut would mitigate the challenge of male circumcision in HIV-infected men.

"However, this strategy would require careful consideration of issues relating to parental consent and the minor's consent."

In an editorial in the journal, a team from the University of Washington in Seattle, led by Dr Jared Baeten said the findings should not "hinder" the use of circumcision in HIV prevention programmes.

Victoria Sheard of the UK's Terrence Higgins Trust, said: "Circumcision is most often used as an HIV prevention tool in the developing world, where it can be difficult to get hold of condoms.

"However, it shouldn't be seen as a stand-alone strategy.

"Women are disproportionately affected by HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, and - as this study shows - will still be at risk whether their partners are circumcised or not.

"The best way to guard against HIV is by always using a condom, so more work is needed to ensure adequate protection is available for those who need it the most."

No, the best way to guard against HIV .... is to keep your pants up.

source

 

[MrBishop]

Circumcision as a proof against an STD?

Never have any form of sex..stay a virgin until death will protect you from stds, sure...but is that really living? It won't help against HIV and other blood-borne diseases unless you can avoid the other forms of transmissions including regular transfusions.

If, on the other hand, neither you nor your partner can guarantee virginity, monogamy and health, then condoms are the best way to go (at least to protect against sexual-contact transmission of HIV).

 

[Gato_Solo]

Circumcision as a proof against an STD?

Never have any form of sex..stay a virgin until death will protect you from stds, sure...but is that really living?

For quite some time it was. You can now commence to saying abstinence doesn't work.

It won't help against HIV and other blood-borne diseases unless you can avoid the other forms of transmissions including regular transfusions.

Most folks don't get blood transfusions. Also...blood, and blood donors, are screened to prevent just such an occurence these days.

If, on the other hand, neither you nor your partner can guarantee virginity, monogamy and health, then condoms are the best way to go (at least to protect against sexual-contact transmission of HIV).

If you cannot guarantee monogamy, then why are you banging said partner, anyway? If either you, or said partner, cannot be trusted, then you do not need to be with them. Kick him/her to the curb, get checked at your nearest clinic, and move on.

 

[MrBishop]

For quite some time it was. You can now commence to saying abstinence doesn't work.

Absitnance works 100% of the time...until it doesn't, and then you get a horrible failure rate. That's why I recommend condoms, and educating youths about the proper way to protect themselves from not only HIV, but a plethora of other STDs and unwanted pregnancy.

Most folks don't get blood transfusions. Also...blood, and blood donors, are screened to prevent just such an occurence these days.

Dialysis is fairly rare but still a factor, as are treatments such as chemotherapy which require more than a simple blood 'top-up'. Adult stem cells transplants are as bad as blood/tissue donations. I will agree that the screening process is far stronger than before, but incidents still happen.

If you cannot guarantee monogamy, then why are you banging said partner, anyway? If either you, or said partner, cannot be trusted, then you do not need to be with them. Kick him/her to the curb, get checked at your nearest clinic, and move on.

People tend to trust their partners right up until they're given a reason not to. ..at which point, it may very well be too late.

In my case, we both got tested and utilized condoms until the results were back and an alternative form of b/c was available....which has been discontinued on at least two occasions Currently back on the condom use until a tertiary and more..er..permanent method can be arranged.

Condoms are far more effective than the rhythm method, b/c pills, diaphragms, etc etc... against unwanted pregnancy AND provide the only form of physical barrier to boot.

In a fully monogamous relationship, the former if not the latter needs to be taken into effect.

 

[Professur]

People tend to trust their partners right up until they're given a reason not to. ..at which point, it may very well be too late.

Not just partners, and not just sex fit that bill

In my case, we both got tested and utilized condoms until the results were back and an alternative form of b/c was available....which has been discontinued on at least two occasions Currently back on the condom use until a tertiary and more..er..permanent method can be arranged.

A friend of mine at work recommended his urologist. Instead of sewing off the ends, he uses titanium staples. I'm still working up to it. That, and I'm still wading through the paperwork for having let my medicare card run out.

 

[MrBishop]

Not just partners, and not just sex fit that bill




A friend of mine at work recommended his urologist. Instead of sewing off the ends, he uses titanium staples. I'm still working up to it. That, and I'm still wading through the paperwork for having let my medicare card run out.

Yup yup... heard far too many stories about N.A. families, Gamblers Anon, AA etc etc... not to mention the nastier surprises out there.

Mine recommended laser surgery... cauterized while they cut instead of just pinching off the ends.

 

[Inkara1]

I'm trying to figure out just how circumcision is supposed to stop men from getting HIV. That makes no sense at all. It also makes no sense to think that if you've got HIV, whether there's foreskin or not would make a difference when you pump your woman full of HIV-laden jizz.

 

[Frodo]

I'm trying to figure out just how circumcision is supposed to stop men from getting HIV. That makes no sense at all. It also makes no sense to think that if you've got HIV, whether there's foreskin or not would make a difference when you pump your woman full of HIV-laden jizz.

Au contrair. I'll bet circumcision is very effective at preventing STDs....while you are recovering from the surgery!!!

 

[Professur]

because supposedly, it's not the semen that carries it, but the secretions from the glands at the base of the head.

 

[chcr]

For quite some time it was.

It's a popular misconception but in fact, even in societies where this attitude held sway, the population somehow managed to increase, didn't it?

 

[Gato_Solo]

It's a popular misconception but in fact, even in societies where this attitude held sway, the population somehow managed to increase, didn't it?

No, actually, it isn't. If the population increased/is increasing, then abstinence isn't being practiced...and if abstinence is practiced, you can't get an STD through sexual intercourse, because you are not, by definition, having sex.

 

[2minkey]

there's a huge difference between talking about it and living that way, right?

anyone like to discuss birth spacing in "primitive" societies? okay have fun.