Posted by admin in 
Washington (ChatterShmatter) - Researchers have found that circumcisions are a key tool in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and because of that, they may now become even more common.
Researchers from Uganda carried out their study on 5,000 adults from the country, and were led by Dr. Thomas Quinn of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The idea behind the study was to follow these men and see how circumcision would impact their risk of getting a STD.
What they found was very promising, as the circumcision procedure greatly reduced their risk of getting an infection. The risk for things such as the human papillomavirus (HPV) decreased by 35% for men who were circumcised.
Likewise, the risk of being infected with herpes dropped 28%.
This is positive news and may actually spark a push for higher circumcision rates all across the world.
The study has been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Interestingly, when you look at the raw data table in the study, there are some issues. While in Table 1, the rates of condom use were similar between the control group and intervention group (demonstrating good randomization), Table 2 of the study demonstrates that condom use was significantly greater in the intervention group (i.e. circumcision group) compared with the control group at 6 months(p<0.001). Without a plausible causal link between circumcision and increased condom use, the issue calls into question, for me, the validity of the results. The authors do state in their methods that “performed an adjustment for baseline characteristics using a Cox proportional-hazards model for the time to detection of HSV-2…” That is, they adjusted for baseline characteristics but not changes in sexual practices (e.g. condom use) in their primary analysis. They did do so in their secondary analysis, which is not presented in the results section of their article, or the online supplement. Interestingly, the Intervention group had lower rates of condom use at baseline, compared with the Control group. It is not clear how adjusting for that may have affected their conclusions. I would like to hear what the authors have to say about those adjustments, and would like to know what they think about the higher condom use at 6 months in men who were circumcised.
I think the story here is that some US medical professionals are so obsessed with trying to find a purpose for circumcision that they are fudging data and overestimating insignificant facts. This particular study was partially funded by our tax dollars and by Bill and Malinda Gates. Odd that this 20 -30 % change of risk, where cut men used condoms more and cut men certainly did not have sex some of the time is considered at all. In another Gates funded study HIV positive men and their wives showed CIRCUMCISED men were passing HIV to women at a higher rate. But that study was a dead end so they don’t talk about it. The end of course is to promote circumcision. In particular it is to widen the base in the USA. The US, due to the internet was slowly realizing that not only does circ not make you healthy, it can cause all sorts of problems. People also realized (and in the pre-internet days natural men did not talk about it) that circ removes about 20,000 fine touch nerve endings and the most sensitive part of the male genitals. It is like losing your lips or your fingertips. You may ask why do these people push this barbaric ritual as a health practice?
If you had advocated something, and done something to thousands and it was revealed as bad, it is a natural reaction to defend it. This also applies to men that have been cut. NO man wants to hear that there member somehow has a problem. This also applies to mothers that had their son cut. There is this huge body of resistance to natural in the US. People must recognize the obsession of the medical people. None of this data, if it was not cooked up (and it is at least indefinite as condoms, behavior, sex - they did not know everything) is worth ripping and chopping off a baby boys most sensitive part in a developed country that has good water.
Someone said this obsession and this push for mutilation is hate or anti male sexuality, I think it based on embarrassment and an obsession with trying to find a reason to do this amputation. Let us Americans at least ask the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Neonatal [male] Circumcision when they review the policy on circ to have at least one natural male doctor (Someone that knows first hand the joy of these body parts that are amputated) included in the review as well as at least some consideration for the function and make up (thousands of fine touch nerve endings) of these parts. That would be the minimum.
The real story is the obsession (as a UK med said on this story) of American circumcisers trying to keep the practice going in the USA. You see they have skin in this and they want the practice to continue, as otherwise they would be shown to be heinous genital mutilators.
A first New Zealand study found differences between of STI between circumcised and intact men a second much larger study found STI with the split 23.4% circ and 23.5% “uncircumcised”. If you look on the web the second big real study got little press. This Uganda study with the low % difference is all over the media. The 30% or whatever is from about 10% risk to about 8% risk. A recent US cohort study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases showed only the total number of lifetime sexual partners affected the risk of new (incident) HPV infections and there was no difference in the risk of new (incident) HPV between circumcised and natural men.
In May of 2008 a medical survey showed Uncircumcised (natural) Fared Better as Circumcision appeared to have an effect on rates of genital warts:
* 4 ½% of circumcised men reported having genital warts
* 2.4% of uncircumcised men reported having genital warts– again in the US.
How do they make such a big deal out of the Uganda Study? Don’t we have data that shows ripping and cutting baby genitals doesn’t avoid new HPV infections! Doesn’t the mostly cut USA have quite a bot of HPV?