On the flip side, if you are an African male engaged in heterosexual sex in Africa, particularly without a condom - then you'll probably want to get a circumcision to reduce the chance of picking up the HIV virus. The studies they've performed on this were so dramatic they had to cancel them, as it was considered unethical in the face of such obvious benefits to leave subjects uncircumcised.
"The resurgence of this meme is based on three recent and incomplete studies, which were done in Africa partly because the ethics committees in other parts of the world would not approve. Only one of these studies (Auverts, 2006) was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal.
` The researchers used an HIV antibody test, which only gives results from three months since the last exposure. However, they did not wait long enough to administer the test, so that many of the HIV cases they detected had been contracted before the study had started.
` Also, the duration of the experiment started when half of the volunteers were circumcised at random. While the intact men went off to have sex, the circumcised group had to wait four to six weeks, as they were in too much pain for intercourse.
` Also, they had to come back to the clinic twice more to make sure they were healing properly, where they got additional safe sex counseling and condoms. Not only that, but this study also did not control for blood exposure or homosexual intercourse.
` Based on this dubious data, the conclusion is that heterosexual men are 60% less likely to catch HIV from infected females with each exposure. And how was this determined?
"As Geisheker explains it, this study showed a very low incidence of HIV in the intact subjects, and a slightly lower incidence in circumcised subjects. It's like comparing 1.5% versus 1%, and declaring that there's a huge difference between the two.
` So, the 60% rate is relative, not absolute. If this were a vaccine, it wouldn't be considered very effective. And the Gates Foundation is funding this.
"There has long been plenty of evidence against this connection, even for adult men who might want to protect themselves from HIV in Africa. Even worse, some of these men believe they are protected from HIV and don't necessarily need a condom at all.
` On top of that, this newest wave is inspiring journalists and even some doctors to spin fanciful tales that these African studies justify doing circumcision to infants living in quite different conditions in the U.S..
` There is also evidence in industrialized cultures that circumcision does not decrease HIV transmission, simply because the U.S. has both the highest circumcision rate and highest HIV incidence of any industrialized nation."
All I can say is that for some reason, the people who've done meta-analysis and further review of these studies haven't considered them debunked. And if there is a conspiracy to remove the foreskin, then the CDC is in on it as well. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcis...
A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and
heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [12]. It included 19
cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A
substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted,
along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding
factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in
circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients
at STD clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.
I would think the first thing a person doing the analysis of HIV acquisition would do would be to verify similar number (and class, length, etc..) of sexual contacts during the study period.
But, at a meta-level, this is why Anti-Vaxxers are so prevalent - with a bit of effort, you can debunk, or argue against any scientific finding. Once that happens, people basically just tend to go with their preconceptions.
Heh, one of the first paragraphs in your link gives a hint to why the good doctors changed their minds:
"The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it."
I wonder if they've done any studies of the impact of circumcision on condom use. In my own experience (circumcised at 31 for medical reasons), post-circumcision I experienced a dramatic reduction in sensation when having sex with a condom on. This isn't really a problem for me, as I'm married, but I could imagine it really disincentivising condom use for people who have more casual relationships.
It was quite an eye-opener for me - previously I'd wondered why people considered condomless sex such a big deal: I preferred it, but it wasn't some earth-shattering difference.
Well, to be clear, the author is claiming there are weaknesses in the study. And, given they have a pretty solid bias, I'd take their assessment with a grain of salt.
Not saying they are wrong, just that I wouldn't accept their analysis unchallenged.
On the flip side, if you are an African male engaged in heterosexual sex in Africa, particularly without a condom - then you'll probably want to get a circumcision to reduce the chance of picking up the HIV virus. The studies they've performed on this were so dramatic they had to cancel them, as it was considered unethical in the face of such obvious benefits to leave subjects uncircumcised.
But note, the United States is not Africa.