There is not enough evidence to show that circumcision reduces the risk of AIDS in sex between men, researchers are reporting, even though previous studies in Africa have shown its pronounced benefit in reducing AIDS from heterosexual sex.“Over all, we’re not finding a protective effect associated with circumcision for gay and bisexual men,” said Gregorio A. Millett of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the lead author of a report that appears Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association.
The researchers based their conclusions on a review of 15 studies involving 53,567 gay and bisexual men in eight countries, including the United States, where nearly half of the 1.1 million people infected with the AIDS virus are men who have sex with men.
Circumcised men were 14 percent less likely to be infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, or H.I.V., than those who were uncircumcised, but the finding was not statistically significant, the researchers said.(NYT)
3 comments:
How offensive to even suggest that amputationof exquisite normal body parts is a way of fighting disease. Lack of body parts is the opposite of health.
I dismiss these efforts in the same way I dismiss the conclusive findings that African victims of female genital cutting were less likely to have AIDS.
In the US, most of the men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. Clearly circumcision does not prevent AIDS.
What circumcision does is excise half of the sensual pleasure-receptive nerve endings, take away the protection from drying and abrasion for the glans and mucosa, and eliminate the exquisite frictionless rolling/gliding mode of intimate interaction.
Foreskin feels REALLY good.
The studies that were conducted in Africa were a disgrace to science. Those of us with a background in the sciences saw very clearly how poorly executed and heavily biased they were.
yes foreskin is good but keep it clean
Post a Comment