Circumcised men at twice the risk for cancer-causing HPV, study shows

Submitted by Mastodon on Fri, 2017-05-26 08:33

Article here. Excerpt:

'Circumcised men should be as vigilant in preventing oncogenic HPV infection as those who are uncircumcised, new research suggests.

Circumcised participants in a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association were twice as likely as their uncircumcised counterparts to have either of two HPV strains associated with penile cancer, researchers said. Their findings are not consistent with previous research.

“Classically, circumcision has been shown to be protective against HPV infection and ... we’re not completely sure why, but there was a higher rate of these higher-risk HPV infections in men who are circumcised,” study researcher Mickey Daugherty, MD, a urology resident at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University, told Infectious Disease News.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Skin is skin. Openings in the body are openings in the body. Viruses and bacteria enter the body through pores in the skin and openings in the body.

Circumcision doesn't stop skin from being exposed to viruses and bacteria during sex. It changes maybe what skin gets exposed, but skin nonetheless. As for openings in the body -- no change there.

Barrier protection, next to abstinence, is much more effective. Asking most ppl to abstain is useless. However educating re the importance of condoms is not. But the medical world is too entrenched with the foreskin use industries to actually just come out and say it. Between that and religious kooks meddling, the most effective and pragmatic way to prevent STD transmission is being largely ignored by the authorities in the best position to make the case.

And so it goes.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2017-05-27 01:59

Skin cells and bacteria and viruses exposure is quite complex. For the most part, viruses enter thru a cell's protein membrane in what can best be described as a "lock and key" like mechanism. Molecules in the cell membrane form a shape that acts like a "lock" and molecules on the virus act as a "key" (think of jigsaw puzzle pieces fitting together). So viruses will be attracted to what type of cells their keys will fit in to. Different types of skin found in different areas of the body have different cells and different shaped "keyholes". You genital skin is different than your outer body skin and attract or repel different viruses. Bacteria rarely enter your cells as they don't need a host, however specific bacteria need specific environments, so they either thrive or die off, depending on where in your body they come in contact with; some bacteria need oxygen, and others must not have oxygen, some need moisture others don't, and so on...and as soon as scientist come up with characteristics of bacteria and viruses, it seems like an exception to the rule is always being discovered.

Once in the body, bacteria and viruses act very differently. Bacteria spread thru reproduction where as viruses hijack a host cell's nucleus, taking over the instructions for protein synthesis.

In a basic college histology class (study of tissue), like the prerequisites I had to take for nursing, they were the most difficult classes I ever took. Some people go on to get master's degrees in histology because the area of study is so vast and complex. The hardest thing was identifying the different types of "skin" tissue under a microscope as they were all very complex and had many differences.

Unless you are confident in your knowledge of cellular biology, I would be careful about getting into any in depth discussions with scientists who study this for years. The conversations about circumcision and HIV transmission seem to focus around Langerhans cells (specialized white blood cells found in most protective tissue, but in higher concentrations in genital tissue). Langerhans cells attract viruses and then "eat" them. Some scientist theorize that the Langerhans cells attract the HIV, but the HIV is too strong of the virus to be overcome. So having less HIV attracting Langerhans cells would be a good thing in preventing HIV infection.

For my discussions about circumcision and HIV (or spread of any bacteria.or virus, especially those that are a result of sexual activity) I tend to focus on prevention being a personal adult choice and I point out that if tissue removal (or rather Langerhans cell removal) can prevent HIV, it would do so on both genders. (women have just as many Langerhans cells in their genital skin)...and remember that Langerhans cells prevent many types of infection so even if they reduce HIV, removing them would reduce a person's ability to fight off other bacteria and viruses (which would explain why circumcised men would be more at risk for HPV as they are missing Langerhans cells, which could fight it off).

PS- I will point out that some scientists believe Langerhans cells can and do fight off HIV - making it good to have Langerhans cells in the genital tissue, and they site the lower HIV rates in countries who do not circumcise as evidence.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Sat, 2017-05-27 19:10

'PS- I will point out that some scientists believe Langerhans cells can and do fight off HIV - making it good to have Langerhans cells in the genital tissue, and they site the lower HIV rates in countries who do not circumcise as evidence.'

So why then do MDs in esp. sub-Saharan African countries go around saying that circumcision is necessary to reduce HIV spread? Answer: Corruption. They are being paid off by the foreskin-dependent industries including medical research, cosmetics, etc. to say these things, get their gov'ts to support efforts to get men circumcised and essentially under the guise of medical authority, steal by fraud a piece of men's bodies for their own profit.

Hard to overstate how disgusting the whole thing is.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2017-05-27 22:50