Medical male circumcision: is the HIV prevention claim wrong?

Submitted by Mastodon on Sun, 2018-08-19 15:00

Article here. Excerpt:

'Circumcision is a proven intervention that reduces the chance of contracting HIV by 60%, but to scientists’ surprise, a study has found that medically circumcised older men in Mpumalanga had a higher rate of HIV than uncircumcised men.

The findings appear to suggest that it needs to be communicated to both men and women that circumcision does not offer 100% protection against HIV.

The study, published in the PLOS ONE journal on August 1, was conducted by Indiana University professors Molly Rosenberg and Till Barnighausen from the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, together with professors Kathleen Kahn and Stephen Tollman from the Wits Rural Health in Transition and Agincourt Research Unit.

The researchers surveyed about 2,345 Mpumalanga men, who were 40 years and older.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... boy's dick doesn't stop him from receiving and transmitting body fluids during sex. Since HIV is transmitted by body fluids, any sane person whose judgment isn't clouded by ideology of some kind can conclude that reducing the total amount of flesh available for contact does not reduce or increase the total amount that actually comes into contact.

HIV's spread can be seriously curtailed by seriously curtailing body fluid exchange. This can be done by men using condoms or not banging women at all. Likewise for homosexual contact.

The only other way is to come up with an inoculation vs. HIV.

Given that lesbians despise using vaginal dams and both sexes despise using condoms, about the only way HIV spread will stop is if people stop screwing (good luck with that) or medical science comes up with a vaccine.

Like1 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2018-08-19 23:10