
The foreskin: Why is it such a secret in North America? - ca98am79
http://madsciencewriter.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-foreskin-why-is-it-such-secret-in.html
======
ghshephard
The pendulum just keeps swinging back and forth on circumcision.
[https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-
room/pages...](https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-
room/pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-
Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx) suggests that there might be
some benefit, but it's not huge.

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.

~~~
jonah
The article seems to debunk this pretty well:

"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."

~~~
ghshephard
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...](http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf)

 _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.

------
mhurron
For those who want a humourous look at circumcision

[http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6966989/the-real-reason-
yo...](http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6966989/the-real-reason-youre-
circumcised)

