1. Joseph Lewis Joseph Lewis Japan says:

    Removal of all men's urethras?

    A few assumptions must be pointed out here, which are being sold as 100% fact.

    "Clinical studies conducted in the 2000s showed that circumcision could reduce the risk of infection in men by 60% during sexual intercourse."

    The clinical "studies" showed no such thing. Instead, the "researchers" took selected numbers from poorly conducted, early terminated, non-double-blinded trials and made a correlation, and attributed it to circumcision, *without any scientific explanation whatsoever.*

    Three hypotheses have been proposed since the introduction of the idea that circumcision can prevent HIV, all of them debunked. Dinh et al. demonstrated that there is no difference between the inner and outer foreskin. deWitte et al, demonstrated that, contrary to assumption, the Langerhans cells facilitated HIV transmission. Newer "research" has tried to attribute the facilitation of HIV transmission to infections caused by other pathogens in the preputial space. This last theory, however, would require "researchers" to prove that all of the non-circumcised men who acquired HIV did in fact suffer from said infections.

    The conductors of the said "trials" can't exactly pinpoint how the men, circumcised and non-circumcised alike, acquired HIV, assuming, without a scientific causal link, that their numbers (which are actually rather exaggerated, only a 1.3% absolute reduction) was actually caused by circumcision.

    This study seems to be another attempt to come up with a solid hypotheses, but commits the same error of assuming circumcision does anything a priori.

    So now are we to remove urethras in all men? What is the solution?

    Assuming it could actually be proven that circumcision prevents anything, why aren't researchers looking for a solution that does NOT involve the removal of the foreskin?

    This isn't research, this is quackery.

    Find a cure for AIDS. Not an alibi for genital mutilation.

    "Following this work, the Institut Cochin team demonstrated that the mucous membrane on the inner layer of the foreskin was one of the main entry sites for HIV."

    Where is this demonstration? Any reference? The Cochin team needs to help their colleagues in Rakai etc., because they are dying for a causal link. I'm actually very interested in seeing this demonstration.

    "However, since circumcision does not provide complete protection, it remained to be determined what other mucous sites in the penis could facilitate HIV infection."


    And you can't eliminate these with surgery.

    What are you going to do now?

    "This work is important from a fundamental viewpoint and it makes it possible to shed light on how the urethra can be an entry site for HIV in men, whether they are circumcised or not. It could also lead to the development of new prevention strategies."

    I should hope so.

    This campaign to mutilate 20 million men in Africa is pure MADNESS.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.