It seems a lot of you have missed the point (as I see it). I don't think findings like this could be used to actively suggest that ADULT males be circumcised. What fully grown man wants a knife anywhere near it?
However, this study and others can conclusively show that a circumcised baby will be less likely to die later in life. A doctor, for example, could say:
Congratulations, Mr. and Ms. Noyiakjiali, you're the proud parents of a baby boy! Are you going to get him circumcised? It could reduce his risks of infections, illness, and even HIV --later in life-- if he has unprotected sex!
Why NOT use this when it COULD help? There are dozens of studies that show airborne and fluid-transfered infections more readily host in the inner area of the foreskin (not present in a circumcised male). HIV, to me, falls into this category.
Rippley that is quite a sound article and I thank you for linking it. I did find one sentence that made me chuckle:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fromthearticle
Investigators have assessed high-risk patients by studying long-distance truck drivers, female sex workers, STD clinics, and tuberculosis patients.
|
Long-distance truck drivers??!
EDIT to add: The article you linked was written in 1999, in response to the "three dozen less rigorously controlled studies"...
Quote:
|
Begun in August 2002, the experiment is one of three closely watched clinical trials in Africa to determine whether there is scientific merit to nearly three dozen less rigorously controlled studies showing that circumcised men were much less likely to become HIV-positive.
|
-- from the OP's article.