Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ilow
As is the reduced HIV risk, which tends to generally supported by reliable, unbiased sources.
|
I wouldn't go that far in saying that they are unbiased. I think they stop the studies early because they have the results they are looking for, not because in 5 years the numbers will still be 50% higher HIV rates for the uncircumcised. And it was something like out of 5000 guys 40 uncircumcised guys got HIV and 20 circumcised ones came down with it. And we don't know how many of the women these men slept with who were infected either. So, does the foreskin make catching HIV easier or were the uncircumcised guys having more sex, riskier sex and being unlucky in picking HIV positive partners?
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...Statement.html
Now having said that, I've seen better explainations of how HIV infects through the mucous membranes (inner foreskin) easier than through external skin, but at the same time, that researcher thought that the better course of action was to develop a cream to protect both the male and female from infection through the inner foreskin and vagina.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=79688
A few years ago, they 'said' that the foreskin was responsible for cervical cancer, but that excuse won't work as well anymore since there is a pretty good vaccine against HPV now. And once there is a vaccine against HIV, they will have to figure out something else.