Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_
As far as I'm aware, the studies have been done in sub-Saharan Africa mainly, where circumcision is not randomly applied, but is regional or cultural - therefore it is not possible to be certain that (for example) the group in which uncut men are more common is also more generally promiscuous. I don't know if this is tested, but until it is, it's dangerous to draw conclusions.
|
As I said, there have been a few randomized trials. Like this one:
PLoS Medicine: Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial
In this particular study, the researchers recruited 3200+ male volunteers aged 18-24 from the general population and randomly placed them into control and treatment groups. The circumcised group had 60% fewer cases of HIV infection during the study period.
The CDC has a rationale for why circumcision might reduce HIV transmission.
Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS
Quote:
|
Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].
|
Now, it should be noted that these are all speculative. I do find them more compelling than the counterarguments, which all seem to be variations on "nuhuh, nope."
The CDC link also has a pretty comprehensive look at what science actually says about circumcision. It is interesting to see that some of the folks here who reject standard epidemiological practice on this matter are the most stridently pro-epidemiology when it comes to vaccines and/or the existence of the g-spot.