Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_
There is some slight evidence that RECENTLY circumcised men are infected slightly less often than uncircumcised men. I am not aware of a logitudinal study that looks at lifetime infection rates for man circumcised as infants.
|
I'm not either, and it's possible the reduction disappear in the long run. But
right now evidence from multiple studies suggests that there is an effect associated with circumcision.
Quote:
|
As has been pointed out above, if you look at national infection rates they totally fail to corelate with national circumcision rates. The US has a significantly higher proportion of circumcised men than similarly developed countries in Europe and Asia, and yet has a very similar infection rate.
|
Unless you're also adjusting the national infection rates for confounding factors, comparing national infection rates doesn't really mean anything.
Quote:
|
I think that the best that can be said currently is that in some cases having a foreskin may allow a route to infection that is less likely in men without foreskins, however it must also be stated that the size of this effect is orders of magnitude lower than can be achieved by programmes of education, barrier contraception, and routinely available free at point of use HIV testing.
|
This is kind of exactly what I said above.
Quote:
|
What seems clear to me is that prophylactically circumcising adult men will lead to many people sticking partially healed wounds into infected partners, which will without doubt be a vector for significant INCREASES in STI transmission.
|
Do you have a longitudinal study to back this up?
I am fully ready to accept the notion that it is possible that circumcision provides no long term effect on HIV transmission rates.