Health Buzz: Circumcision Cuts HPV Risk

Reader Comments
Back to article

Stallings et al 2009 to be exact, female circumcision cut HIV infection by half, and the results remained consistent with age, occupation, demographic, and every other factor. None of the male circumcision stats were even that accurate.
The title of this study was called "Female Circumcision and HIV Infection in Tanzania: for Better or for Worse?"
http://ways-ahead.net/slideshows/Female%20Circumcision%20&%20HIV%20Infection%20in%20Tanzania.ppt
This was never published in the mainstream media, btw, because this would totally crash their "mutilation" bandwagon that they've been cramming down our throats for years. It should also be noted that the most common form of female circumcision, as noted in Tanzania, is type 1A, which is removing the clitoral hood (prepuce). This is identical to the male foreskin (prepuce). This too, would totally undo what they've wanted us to believe for years.

Mr. Equality of TX 2:18AM May 02, 2011

If condoms are STILL required to prevent STDs, and are almost 100% effective, then WHY mutilate men and boys???
Condoms decrease penile sensation, so it's actually much LESS likely that circumcised men would even use them! This makes STD transmission MORE likely amongst circ'd men than intact ones.
Intact males can afford a TEMPORARY reduction in nerve sensation by using condoms, but circ'd men have already had OVER 20,000 specialized, erotic nerves PERMANENTLY AMPUTATED and their glans (penis head) has desensitized and dried out (it's called "keratinization"). So to FURTHER diminish their penile sensitivity by wearing condoms is HIGHLY unlikely!
I'm a Midwest-American female. I've had sex with 20 men, and only 1 was intact (he was from another country, and the ONLY one from a foreign country I've had intercourse with). Almost ALL of the 19 American circ'd men refused to wear condoms because they said that sex with condoms feels like "having sex with air". WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!!! We're damaging our boys for LIFE! For junk science!
HIS body, HIS rights! No sexist double-standards!
EQUAL RIGHTS for BOTH GENDERS!!!!
STOP GENITAL MUTILATION OF MINORS!!!!!!!!

Dianna of MI 9:33PM January 14, 2011

the risk of getting appendicitis as an adult yet I can't find anyone who believes we ought to cut it out of babies just in case. The argument like all others is weak and irrelevant.

Jeni of NJ 8:26AM January 10, 2011

If someone proposed cutting the genitals of infant girls to protect adult men from a sexually transmitted disease, people would be outraged. In my opinion there is not ethical difference between cutting the genitals of infant boys to protect adult women from HPV infection and cutting the genitals of infant girls to protect adult men from HPV infection. It is past time for America to end the sexist double standard its has for male and female genital cutting.

Stan of CA 3:54PM January 08, 2011

Routine infant circumcision has also been shown to cure/prevent hernias, paralysis, epilepsy, insanity, masturbation, headache, strabismus, eczema, promiscuity, rectal prolapse, hydrocephalus, clubfoot, asthma, enuresis, urinary tract infections, penile cancer, cervical cancer, gout, malnutrition, paralysis, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, alcoholism, criminality, eczema, promiscuity, heart disease, and HIV/Aids. We all know it is not true but just a scheme to push unnecessary genital modification.

Heli of KY 1:35PM January 08, 2011

As noted above, these very same people had a study going with the data shwoing circumcised men pass HIV to women at a much higher (>50%) rate than men with a natural penis. Why was there no article written with that. In fact a great article would be about how they ended the study because it was not showing what they wanted.
How do articles such as this one and even these circumcison researchers (pushers) not consider the function of the parts they are cutting off. One function is protection and another is pleasure. Do parents that cut off these partS of their kids penis understand that the 20000 fine touch and strech nerve endings that are disconnected from the brain provide pleasure upon touch and stretch? Let us first look into issue relating to loosing that.
Then it may be interesting to consider why in US and EU and JP cut and natural penis men have the same STDS, including HPV and HIV, as circumcised men do. Is that why these "researchers" go to Africa?
Last, the minimal risk change viz HPV in Uganda (with its water issues) indicates that baby boys in the US should be allowed to keep the 20000 fine touch and strech nerve endings. Cuting parts of a babies penis in a hospital should stop ASAP in the US.

Jack of NY 12:44PM January 08, 2011

Companies do give out samples. They are looking to put their products in potential consumers' hands. They wouldn't do it if it didn't work one of the place that always worked is "123 Get Samples" search online

rosadiaz of TX 5:13AM January 08, 2011

This "research" is anything but "new." The claim that HPV "could be reduced by circumcision" has been made before. In fact, this is the second time that "researchers" have re-hashed the exact same numbers from Uganda trials that happened like 4 or 5 years ago. I remember it well; two or three years ago, the same institute, Johns Hopkins, touted that "circumcision reduces the risk of HPV by 35%, and herpes by 28%." (That just means circumcised men are still at 65% risk for HPV, and 72% for herpes. Are these numbers really all that compelling, esp. when condoms prevent ALL of these by over 95%?)
Actually, Maria Wawer was involved in a study that showed that women were 50% more likely to get HIV from a circumcised man.
HERE'S a question; why aren't there any "studies" to see what STDs female circumcision could reduce? If "studies showed" that female circumcision "reduced" the transmission of STDs to men, would we then be calling for medical organizations to endorse it? This is absolute madness. When are circumcision "researchers" going to look into something else? There has GOT to be a better way to prevent disease than by mutilating boys and men.
Studies that place primacy in legitimizing the destruction of the human body, instead of preserving it, have got to be the most illogical "studies" I've ever heard of in my life. Let's "study" skull trephination. I'm sure there are plenty of health benefits in that.

Joseph4GI of CA 10:51PM January 07, 2011