More cut and paste fluff, old news even, from the fluffer broads. Generating those clicks I guess.

I have read the research suggesting that circumcision lowers HIV contraction risk in males in heterosexual sex. The reason is mainly because the circumcised penis becomes essentially "callused" in a way that reduces the chance that irritation from sex will lead to fluid interchange and thus spread of the infection.

As usual, doctors have whipped out their scalpel before stepping back and thinking about the problem. Though circumcision reduces the chance that one sexual encounter will result in HIV contraction, the chance that HIV contraction happens is still there, and significant. That means every time a circumcised man has sex, he plays Russian roulette, but instead of the gun having two bullets (like uncircumcised men), the gun has one. Still, if this man has sex with women, frequently and beyond the length of time of a typical clinical trial (say, he has sex once a month for 5 years), there's still a very significant chance he'll contract the disease.

The 99% effective way to prevent HIV transfer is condom use. Yet, despite the fact that this exists, doctors would rather spend money and time cutting off people's foreskins (and thus making them think they are "safe" to have sex, an untold psychological effect of these procedures!) and letting them off. We would be much better off equipping these men with education and condoms.

But given my experience with it, I don't expect the medical industry to see this obvious conclusion.

I think DeCock is a great name for a circumcision researcher. However, I still wish I had a say in my decocking.

I'm not an epidemiologist, but wouldn't widespread circumscion to reduce the risk of AIDS create a VERY false sense of security? Aren't health educators still fighting the belief in parts of Africa that sex with a virgin can cure AIDS?

Remember where AIDS first really took off in America--among young gay men in the 1980s. I'm willing to bet a good 90% of them had been routinely circumsized as infants back in the 40s, 50s, and early 60s.

It seems that the whole ABC "Abstain, Be faithful, Use condoms" is a pretty proven strategy. Now, if they could just add a D--"don't rape anyone"--and get people to follow it, infection rates in Africa would plummet.

I agree that 100% condom use is more logical and effective than circumscision, but I have met and spoken to health workers from Uganda, and it is simply impossible in today's Africa for an average male to have access to a regular, cheap supply of good quality condoms. We are not talking about the US or even another 3rd world country where this might be the case. For many individuals, a single surgical procedure done by a foreign medical team or something might be a very reasonable solution to HIV prevention.

That being said -- and I don't mean to trivialize this very important issue -- but seriously, is this guy's name Dr. De Cock? This isn't a mispelling? One hates to laugh, but this is certainly a case of someone going into a profession or field that is....well, remarkably aligned with his birth name. I don't know how he holds the knife steady while everyone is rolling on the floor laughing aloud!

Kerblam, brer rabbit. Down for the count.

Bad thought abounds. Confusion about cause and effect.

For the numerically challenged, let's enumerate:

1. The study used a statistically insignificant sample. End of story... but let's pretend otherwise.

2. The study compares recent (within one month) circumcision patients who "mate" with their wives during the recovery period with those who decline such surgery. Hence the results only apply to behaviour during recovery from surgery, not at large... but let's pretend otherwise.

3. Relax and have a beer. Presume most women are straight. Presume therefore that most women who do acquire HIV acquire it from men (and vice versa). Therefore, if the circumcision of men dramatically reduces the probability of a man contracting the virus, then women are also winners. A truly mathematically significant body of information that is entirely ignored in the "study". So, for fun, let's pretend that you're a female mating with a male, and statistically your mate, being circumcised, is 30% less likely or so to have HIV, but, because you're a female, you are, say, 5% more likely to contract the virus from such a man (completely unestablished) than otherwise (au naturale). It's a net win. End of discussion.

Gotta love the broadsheet (a.k.a. the "broadside"), for missing the obvious and focusing on the feminist/political value of massaging the contents of any news piece for its polarizing sexual content.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person in the world who sees a problem with the “circumcision panacea” now being promoted by HIV health professionals. Even with a nearly 2/3 reduction in infection rates in circumcised men, this is no substitute for “safe sex” practices. Given that understanding of the nature of this disease and its mode of transmission are much greater in Europe and the Americas, I truly fear that in some parts Africa, the push for circumcision is being misconstrued as a male “cure” for becoming infected with HIV. If in fact men see this as a way to avoid using a condom and women are convinced that this protects them from infection, we will see a substantial increase in the infection rates.

While I understand that HIV infection rates in some places call for 'anything that helps' attitudes, it's upsetting to see how much press these studies on circumcision and risk have been getting. No matter how you look at it this particular piece of the prevention puzzle is tiny and may be counterproductive even in areas of the world where infection rates are low or on the decline. Being single and HIV+ for about nine years, I know the sort of ignorance that's out there even in urban areas where I've lived like San Francisco and New York. The questions I've had from people I've dated when sex came up and we had to deal with my status...the questions revealed a breathtaking stupidity about what can put one at what level of risk. And not to get off on too much of a tangent but I place part of that blame at the feet of AIDS service organizations, which in my experience have too often been lacking in competent service and effective educational outreach and too much focused on fundraising through high profile events or with high profile people. The proportion of window dressing to attract the funds to provide services to actual services provided is too out of whack.