Thursday, February 22, 2007

Circumcision and HIV

The past year, I've been following these stories of the high rates of success in combating the HIV virus in Africa through circumcisions. Why? Because I endured the early brawls between the circ and no-circers. My question was always: How many angels can dance on the tip of a penis? No circer's thought that was tres unfunny. Really, nonetheless, what I did learn from my no-circ pals was about the sensitive tissues, the glans. Which they believed led to heightened, uh, sensation.

Some went so far as to claim there had been a worldwide medical conspiracy to restrain boys from having such great wild rides. That this was not only a money-maker for the medical community; but a subtle means of destroying a male's natural affinity for a maximumally fantastic experience.

I conducted an informal survey, therefore. Asking questions of the no-circ'd guys: How's your sex? They said it was the best. Better than for the circ'd guys. The circ'd guys figured massive retaliation, touting their own experiences as the ultimately best and because of aesthetic appeal to the lady, "things got hotter... better".

Reeallly. Like, how would one know, unless one'd had experienced both sides of the same.. uh. glans or lack thereof.

My own Research taught me the origins of circumcision. I thought it was a fairly advanced medical treatment for a basically stone-aged era in time. Once upon a time one could find historical documents on the internet concerning the early reasons behind circumcision in the mid-east thousands of years ago. In one peer-reviewed document, yeast was thriving on the glans -- was being passed to the female(s) and children were born with problems. They snipped the glans, problem (the messenger) was gone.

SO NOW, back to this article:

LONDON - Scientists say conclusive data shows there is no question circumcision reduces men's chances of catching HIV by up to 60 percent — a finding experts are hailing as a major breakthrough in the fight against AIDS. Now, the question is how to put that fact to work to combat AIDS across Africa.

The findings first were announced in December, when initial results from two major trials — in Kenya and Uganda — showed promising links between circumcision and HIV transmission. However, those trials were deemed so definitive that the tests were halted early.

The full data from the trials, carried out by the United States' National Institutes of Health, were published Friday in The Lancet.

"This is an extraordinary development," said Dr. Kevin de Cock, director of the World Health Organization's AIDS department. "Circumcision is the most potent intervention in HIV prevention that has been described."

No doubts one can ready to hear certain activists whether gay or anti-semitic railing about some danged conspiracy going on. I was there for the first published findings, and the screaming was horrific and amounted to no-circers railing "off with your head" to each of us in that forum simply being sensitive tissue matter to these recents findings. Hours and days later, both sides (me included) exhausted ourselves having been 24-7 in the battle of the century over the tip of a penis as concerns medicine, philosophy, ancient history, current history, political implications, and advance ad homineming.

I don't think I can bear going through another such debate. I'll leave this latest round to Dr. de Cock to explain, deflect, genuflect, and otherwise, sport the cyber flak gear.

And as the able Dr. de Cock says: "This is an additional tool, and it must not replace other interventions," said de Cock, who added that there will be no push for universal circumcision. "There is no one size fits all solution for AIDS."

1 comment:

MataHarley said...

Dr. Kevin de Cock of the WHO??? This is a joke, right? LOL