HIV question.

waynegohl said:
yeah but you hear them talk about circumcision this and circumcision that what if the partner is a woman how about doing something down there?
Click to expand...

If there are medical things that can be done which would reduce infection then I am sure its being researched.
Dont feel bad, they are not just targetting males for the snip!! They are aiming at whatever they can!
 
waynegohl said:
yeah but you hear them talk about circumcision this and circumcision that what if the partner is a woman how about doing something down there?
Click to expand...

South Africa is actually busy developing a gel that the woman applies inside the vagina. This has shown promising results...but the effecacy rate is also only something like 30 - 40%. Again, it is something that MUST be used in conjuntion with condoms.
 
After how many years of HIV adverts, education, free condoms etc one has to ask why it's largely ignored in african culture?

At work (thousands of employees) everybody had to complete a CBT HIV course and one could see it was compiled with the lesser educated in mind. Then afterwards there were compulsory HIV information seminars/sessions everybody had to attend. They were presented by medical people outlining once again how HIV works, it's effects etc etc etc. After each seminar there were voluntary HIV testing carried out in in private so you could find out your HIV status. In these seminars the greater majority of people were black yet outside the voluntary testing venue there was not a single black person, only indians & whites.

I don't care what the government does (however misguided they are) but I just cannot see the population changing their habits.
 
I have also hear that in order to get the HIV grants some people stop taking their Anti-retros a few days before they need to get retested. It's a total mess.
 
Nerfherder said:
Your chances of contracting HIV are about 5% (male) and 10% (Female) in a normal situation. You actually have to really try hard to get it.... we are just a determined population. Being circumcised decreases that risk by 1% so in theory should have quite an impact on the infection rate.

I think its a bad theory but I do think its better than those poor kids getting their dicks chopped off in the bush!
Click to expand...

May be even less. In the South African circumcision study (which, like the others, was terminated prematurely), the infection rate over 18 months was in the region of 3.1% uncircumcised vs 1.9% circumcised (that's where the much touted "60% lower" rate cames from - seems a lot less when you're not talking relative percentages). Of course, the participants did receive AIDS counselling and advice (the circumcised guys more, because they attended checkups).
 
ponder said:
After how many years of HIV adverts, education, free condoms etc one has to ask why it's largely ignored in african culture?

At work (thousands of employees) everybody had to complete a CBT HIV course and one could see it was compiled with the lesser educated in mind. Then afterwards there were compulsory HIV information seminars/sessions everybody had to attend. They were presented by medical people outlining once again how HIV works, it's effects etc etc etc. After each seminar there were voluntary HIV testing carried out in in private so you could find out your HIV status. In these seminars the greater majority of people were black yet outside the voluntary testing venue there was not a single black person, only indians & whites.

I don't care what the government does (however misguided they are) but I just cannot see the population changing their habits.
Click to expand...

as long as there is still AIDS around there will be money in the pot.
 
Claymore said:
May be even less. In the South African circumcision study (which, like the others, was terminated prematurely), the infection rate over 18 months was in the region of 3.1% uncircumcised vs 1.9% circumcised (that's where the much touted "60% lower" rate cames from - seems a lot less when you're not talking relative percentages). Of course, the participants did receive AIDS counselling and advice (the circumcised guys more, because they attended checkups).
Click to expand...

I totally agree... the study was a farce. Nevertheless the intention was to provide an excuse to implement a national circumcision program. To be honest I think there are other reasons but they wanted to have evidence that would link it to helping the HIV infection rate.
 
What if this is a disguised population cull?
 
Last edited:
Claymore said:
May be even less. In the South African circumcision study (which, like the others, was terminated prematurely), the infection rate over 18 months was in the region of 3.1% uncircumcised vs 1.9% circumcised (that's where the much touted "60% lower" rate cames from - seems a lot less when you're not talking relative percentages). Of course, the participants did receive AIDS counselling and advice (the circumcised guys more, because they attended checkups).
Click to expand...

I don't know, but 3.1% vs 1.9% sounds quite significant to me. We all know this isn't going to stop HIV, but anything that helps to curb it should be welcomed.
 
phoneJunky said:
I don't know, but 3.1% vs 1.9% sounds quite significant to me. We all know this isn't going to stop HIV, but anything that helps to curb it should be welcomed.
Click to expand...

The actual numbers were something like 49 vs 21 out of just over 3000 participants. There are so many other factors involved there that that's a margin of error difference. For example, the guys that got the surgery were out of action for 6+ weeks. Also, they got additional HIV counselling at their checkup sessions. You also don't know what happened to the guys that dropped out along the way and disappeared. Also, the HIV rates were tracked on an ongoing basis, and the HIV rate of the circumcised guys was rising faster when the study was terminated prematurely.
 
Claymore said:
The actual numbers were something like 49 vs 21 out of just over 3000 participants. There are so many other factors involved there that that's a margin of error difference. For example, the guys that got the surgery were out of action for 6+ weeks. Also, they got additional HIV counselling at their checkup sessions. You also don't know what happened to the guys that dropped out along the way and disappeared. Also, the HIV rates were tracked on an ongoing basis, and the HIV rate of the circumcised guys was rising faster when the study was terminated prematurely.
Click to expand...

Hmm, yes - the sample size were a bit on the low side. Will keep that in mind
 
It might be a gross assumption on my part but I take it that the vast majority of the anti government driven circumcision drive users are intact gentlemen and women who prefer intact gentlemen, and it goes without saying that the vast majority of the pro government driven circumcision drive users are themselves circumcised or are women who prefer circumcised men. The main point of the drive is to educate the public about EVERY and ANY means of protecting themselves that through dedicated research has proved acceptably viable.

Nowhere has it been written or stated that one must get circumcised to reduce/eliminate their chances of contracting HIV, period. It has never been sold as the be all and end all of HIV. It has merely been cited as an ADDITIONAL counter-measure that men have the OPTION to consider. All other counter-measures are still just as rigorously re-enforced. Condoms. Monogamous relationships. Abstinence.

Also saying that being circumcised has no significant effect on the transmission rate of HIV during intercourse and then going on to say that having a foreskin increases the chances of contracting HIV during intercourse are two contradicting statements. The science behind the claims that circumcision reduces the probability of contracting HIV through unprotected heterosexual intercourse is sound even though the studies were not conducted in the best possible manner, the preliminary results are still just that, results. There are pro's and con's to any medical procedure.

We, society need to look at this subject objectively and not subjectively. If you are circumcised, good for you, you don't deserve a noddy badge. If you are not circumcised, good for you, you too do not deserve a noddy badge. There is no "I'm better and more protected because I am circumcised!" and "I am better because I am uncircumcised and natural!". This is not a competition to see who was right and who was wrong. This is a matter as benign as getting your tonsils removed because that would eliminate the repeated cases of tonsillitis, or getting your wisdom teeth pulled to prevent any future problems like impaction and/or infection.

Just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X