Motlanthe explains male 'pruning'

[Nothxkbi]

Circumcision does not prevent aids and promoting this will only increase the spread of HIV as people will now believe they are immune to infection regardless of their disclaimer.

Wherever he got those figures from (50-60%) is seriously flawed.

HIV does not prevent or eliminate HIV infection, but there is strong evidence that it does reduce the risk of infection.

There will be guys who will think they are immune of course, much like there are plenty of people who think they are immune to death and injury because their vehicle has airbags and abs, so they drive everywhere at 160kmh.

You can only educate somebody so far, the ultimate decision to be dumb or not rests in his hands.

 

[killadoob]

HIV does not prevent or eliminate HIV infection, but there is strong evidence that it does reduce the risk of infection.

There will be guys who will think they are immune of course, much like there are plenty of people who think they are immune to death and injury because their vehicle has airbags and abs, so they drive everywhere at 160kmh.

You can only educate somebody so far, the ultimate decision to be dumb or not rests in his hands.

There may be strong evidence that it reduces the risk but i fear most will think they cannot get infected now, not that a makes a difference because they did not care before hand anyhow.

I still think every single person world wide should be tested and branded, if AIDS was airborne you would have some heavy shyte going down with quarantine's and what not. Seems people are happy to just ignore the silent killer, yet the world goes into a frenzy when a flu comes along and kills less people than normal every year flu.

 

[milomak]

There may be strong evidence that it reduces the risk but i fear most will think they cannot get infected now, not that a makes a difference because they did not care before hand anyhow.

I still think every single person world wide should be tested and branded, if AIDS was airborne you would have some heavy shyte going down with quarantine's and what not. Seems people are happy to just ignore the silent killer, yet the world goes into a frenzy when a flu comes along and kills less people than normal every year flu.

i doubt it will cause an increase in the number of people having unprotected sex. those who will believe they will be immune after this probably had tendencies of having unprotected sex already.

 

[Mila]

Yea wow i bet once everyone has had their cover chopped off the idiots will think they are immune to getting infected.

wahahahahahaha!!!

 

[Ancalagon]

*vomit*

You wear a tight plastic thing for 3 days until half your willy falls off? I'll pass.

 

[killadoob]

Eish if the skin is half your willy i doubt you will become a porn star one day .

 

[Claymore]

He did not say it prevents aids

Despite the three flawed studies, it doesn't reduce AIDS either. Actual, real life statistics bear that out.

 

[czc]

If they pruned hard enough maybe the population would decrease.

 

[LCBXX]

I this "pruning" reversible? What if I don't like being pruned?

 

[Nerfherder]

Circumcision does not prevent aids and promoting this will only increase the spread of HIV as people will now believe they are immune to infection regardless of their disclaimer.

Wherever he got those figures from (50-60%) is seriously flawed.

The data is actually correct but I totally agree with you, very irresponsible for them to advertise it as a solution to the AIDS problem.

The chances of getting AIDS from some one who has the virus is actually very low, like 2.5- 5 % depending on the conditions. The fact is that people still get HIV, they beat the odds !

My view is ABC Abstain, Be faithful, Condomise. That's all you need to worry about.

 

[ponder]

The data is actually correct...

Nah, I don't believe that for one second. That study done in SA was seriously flawed starting with a small sample group. Same goes for some of the other studies out there.

There are medical companies out there with a vested interest in getting this off the ground.

 

[Claymore]

The data is actually correct but I totally agree with you, very irresponsible for them to advertise it as a solution to the AIDS problem.

The way of presentation was extremely deceptive, never mind the problems with the study's methodology. For example, the widely touted number was "60% less lively to be infected". That sounds extremely impressive...but if you look at the actual numbers, the percentages of those infected were (as I remember) something like 1.6% intact vs. 0.7% circumcised. On such tiny numbers, "60%" is deeply deceptive, and the actuality is not significant at all (especially when that was the *average* rate - if you look at the month-by-month rate (after the three month period after surgery where the rate in the circumcised group was almost zero, for obvious reasons), the rate in the circumcised group was higher, and climbing).

 

[Nick333]

This is truly barbaric and stupid. Even if it were true that circumsission reduced risk this would only work for *******s who don't use condoms. So really, amputating the most sensitive part of your cock is less hassle for you than wearing a rubber? I have a far easier solution to the HIV/AIDS problem. Shoot yourself in the head. No really, I'll buy the bullets.

 

[Ancalagon]

@Nick

I'll join you in that.

In fact, I would bet the news surrounding this would cancel out any gains?

Picture this: "You mean I cant get AIDS because I'm cirumcized? Woohoo, time to have an orgy with those 3 girls who I just met and that one other guy they know. Yeah, sounds awesome!"

 

[Nick333]

@Nick

I'll join you in that.

In fact, I would bet the news surrounding this would cancel out any gains?

Picture this: "You mean I cant get AIDS because I'm cirumcized? Woohoo, time to have an orgy with those 3 girls who I just met and that one other guy they know. Yeah, sounds awesome!"

And lets not forget the largest tribal grouping in SA, the Xhosa, already practice circumsion as an initiation rite.
The majority of SA men are already circumcised if you count traditional african practice, Jews and people whose folks thought it was hygenic (bless my mom who wouldn't let my dad have it done to me), how the hell is this going to change anything?
Stupid, stupid, incompetent bafoons.

 

[Sherbang]

Nah, I don't believe that for one second. That study done in SA was seriously flawed starting with a small sample group. Same goes for some of the other studies out there.

There are medical companies out there with a vested interest in getting this off the ground.

The British Medical Journal disagrees with you.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592
The MRC disagrees with you.
http://www.mrc.ac.za/public/facts19.htm
WHO disagrees with you
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
University of Melbourne disagrees with you
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/782656.stm
TAC disagrees with you
http://www.tac.org.za/community/node/2160

Experimental evidence was needed to establish a causal relationship between lack of circumcision and HIV,[6] so three randomized controlled trials were commissioned as a means to reduce the effect of any confounding factors.[4] Trials took place in South Africa,[6] Kenya[7] and Uganda.[8] All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards on ethical grounds, because those in the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group.[7] The results showed that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively. A meta-analysis of the African randomised controlled trials found that the risk in circumcised males was 0.44 times that in uncircumcised males, and reported that 72 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent one HIV infection. The authors also stated that using circumcision as a means to reduce HIV infection would, on a national level, require consistently safe sexual practices to maintain the protective benefit.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV

Of course this is about a circumcised man contracting HIV - circumcision doesn't make any difference to the mans partner contracting it if the man is already HIV+.

 

[Tomtomtom]

"The circumcision drive does not replace the core messages of abstaining, being faithful and condomising," he said.

The problem is, this is not the way it seems. It seems the leadership here will do everything short of actually solving the underlying problem, which I hardly need to spell out for this forum's members: the deeply chauvinistic, patriarchal nature of this society, and its attitude towards sex.

The shocking reality of HIV is that it is surprisingly difficult to transmit sexually. This implies that to be transmitted as fast as it is here, something shocking must be going on. This is how wikipedia puts it:

Estimated infections per 10,000 exposures to an infected source:

• Blood transfusion 9,000
• Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse* 10
• Low-income country male-to-female‡ 30 (95% Confidence Interval 14–63)

That's a 0.3% chance of infection per "encounter" even if you are from a "low-income country", which is already 300% what would be expected elsewhere.

But 0.3% are still small odds! Despite this, 12%+ of our population has HIV. How do they do it?

Hell, circumcision ain't gonna make no difference. The stigma they always talk about should not be attached to the HIV infection, but to the way these WAY THESE GUYS F***K THEIR WOMEN. Never mind pruning; they need their penises fully removed.

There's no politically-correct way to put it. The deception and misdirection and the tacit abrogation of the responsibility of men here makes me so mad.

 

[Sherbang]

The problem is, this is not the way it seems. It seems the leadership here will do everything short of actually solving the underlying problem, which I hardly need to spell out for this forum's members: the deeply chauvinistic, patriarchal nature of this society, and its attitude towards sex.

Hell, circumcision ain't gonna make no difference. The stigma they always talk about should not be attached to the HIV infection, but to the way these WAY THESE GUYS F***K THEIR WOMEN.

I agree with you but how exactly is the leadership supposed to change the nature of our society?

 

[PeterCH]

Circumcision does not prevent aids and promoting this will only increase the spread of HIV as people will now believe they are immune to infection regardless of their disclaimer.

Wherever he got those figures from (50-60%) is seriously flawed.

http://www.mrc.ac.za/public/facts19.htm

Circumcision does seem to help prevent the spead of HIV. Secondly circumcision seems to have other benefits such as preventing HPV infection and so development of penile cancer (although there is now a vaccine against that as well) and spread of HPV to female partners (so they don't get cervical cancer).
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/15/1105

While no-single modality prevents HIV spread completely - using a combination of methods does help.

Some methods which are either being investigated or have been proven to work:
Abstinance
Fidelity
Condoms
Circumcision
Vaccination - possibly?
Pre-exposure ART use - possibly?
Post exposure ART use?
Use of ART in HIV positive people
Early treatment of ulcers and other infections

 

[Nothxkbi]

This is truly barbaric and stupid. Even if it were true that circumsission reduced risk this would only work for *******s who don't use condoms. So really, amputating the most sensitive part of your cock is less hassle for you than wearing a rubber? I have a far easier solution to the HIV/AIDS problem. Shoot yourself in the head. No really, I'll buy the bullets.

And if your girlfriend's previous partner had HIV? How about if wifey is messing around while you at work? Killing ones self seems a very extreme preventative measure imo.