Friday, August 28, 2009

FAIL! CDC Recommends Circumcision for HIV Prevention

Hold onto your willies (like you need to be told). The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released a statement this week recommending male circumcision as a means to prevent the spread of HIV.

CDC.Gov posted this rationale for the procedure:

Biologic Plausibility

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

In plain English, this means that the tissue on the head of your uncut Johnson is more like the mucous membrane in your mouth. It's more sensitive (duh!) and more susceptible to abrasions which might provide an entryway for sexually transmitted disease. Also, the area between head and foreskin is an environment that is more favorable to all kinds of cooties. Makes sense so far, right?

However, in June of 1989, The National Institutes of Health and the U.S. National Library of Medicine released the results of its own study of HIV infection in African countries where circumcision is rare that showed the infection rate was only about 1% lower in circumcised males. (source:

The study concluded: "Although strong population level correlation between circumcision and HIV seroprevalence exists, it does not prove a cause and effect relationship."

So lets do the math on preventing the spread of HIV:

Proper use of a condom: 99% effective

Circumcision: 1% effective

I hate to agree with Rush Limbaugh on anything, but it looks like we're on the same page for all the wrong reasons when it comes to this sensitive issue.

If the Obama Administration really wants to set itself apart from the "abstinence only" Bushies, they really need to do their homework when it comes to HIV/AIDS prevention and education. A better tactic would be to advocate the use of condoms by all sexually active males regardless of whether they've been snipped.

Obama Report Card Update:

Repeal of DADT - FAIL!

Repeal of DOMA - FAIL!


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

1 comment:

  1. The truth is: Circumcision is common under the Black people of South Africa but not under the Causations. It is not a “Gay thing” under the Black South Africans, but a true heterosexual disease.
    Circumcised or not will not make any difference in South Africa. The fact is that most Africans are circumcised and the HIV rate among African men is the highest.
    It is estimated that one of the Townships (Xhosas) in the City where I live 95% of the people are HIV positive and Circumcision is compulsory in the culture of the Xhosa people (as well as in most of the other tribes in South Africa).
    What worries me the most is an article in a Johannesburg News Paper, about a boy of 18 who went for a circumcision. “I’ve heard we must come and circumcise so that we cannot get sick,” he said. “My parents think it’s a good thing.” Maiko is one of about 100 men aged 15 and up who come to the center every day and briefly occupy one of seven curtained-off beds in a one-room surgery”(see article The whole aspect about circumcision is scary. If the message is understood that HIV cannot be contracted if you are circumcised the HIV rate in South Africa will increase considerably in the next few years.
    I think the best way to stop a lot of new cases is to educate students not to have sex until they are married. Otherwise to have protective sex if they cannot do without sex. My question is: Is this not only a moneymaking business? I was circumcised as a baby due to medical reasons but I would have preferred to not circumcise.


Please keep comments relevant and civil. Comments attacking other people will be deleted.

Subscribe in a reader