Ron's Log

« About Those Drugged Up Naked Burners | Main | Meanwhile, at Two Bunch Palms »

November 27, 2013

In an attempt to reduce the number of new HIV infections Rwanda is seeking to circumcise 700,000 adult men by a "non-surgical" method. When I first read that I assumed a "non-surgical" circumcision would involve some kind of magic ritual that, if performed correctly, would cause the foreskin to just fall off. But I was wrong. Science has brought us the Pre-Pex. You can find a video on that site which will answer most of your questions. It requires two visits to a medical professional, but the procedure can be performed by nurses.

Filed under Health | permalink | November 27, 2013 at 07:51 PM

Comments

Firstly, studies have shown that chances of transmitting HIV from female to male during vaginal intercourse are about half the chance of male to female transmission. Secondly, circumcision reduces the likelihood that a male will acquire HIV from a female. Where have you seen anyone saying HIV can only be transmitted male to female?

Posted by: Ron's Log at Mar 14, 2014 1:32:04 PM

Why is this considered a disease that only a man can give to a woman, when women are just as capable of giving it to a man?

So only men must suffer??

Stupid.

Posted by: alston at Mar 14, 2014 12:09:38 PM

I wish the gay community would rise up and stop this brutalization of the male penis. It's a very sick society that allows a routine chopping off of body parts of infants who have no choice in the matter and profits from it. They throw people in jail for touching an infant's penis but nothing happens when a part of it is chopped off.

Posted by: Yarga Vorala at Dec 3, 2013 8:31:06 AM

This is the same haphazard method commonly used on infants. But with adults it's cheaper and easier since the skin doesn't need to be torn from the glans and the adult can supervise his own healing (PLUS have an informed say in the decision to amputate).

But men should know it won't work. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.

Posted by: Ron Low at Nov 30, 2013 7:02:52 PM

Rwandan men are *more* likely to have HIV if they've been circumcised:

2.1% of intact Rwandan men have HIV
3.5% of circumcised Rwandan men have HIV

(figures from measuredhs dot com)

From a USAID report:
"There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."

It seems highly unrealistic to expect that there will be no risk compensation. The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

It is unclear if circumcised men are more likely to infect women. The only ever randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised:

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery seems likely to cost African lives rather than save them.

Europeans don't circumcise, South Americans don't circumcise, Australians and New Zealanders used to circumcise but stopped, and less than half of North Americans circumcise. Why should Africans circumcise?

Recent news from Botswana
"There is an upsurge of cases of people who got infected with HIV following circumcision."

and from Zimbabwe:
"SOME circumcised men are contracting HIV and Aids after ditching the use of condoms, under a misguided belief that male circumcision (MC) would prevent them from getting infected"

Posted by: Mark Lyndon at Nov 28, 2013 5:22:47 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.