I just saw a piece on the news about a new study on circumcision and HIV/AIDS carried out in Africa:
Preliminary results of a two-year study involving 4,996 HIV-negative Ugandan men (between the ages of 15 and 49) who offered to be circumcised show that the practice is a major step towards HIV prevention in Africa and rest of the world.
Researchers found that men who are circumcised cut their chances of acquiring HIV infection, the retrovirus that causes AIDS, by over 50 per cent. Projections show that the procedure could save three million lives over the next 20 years.
Heh, the CTV staff might have chosen their words more carefully. I wouldn’t have gone with “men who are circumcised cut their chances’.
Of course, circumcision is a little more fraught than a simple innoculation. Plus, of course, circumcision isn’t adequate protection against contracting an HIV infection. Still, if governments and their citizens accept circumcision, apparently millions of lives could be saved.
DarrenBarefoot.com 
This sounds like an instance of bad science to me.
What’s the best way to protect yourself from becoming infected? Practicing safe sex. Why don’t people in developing countries practice safe sex? Because of cultural barriers and ignorance.
But the people that participated in that study “offered to be circumcised”. To me, this suggest that these men were fully aware of the HIV problem and not ignorant or beyond the cultural barrier.
Even if the authors controlled for that, I still wonder whether saving 3 million lives by circumcision is really better than saving 6 million lives by condoms.
Agreed, circumcision isn’t going to solve any problem. I wouldn’t even say it’s a band aid fix. Condoms and safe-sex practices are where it’s at for decreasing instances of HIV. Circumcision is the most commonly performed operation and it’s elective. It’s selective and endorsed mutilation. Penn and Teller did a really good episode about this on their series Bullshit.
This is really bad science reporting and a very questionable study. Circumcision will never prevent HIV. Education and safer sex practices are the only real hope we have right now. We know how hard it is to get education systems in developing countries now consider how hard it would be to get proper clean medical systems to perform all these circumcisions! Consider the surgical infection rate. Also the study leaves very limited medical explanation for why this operation would reduce infection. The simple fact is that circumcision has limited to no other medical benefits and is no longer recommended buy first world medical boards. It is basically endorsed mutilation like Wade said. This study is almost like saying that and effective way to reduce cancer in women is to remove their breasts….well it would reduce the breast cancer but is that the real answer tot he problem? Breast are not useless and neither are foreskins so removing them is not the solution. Finally it simply doesn’t translate to any first world population. The whole concept of the study is based on the idea that all of the participants were highly likely to be in contact with an infected person and that they were not intending to use protection. This isn’t the reality of first world life and therefor should not be used to justify an increase in circumcision rates here.
The Penn and Teller video is good ( even though many of there other episodes such as the one on global warming are a bit off):
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7772002181711601907&q=Penn+and+Teller
AIDS research conducted in Uganda is suspicious from the outset; read Celia Farber’s book. Even the definition of AIDS in Africa is suspicious.
Viewed from a cultural standpoint, is it not the dream of some skittish and/or racist Western whites to amputate black dicks? And what better pretense than a disease those whites would be unlikely to get in the first place?
To follow up on my comment: Here is a direct negative effect of the study; now uncircumcised boys are being sent home from schools in Kenya to be circumcised because of the study!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6355447.stm
^^ AIDS research conducted in Uganda is suspicious from the outset ^^
Agreed. In fact in Ghana, Rwanda, Tanzania, Lesotho, Malawi, and Cameroon, AIDS is more prevalent among the circumcised than in the intact. AIDS is even more rare in non-circumcising Japan than it is in 95%-cut Israel. 450,000 US men who were cut at birth have died AIDS. The foreskin does not cause AIDS, and circumcision will not prevent it.
Every mammal on earth evolved a foreskin before there was surgery or soap. HIS body HIS decision.
I bet if they cut the whole thing off it would “cut” the rate of HIV even further, but that’s certainly not an option.
I don’t think cutting a little bit is a good idea either, particularly not at an age where consent can’t be given.
Just say no(!) to any and all forms of genitalia mutilation.
So apparently circumcision is the cure for all know maladies and diseases, (or soon will be). Look at the history, first it was the cure for masturbation then penile cancer followed by cervical cancer. Next it was the cause of Urinary tract infections, (which is extremely common in women, where there is no talk about redesigning the genitalia – thank goodness). We know it doesn’t end there. Now it is STD’s and HIV/AIDS. I’m sure it won’t stop here, hmmm maybe the cause of the next pandemic! One by one all of the ‘fore’ mentioned justifications have all dropped off. It couldn’t be any more apparent that these are all forms of justification for cosmetic surgery and personal believes.