Hmmm... These folks go all the way to Africa and find a 23% HPV risk change after they cut off parts of grown mens penis in Uganda (a place with water issues). Then this is blasted all over the news, even though the actual study is actually old and has been reported months ago (just some paper that looks at the data again). The same folks that did the study showed that women that have sex with circumcision men have a 50% higher risk than sex with natural men (and that study got very little attention). Isn't that more significant? Meanwhile back in the States, several studies were conducted that show that in the UNITED STATES cut or natural have the same amount of HPV as cut men and ONLY the number of sexual partners and not circumcision status is linked to HPV risk. These important point are left out. If the risk change in Uganda is 23% I will tell my son to bring condoms, in the US there is NO risk change and I will still tell my son to use condoms. But he is lucky as he has all of his genital parts including 20000 pleasure giving stretch and touch sensing nerves that have been cut off many other American kids. This is certainly an attempt by those that like this practice to try to keep it going with FEAR. Male circumcision is a heinous practice. The US medical community is Obsessed with cutting off penis parts. Lets ge get the real news, if you have water the circumcision health benefit virtually nil,
It is also interesting that male circumcision lowering HIV risk is thrown around like a fact and yet real world data absolutely contradicts the 3 Africa studies. Many have pointed to the high circ rate and high HIV rate in the US compared to the low circ rate and LOW HIV rate in EU and JP. However, few mention that within the US, there is no HIV (nor HPV , STD) advantage to missing parts of the penis. What has gotten my attention is that in many of the countries that have started a circumcision campaign, the % of cut men with HIV is much higher than natural penis men with HIV. In Swaziland the infection rate for circumcised males is at 22 per cent while for those with a natural penis it is 20 per cent. IN Kenya they just did a study of a group and circumcision status was not associated with HIV or HSV-2 seroprevalence or current genital ulceration. How do these studies and the US, EU and JP data not match the Africa studies data? The 60% lowering that was really about 53%) and that is really a 1.6% risk change of the three often cited Africa studies has not been detected in the industrialized world and has also not been detected in places in Africa as noted. And again why is the other Africa study ignored that clearly showed circumcised men were passing HIV to women at a rate more than 50% higher than natural penis men.
Finally why is female circumcision never mentioned for HIV risk reduction. I would be very much against that even if voluntary (voluntary programs rely on coercion). Nevertheless, Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone Female Circumcision was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, and union status. Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? (3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment) International AIDS Society. Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone Female Circumcision had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not. Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. "Prevalence and risk determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID