We have shown for the first time that [men who have sex with men] who predominantly take on the insertive role in sex are less likely to contract HIV if theyve been circumcised, said Dr.
David Templeton from the National Center for HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research in Sydney.
It is not sufficient to rely on the nail alone to make Nail Soup." In the morning he went on his way, refreshed after a night in a comfortable bed, minus the nail, with some gold coins in his pocket and the thanks of the family ringing in his ears for the wonderful nail that made such delicious Nail Soup.
Eventually the Senate agreed to destroy Carthage, with disastrous consequences for Rome.) Recently, several studies have been published, most from Africa, one from India, claiming to show a link between having an intact penis and a higher risk of HIV infection.So circumcising insertive men could readily increase HIV transmission to their partners.Yet already this study is being touted as a reason for gay men to get circumcised.] Studies that claim to find a correlation between intactness and HIV transmission are not uncommonly misreported in a way that plays up the "protective effect".They tend to have two things in common - flawed work, and a passage near the end saying "Therefore, universal male circumcision should be considered as a preventive measure against HIV infection" or words to that effect. The latest study (2006) is the most careful so far to avoid the mistakes of its predecessors, but it still falls far short of justifying mass circumcision campagns of men in Africa, let alone Routine Infant Circumcision.It claims to have found a less protective effect than the one before it. Islam allows polygamy, which makes extramarital sex less likely, just by exhaustion, and encourages female seclusion, which of course makes HIV transmission less likely.As controls on "psychic" research are tightened, the effects found steadily diminish, and when control is complete, the effects vanish. These results are certainly consistent with the null hypothesis, that circumcision has no effect on HIV acquisition: the confounding factors have just not all been found yet.Yet as usual, this study advocates that "male circumcision should be seriously considered as an intervention to slow the spread of HIV-1 in uncircumcised populations".Only a tiny fraction of all scientific research is ever covered by the popular media, however, and most scientists go through their entire career without once encountering a reporter.New results and ideas are argued in the halls of research institutions, presented at scientific meetings, published in scholarly journals, all out of the public view.That's pathetically few to be drawing any statistical conclusions from, and then only of correlation, not causation.Were any of these men circumcised for religious reasons?