RE: Flawed study: NARI,Pune study on the effect of circumcision on HIV transmission

[Guest guest]

Hello to the forum,

I know that in these days when everyone is trying to have an impressive CV

and a phD and all other manner of things to study then it is appropriate to

consider many issues of safety where HIV is concerned.

Without another study it is possible to determine that an uncircumsized male

is more likely to contact the virus from an infected partner simply because

we know which cells the virus finds easiest to bind with and where those

cells are likely to be found in convenient proximity to infected body fluid.

Many of these cells are found in vaginas so female susceptibility is high

always without protection

Quite a number of the same cells are found under the foreskin of

uncircumsized penises because they are there for the same reason. To

intercept invading bacteria and carry them off for disposal to the immune

system.

If you want comparative studies just compare hindu predominate India with

circumcison predominate Kenya and compare the rates of males/females

infected in each country and the figures speak for themselves.

Muslim clients have always said their rate being lower is as a result of

them being protected by their God but in practical terms it is an anatomical

reason rather than a spiritual reason the muslim males will not succumb so

easily to penile transmission.

All groups are susceptible via the anal route of transmission but the sero

conversion process is different.

There is nothing flawed around the logic of why that is the case.

The important message though is that a latex barrier (condom) between

infected body fluid and the prospective host is 99% effective, providing the

skills in using the pro life latex barriers are well developed and

understood.

By well developed I mean correctly fitted, appropriately lubed (do not use

spit, butter, margarine or vaseline) and not unduly stressed in the motion

and angles of intercourse. (water based lubricant such as KY jelly is fine

and there are some rolls royce silicon lubes that are expensive but don't

dry out and flake like water based lubes.)

Given what we already know, there ought to be a complete understanding, not

that all hindu's should be circumsized unless of course they develope

chancroid syphillis which is common in african males and which often never

heals properly without chemotheraphy and a circumscision operation,

but that the risk factor for an uninfected male via the penile route of

infection is five times more likely without a condom than for the

circumcised penis.

I want to stress again that vaginal and anal transmission rates remain high

without condoms for reasons to do with the laboratory conditions that keep

the virus healthy and strong, namely no variation of temperature more than

about 3 degrees and no oxygen present.

Some more controlled studies might be useful to prove the above although I

wouldn't want to try to get ethical approval for sample that had unprotected

intercourse as one of the study arms.

I am happy from what I have examined to take the mostly circumsized males of

Kenya rate as compared to females in that country and then look at the same

ratios between hindu males and females in India. That research suggested

that in Kenya three times more women are infected than males in similar age

groups and in India the gender ratios are about the same.

Geoffrey

E-mail: <gheaviside@...>