However, it is not 100% effective. Both circumcised and uncircumcised men need to use condoms to protect themselves and get tested regularly. It's also not a good enough reason to recommend circumcision. Circumcision also reduces the risk of UTIs in male infants, but again, the risk is already very low.
When a male has a circumcision his penis is easier to keep clean and that is better for his health and the health of his partners in general. It might or might not help reduce the risk of HIV transmission, although it might and it certainly would reduce the risk of other illnesses.
Is it not ridiculous to try to prevent AIDS by cutting off healthy undiseased tissue when the tissue that is cut off contains substances that fight against viruses such as HIV? Keeping the foreskin and education is safer than circumcision. If a man is foolish enough not to use a condom, or if the condom breaks, he can be safer with the foreskin than without it. Heterosexual uncircumcised men who wait ten minutes and wipe with a dry cloth are safer than circumcised men.
"If we were to express the efficacy of delayed washing in the same way that the results of PrEP trials were reported, that is as relative risk reductions, this would mean that not washing immediately, but waiting for at least 10 minutes after intercourse before washing can reduce the risk of infection by 83%. Compare this to the 44% efficacy of Truvada in the iPrEx trial, the 39 % efficacy of tenofovir gel in reducing the risk of infection in women in the Caprisa 004 trial, and the 38-66% efficacy reported for circumcision over 24 months."
The reason the foreskin provides protection is because it contains Langerin which is a barrier to HIV-infected Langerhan's cells thus making the foreskin the body's front line of defense against disease and infections such as HIV! De Witte wrote: "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 infection, and strategies to combat infection must enhance, preserve or, at the very least, not interfere with Langerin expression and function."
de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, et al. (March 2007). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells". Nature Medicine 13
Circumcision failed to work in Zimbabwe!
"National Aids Council (NAC) public health officer Blessing Mutede said authorities were concerned about the high rate of infection among the circumcised."
“The circumcision solution is a wasteful distraction that takes resources away from more effective, less expensive, less invasive alternatives. By diverting attention away from more effective interventions, circumcision programs will likely increase the number of HIV infections.”
“While the absolute reduction in HIV transmission associated with male circumcision across the three female-to-male trials was only about 1.3%, relative reduction was reported as 60%, but, after correction for lead-time bias, averaged 49%. In the Kenyan trial, male circumcision appears to have been associated with four new incident infections. In the Ugandan male-to-female trial, there appears to have been a 61% relative increase in HIV infection among female partners of HIV-positive circumcised men. Since male circumcision diverts resources from known preventive measures and increases risk-taking behaviours, any long-term benefit in reducing HIV transmission remains uncertain.”
“…early childhood circumcision does not markedly reduce the risk of the common STIs in the general population in such countries.”
"Multiple logistic regressions were constructed separately to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI.Conclusions: [circumcision] is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. Military population."
“There are no compelling health arguments in favor of circumcision, while it can have serious long-term urological, psychological and sexual consequences. And performing medically unwarranted circumcision of underage boys conflicts with good medical practice. Male infant circumcision conflicts with children’s rights and the doctors’ oath not to do harm. “
"The [AAP] policy statement and technical report suffer from several troubling deficiencies, ultimately undermining their credibility. These deficiencies include the exclusion of important topics and discussions, an incomplete and apparently partisan excursion through the medical literature, improper analysis of the available information, poorly documented and often inaccurate presentation of relevant findings, and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence given."
“In studies of general populations, there is no clear or consistent positive impact of circumcision on the risk of individual sexually transmitted infections. Consequently, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections cannot rationally be interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and any policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent sexually transmitted infections is not supported by the evidence in the medical literature.”
“…circumcision did not confer significant protective benefit against STI/HIV infection. Findings suggest the need to apply caution in the use of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy, particularly in settings where more effective combinations of interventions have yet to be fully implemented.”
While the United States has a high circumcision rate, the United States also has a higher percentage of HIV cases than European Nations where circumcision is rare.
HIV is a virus, that when exposed to air dies. I understand the extra fold of skin part to an uncircumcised penis, but I don't think it significantly contributes to infection risks. It may increase the risk of other STD's, but the nature of the HIV virus seems to make the question irrelevant.
Circumcision doesn't reduce HIV transmission. Not having sex reduces the risk of HIV transmission. Being circumcised is an ancient and outmoded way of think. Mother Nature put that stuff there for a reason. The foreskin might have been there simply to keep the area warm in cold weather, which we don't need anymore thanks to clothing, but removing the foreskin isn't necessary anymore.
HIV is not determined by whether the male has a circumcised or uncircumcised penis. HIV is spread through blood contact as well as unprotected sex. Therefore, circumcised penises versus uncircumcised penises has no bearing on whether or not you spread or contract the disease. To reduce the risk, you need to use protection.
Circumcision can not help reduce the risk of HIV transmission. All circumcision is the removal of the extra skin around the base of the penis. With or without it, you still risk the chance of HIV and STD transmissions. There is nothing about circumcision that will prevent diseases from spreading.
If circumcision reduced the rates, the United States should have some of the lowest (if not THE lowest) rates of HIV/AIDS in the industrialized world. For those who don't know, none of the other industrialized countries of the world have anywhere near as many circumcised men as the USA, and most have almost NO circumcised men. Our rates are actually among the very highest! Now, granted, there are other issues that influence the spread of the virus, but if circumcision reduced the transmission of HIV by 60%, like many Americans are now claiming, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that the country with the highest circumcision rates should have LESS HIV, rather than MORE?
At any rate, telling people that circumcision offers protection from HIV/AIDS gives people a false sense of security that will result in carelessness and more cases!
No, circumcision can not help reduce the risk of HIV transmission. It is my belief that the only action that can reduce the risk of HIV is knowing your own status as well as the status of your partner, and taking appropriate safe sex measures to protect yourself. Relying on circumcision would be irresponsible for all involved.