Circumcision and HIV: Difference between revisions

Line 328:

==== Bacterial environment hypothesis ====

This hypothesis attempts to identify the change in bacterial environment that results in the penis as a result of circumcision, as the mechanism whereby circumcision reduces the spread of [[HIV]] transmission. A desperate ad-hoc hypothesis, the explanation is rather farfetched. The argument is that the change in bacterial environment after circumcision makes it difficult for bacteria that cause diseases to live; there are less chances for penile inflammation, a condition that facilitates the transmission of viruses. The chances for penile inflammation are reduced, thereby reducing the chances of sexually transmitted viruses, such as [[HIV]].<ref>{{REFjournal

This hypothesis attempts to identify the change in [[microbiome| bacterial environment]] that results in the [[penis]] as a result of [[adult circumcision]], as the mechanism whereby circumcision reduces the spread of [[HIV]] transmission. A desperate ad-hoc hypothesis, the explanation is rather farfetched. The argument is that the change in bacterial environment after circumcision makes it difficult for bacteria that cause diseases to live; there are less chances for penile inflammation, a condition that facilitates the transmission of viruses. The chances for penile inflammation are reduced, thereby reducing the chances of sexually transmitted viruses, such as [[HIV]].<ref>{{REFjournal

|last=Price

|first=Lance B.

Line 374:

}}</ref>

Presenting this hypothesis presents a two-fold problem. First, it presents an irrelevant conclusion; the randomized control trials were measuring frequency in [[HIV]] transmission, not for frequency in penile bacterial inflammation, and whether said inflammation facilitated sexually transmitted [[HIV]]. And secondly, circumcision advocates give themselves the new burden of proving the newly introduced hypothesis, that change in bacterial infection does indeed result in a significant reduction of [[HIV]] transmission. A new study is needed to measure [[HIV]] transmission in men who have been [[circumcised]], [[intact]] men with constant penile inflammations, and [[intact]] men who don't suffer constant penile inflammation. Unless the randomized controlled studies were limited to only [[intact]] men who suffered constant penile inflammation.

Presenting this hypothesis presents a two-fold problem. First, it presents an irrelevant conclusion; the discredited randomized control trials were measuring frequency in [[HIV]] transmission, not for frequency in penile bacterial inflammation, and whether said inflammation facilitated sexually transmitted [[HIV]]. And secondly, circumcision advocates give themselves the new burden of proving the newly introduced hypothesis, that change in bacterial infection does indeed result in a significant reduction of [[HIV]] transmission. A new study is needed to measure [[HIV]] transmission in men who have been [[circumcised]], [[intact]] men with constant penile inflammations, and [[intact]] men who don't suffer constant penile inflammation. Unless the randomized controlled studies were limited to only [[intact]] men who suffered constant penile inflammation.

== The immunological function of the foreskin ==

@@ Line 328: / Line 328: @@
 ==== Bacterial environment hypothesis ====
-This hypothesis attempts to identify the change in bacterial environment that results in the penis as a result of circumcision, as the mechanism whereby circumcision reduces the spread of [[HIV]] transmission. A desperate ad-hoc hypothesis, the explanation is rather farfetched. The argument is that the change in bacterial environment after circumcision makes it difficult for bacteria that cause diseases to live; there are less chances for penile inflammation, a condition that facilitates the transmission of viruses. The chances for penile inflammation are reduced, thereby reducing the chances of sexually transmitted viruses, such as [[HIV]].<ref>{{REFjournal
+This hypothesis attempts to identify the change in [[microbiome| bacterial environment]] that results in the [[penis]] as a result of [[adult circumcision]], as the mechanism whereby circumcision reduces the spread of [[HIV]] transmission. A desperate ad-hoc hypothesis, the explanation is rather farfetched. The argument is that the change in bacterial environment after circumcision makes it difficult for bacteria that cause diseases to live; there are less chances for penile inflammation, a condition that facilitates the transmission of viruses. The chances for penile inflammation are reduced, thereby reducing the chances of sexually transmitted viruses, such as [[HIV]].<ref>{{REFjournal
   |last=Price
   |first=Lance B.
@@ Line 374: / Line 374: @@
 }}</ref>
-Presenting this hypothesis presents a two-fold problem. First, it presents an irrelevant conclusion; the randomized control trials were measuring frequency in [[HIV]] transmission, not for frequency in penile bacterial inflammation, and whether said inflammation facilitated sexually transmitted [[HIV]]. And secondly, circumcision advocates give themselves the new burden of proving the newly introduced hypothesis, that change in bacterial infection does indeed result in a significant reduction of [[HIV]] transmission. A new study is needed to measure [[HIV]] transmission in men who have been [[circumcised]], [[intact]] men with constant penile inflammations, and [[intact]] men who don't suffer constant penile inflammation. Unless the randomized controlled studies were limited to only [[intact]] men who suffered constant penile inflammation.
+Presenting this hypothesis presents a two-fold problem. First, it presents an irrelevant conclusion; the discredited randomized control trials were measuring frequency in [[HIV]] transmission, not for frequency in penile bacterial inflammation, and whether said inflammation facilitated sexually transmitted [[HIV]]. And secondly, circumcision advocates give themselves the new burden of proving the newly introduced hypothesis, that change in bacterial infection does indeed result in a significant reduction of [[HIV]] transmission. A new study is needed to measure [[HIV]] transmission in men who have been [[circumcised]], [[intact]] men with constant penile inflammations, and [[intact]] men who don't suffer constant penile inflammation. Unless the randomized controlled studies were limited to only [[intact]] men who suffered constant penile inflammation.
 == The immunological function of the foreskin ==