Size matters when it comes to AIDS defense

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 2:51 AM GMT
    29 October - Men with larger foreskins are more likely to become infected with the AIDS virus, researchers said Wednesday in a finding that helps explain why circumcision can protect men. The study of 965 men in Uganda, all without AIDS at the start, showed those with larger foreskins were more likely to become infected. Infection rates correlated with the size of the foreskin, Dr. Godfrey Kigozi of Johns Hopkins University's Rakai Health Sciences Program in Uganda and colleagues found. "Mean foreskin surface area was significantly higher among men who acquired HIV," they wrote in the journal AIDS. Several studies have shown that circumcision -- removal of the foreskin -- can protect men, but not their female sex partners, from HIV. It does not completely prevent infection but reduces the risk. Researchers believe the foreskin has many immune cells called dendritic cells, which may provide a route into the body for the virus.
    Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE59R5RP20091029
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 4:47 AM GMT
    Men who don't use condoms are most likely to get and spread HIV. Duh!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 7:05 AM GMT
    this debate has gone on forever and each time you find something that contradicts it. Nothing new. Im not about to have that done to myself or my son. FUCK That... Use a condom enough said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 7:54 AM GMT
    jimib saidMen who don't use condoms are most likely to get and spread HIV. Duh!


    Men who butt sex are also likely to get and spread HIV. Double duh!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 7:58 AM GMT
    anyone whom has any kind of sexual act with another human being can get HIV period... just be smart and use a condom and yes.. that goes for oral too if you are going to be screwing around.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 8:09 AM GMT
    I'm skeptical of these studies because the only way they could get pure, unbiased results is if they had all the men in the study, both circumcized and non, line up and sleep with the same woman one at a time. Do they seriously believe us to be ignorant?
  • handsoffire

    Posts: 178

    Oct 31, 2009 8:10 AM GMT
    The very simple correlation is not that hard, guys with foreskins have softer and more delicate skin in those areas...it tears more easily as it's not as think as those of us who have undergone the cut as it were. Our glands have thinkers and tougher skin, not as sensitive of course. It's rather common sense I think.
  • handsoffire

    Posts: 178

    Oct 31, 2009 8:12 AM GMT
    Folks in Africa have to deal with the catholic church telling them at every point that condoms are bad. I understand the emotion behind your statement, just look at the picture that being talked about tho ;) Luffz
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 9:23 AM GMT
    Only think is that it has nothing to do with micro tears. Rather that the foreskin is to protect the penis..

    "Researchers believe the foreskin has many immune cells called dendritic cells, which may provide a route into the body for the virus."

    Since HIV attacks Immune cells thats why they would assume why its possible for this to happen. Also if the uncut guy isnt clean as he should. Lots of reasons but I am rather happy to know my foreskin has immune cells there and lots of them too. Nature has them there for an obvious reason.
  • Sparkycat

    Posts: 1064

    Oct 31, 2009 9:54 AM GMT
    I'm quite fond of xtra large foreskins. Just my opinion...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 2:51 PM GMT
    Wow I thought they gave up these useless studies long time back.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 5:58 PM GMT
    luvjunkie saidI'm skeptical of these studies because the only way they could get pure, unbiased results is if they had all the men in the study, both circumcized and non, line up and sleep with the same woman one at a time.


    Do they seriously believe us to be ignorant?
    Yes they do and I think by in large we are very ignorant.

    I doubt most people have ever read Gallo's or Luc Montegnier original work to which HIV/AIDS is based let alone thousands and thousands of HIV/AIDS papers and studies that have come out in the last 27 yrs.

    You just demonstrated one skill that I hope you will continue to expand on for the rest of you life. That is to critically think and to think logically for yourself and not accept just because something is published in a Scientific journal that it is the definitive answer.

    To be able to develop your critically thinking skills and not acquiesce your knowledge to anyone else may just safe you life sometime on the future. Or at least you will not live a life based on fear because you don't understand.

    Papers, news briefs and places like this is a very bad place to get scientific information on any subject unless you don't care if it is proven or not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 6:25 PM GMT
    RyanReBoRn said
    jimib saidMen who don't use condoms are most likely to get and spread HIV. Duh!


    Men who butt sex are also likely to get and spread HIV. Double duh!


    Duh! I think you are destine to live you life as " Boy In A Bubble"

    Then you wont kiss anyone, give or get herpes, Face or Dick

    Then you won't go out to eat or kiss anyone below the waist. Hep A and B

    Certainly don't fall down scrape yourself or put your hands in places where Brown Recluse spiders live. Staph and you may be dead in a week or so.

    Please please stay out of hospitals more things crawling around there then you want to know about. Dah.

    Just to let you know as far I as I am concerned. No matter what you say or were you got tested or when you got tested I consider you HIV positive. As I do everyone one here. No exceptions! I doubt you have ever seen your test know the lab that tested you, know what test they did, ever worked with or know the equipment they use to do the testing.

    So bubble time
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 31, 2009 6:26 PM GMT
    " An international team of AIDS scientists has discovered that a gene variant common in blacks protects against certain types of malaria but increases susceptibility to HIV infection by 40 percent.

    Researchers, keen to find some biological clues to explain why people of African descent are bearing a disproportionate share of the world's AIDS cases, suspect this subtle genetic trait - found in 60 percent of American blacks and 90 percent of Africans - might partly explain the difference.

    Ten percent of the world's population lives in sub-Saharan Africa, but that region accounts for 70 percent of the men, women and children living with HIV infection. In the United States, African Americans make up 12 percent of the population but account for half of newly diagnosed HIV infections."

    http://sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/17/MNRI11PM03.DTL


    Has there ever been a 'study' involving circumcision and HIV on other people besides Africans?
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Oct 31, 2009 8:52 PM GMT
    After reading these posts, I'm disappointed in what people believe passes a science and logical skepticism. It's quite obvious that many people react adversely to this simply because it talks about foreskin, and all those foreskin fans throw their pitchforks in the air as soon as someone talks about something that casts it in a negative light. Secondly, all these tangents about embedded genome markers, false science (dendritic cells are immune cells, but not the helper t-cells HIV attacks; they simply attach to dendritic cells, pass through the lymph nodes, and then find the t-cells), or controls in an experiment all are acting strawman arguments. Regardless of outside factors, the simple science explains foreskin naturally is more susceptible to tears for which HIV enters the body, hence why people who do have it have higher raters of HIV infection versus those who are circumsized, both categories reflecting no condom use. It's depressing hearing people with no grasp on the math and science involved to speak out against it as if their words are correct... icon_rolleyes.gif Regardless of your personal opinion s on foreskin and the methods that can be controlled in this study, neither discounts the actual results (at least nothing from the arguments I have heard proposed here)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 9:36 PM GMT
    I love extra-large foreskins because I can dock with them. icon_biggrin.gif
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    Oct 31, 2009 10:12 PM GMT
    I think these studies are a touch ludicrous but they have a certain validity.

    I'm uncircumcised, and will maintain that, and will also ensure that my son (should I have one) is the same.

    Having said that...what do you do for countries where HIV is running rampant through the population and rumour is more prevalent than fact?

    The obvious answer, of course, is cut off the penis.

    Well, a part of the penis. It's been shown that in HETEROSEXUAL sex circumcised men are less likely to acquire HIV through vaginal sex than uncircumcised men. This is not the same for homosexual sex, what with there being no vagina and all.

    Personally, I think if you're too weak to control yourself and NOT fuck anything that walks by you....well then line up and mutilate your genitals. But people are people, people are horny, and when a condom costs like, $10...I suppose you have to take it with a grain of salt. The world some people live in is not the same as ours.

    So if it helps, it helps - but lets be REAL clear, this is a bandaid solution being applied to a gushing, gaping wound. This is not a long-term solution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 10:28 PM GMT
    If God didn't want me to have foreskin I wouldn't have been born with one. What did he make a mistake?
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Oct 31, 2009 10:29 PM GMT
    Calibro,
    What everyone has said are valid points. They need to be taken into consideration. It's not being unscientific or uneducated, it's exactly the opposite.

    You are making an assumption. Where in the article did it say that it was due to tears in the foreskin? It doesn't.


    all these tangents about embedded genome markers,

    How is that a tangent? How is it being reasonable to apply circumcision findings amongst African men who are disproportionately getting infected with HIV to people not of African descent? Especially when it has been discovered that people from Africa have a genetic trait which makes them more susceptible to HIV to begin with?

    false science (dendritic cells are immune cells, but not the helper t-cells HIV attacks; they simply attach to dendritic cells, pass through the lymph nodes, and then find the t-cells),

    Like the article said, "Researchers believe the foreskin has many immune cells called dendritic cells, which may provide a route into the body for the virus."


    or controls in an experiment all are acting strawman arguments.

    That's not a strawman argument it's a valid point to make.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 10:44 PM GMT
    calibro saidAfter reading these posts, I'm disappointed in what people believe passes a science and logical skepticism. It's quite obvious that many people react adversely to this simply because it talks about foreskin, and all those foreskin fans throw their pitchforks in the air as soon as someone talks about something that casts it in a negative light. Secondly, all these tangents about embedded genome markers, false science (dendritic cells are immune cells, but not the helper t-cells HIV attacks; they simply attach to dendritic cells, pass through the lymph nodes, and then find the t-cells), or controls in an experiment all are acting strawman arguments. Regardless of outside factors, the simple science explains foreskin naturally is more susceptible to tears for which HIV enters the body, hence why people who do have it have higher raters of HIV infection versus those who are circumsized, both categories reflecting no condom use. It's depressing hearing people with no grasp on the math and science involved to speak out against it as if their words are correct... icon_rolleyes.gif Regardless of your personal opinion s on foreskin and the methods that can be controlled in this study, neither discounts the actual results (at least nothing from the arguments I have heard proposed here)


    I have a degree in Physics and well acquainted with math and scientific studies both biological and physical science.

    I am not up on any foreskin studies so enlighten me as to what simple science studies determine that the ability of foreskin to tear easier then other skin? I would like to see the multiple verifiable studies and their protocols and their math.

    I am curious do these studies go back to 78 and look at the men that contracted HIV and died as AIDS victims to see if they were skewed population of intact men?

    When I ask questions and for information on HIV i am only asking about the US. I do not discuss Africa as that is a pit that holds very little creditable scientific information. Way to much of it is extrapolation.

    For me this is not the place to talk science or "now we know" about anything just by listing one study. That is not how science works. It may be interesting discussion but hardly definitive facts.

    I have one more question since you are a man of science and math. You seem to be capable of determining which studies have the correct conclusions that were verified by other studies. Which means if a group of equally capable scientists did the same simple science studies you speak of, then they would reach the same conclusions.

    My question to you: You gave us a description of how HIV once passing the skin barrier enters the T-cell. What does HIV do to the T-Cell?
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    Oct 31, 2009 10:45 PM GMT
    Well, to be fair, when this study originally came out like, months ago, it was implied it was because of microtears in the inner lining of the foreskin.

    And the genetic trait that makes some africans resistant to malaria is actually the gene for sickle-cell anemia, I do believe, which is a mutation wrt red blood cells and is not a pleasant mutation.
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    Oct 31, 2009 10:50 PM GMT
    Roccoe said
    calibro saidAfter reading these posts, I'm disappointed in what people believe passes a science and logical skepticism. It's quite obvious that many people react adversely to this simply because it talks about foreskin, and all those foreskin fans throw their pitchforks in the air as soon as someone talks about something that casts it in a negative light. Secondly, all these tangents about embedded genome markers, false science (dendritic cells are immune cells, but not the helper t-cells HIV attacks; they simply attach to dendritic cells, pass through the lymph nodes, and then find the t-cells), or controls in an experiment all are acting strawman arguments. Regardless of outside factors, the simple science explains foreskin naturally is more susceptible to tears for which HIV enters the body, hence why people who do have it have higher raters of HIV infection versus those who are circumsized, both categories reflecting no condom use. It's depressing hearing people with no grasp on the math and science involved to speak out against it as if their words are correct... icon_rolleyes.gif Regardless of your personal opinion s on foreskin and the methods that can be controlled in this study, neither discounts the actual results (at least nothing from the arguments I have heard proposed here)


    I have a degree in Physics and well acquainted with math and scientific studies both biological and physical science.

    I am not up on any foreskin studies so enlighten me as to what simple science studies determine that the ability of foreskin to tear easier then other skin? I would like to see the multiple verifiable studies and their protocols and their math.

    I am curious do these studies go back to 78 and look at the men that contracted HIV and died as AIDS victims to see if they were skewed population of intact men?

    When I ask questions and for information on HIV i am only asking about the US. I do not discuss Africa as that is a pit that holds very little creditable scientific information. Way to much of it is extrapolation.

    For me this is not the place to talk science or "now we know" about anything just by listing one study. That is not how science works. It may be interesting discussion but hardly definitive facts.

    I have one more question since you are a man of science and math. You seem to be capable of determining which studies have the correct conclusions that were verified by other studies. Which means if a group of equally capable scientists did the same simple science studies you speak of, then they would reach the same conclusions.

    My question to you: You gave us a description of how HIV once passing the skin barrier enters the T-cell. What does HIV do to the T-Cell?


    Couple of points - the cells lining the inside of the foreskin are significantly more protected than cells on the outside - if you wanted to prove this you could probably take a sample, hook up some VERY fine threads to either side, and measure how much force is required to tear it, and then compare to various other types of cells throughout the body.

    Second, HIV takes over t-cells and starts producing copies, then it preferentially cultivates an area of the t-cell cell membrane and inserts various HIV-specific proteins (gp160 in it's finished state), packages the genome in a capsid and then buds off the t-cell, until the t-cell essentially explodes/shuts down and dies due to lack of membrane.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 11:25 PM GMT
    Soundwave said
    Roccoe said
    calibro said



    ?


    Couple of points - the cells lining the inside of the foreskin are significantly more protected than cells on the outside - if you wanted to prove this you could probably take a sample, hook up some VERY fine threads to either side, and measure how much force is required to tear it, and then compare to various other types of cells throughout the body.

    That is interesting but: The question was: Are there simple science studies that prove foreskin tears easier then other skin? Where are they and have they been duplicated? You have a good grasp to doing experimental work and may want to do that protocol sometime in your life. However If this is true was it applied to the past population to explain data that couldn't be explain before.

    If you go back and look at the US population of HIV and Aids is that population skewed to intact men and was that a noticeable unexplained event?

    Second, HIV takes over t-cells and starts producing copies, then it preferentially cultivates an area of the t-cell cell membrane and inserts various HIV-specific proteins (gp160 in it's finished state), packages the genome in a capsid and then buds off the t-cell, until the t-cell essentially explodes/shuts down and dies due to lack of membrane.


    This is really not the place to get into this but I will ask one more question: When you want to study HIV where do you go to get it, where did the line come from and how is it grown?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 31, 2009 11:37 PM GMT
    Roccoe said
    RyanReBoRn said
    jimib saidMen who don't use condoms are most likely to get and spread HIV. Duh!


    Men who butt sex are also likely to get and spread HIV. Double duh!


    Duh! I think you are destine to live you life as " Boy In A Bubble"

    Then you wont kiss anyone, give or get herpes, Face or Dick

    Then you won't go out to eat or kiss anyone below the waist. Hep A and B

    Certainly don't fall down scrape yourself or put your hands in places where Brown Recluse spiders live. Staph and you may be dead in a week or so.

    Please please stay out of hospitals more things crawling around there then you want to know about. Dah.

    Just to let you know as far I as I am concerned. No matter what you say or were you got tested or when you got tested I consider you HIV positive. As I do everyone one here. No exceptions! I doubt you have ever seen your test know the lab that tested you, know what test they did, ever worked with or know the equipment they use to do the testing.

    So bubble time


    I don't believe half of these studies anyways because studies in medical science have been known to be wrong about things quite often abd there is even a lot of different opinions in the medical field. I wouldn't call these studies very trustworthy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 01, 2009 12:45 AM GMT
    G_Force said
    Roccoe said
    RyanReBoRn said
    jimib said


    I don't believe half of these studies anyways because studies in medical science have been known to be wrong about things quite often abd there is even a lot of different opinions in the medical field. I wouldn't call these studies very trustworthy.


    G-Force I am so so so so disappointed in you!!

    What is a mire little $600 million fine paid out recently by Large Pharmaceutical to cover transgressions in one of their drugs. Why should that shake your confidence in the FDA, CDC or the NIH. Those other drugs recently that were taken off the market for sever side effects after the most stringent testing. NO big deal, doctors and pharmaceuticals companies need to play together nicely.

    What's 30 years and billions of dollars on a viral cause of cancer that never produced anything. You didn't need that money anyway. Any other scientific studies that pointed to other causes were trash. Once an idea is official sanctioned that it so what if it doesn't produce a solution. You don''t go back and look at the premise as being wrong. The pope in the 15th century ( Copernicus ) didn't allow that so why do it now.

    You think it is important to prove your theories or conclusions. That data be shown to do that and that stringent peer review be done to verify those results. If those results can't be duplicated no big deal G-force.

    It is good enough to say we think or we believe that this happens or that happens as long as it fits the officially sanctioned premise.

    G-Force I am totally blown away by your statements.



    Fudging data or leaving some data out to make your studies fit your conclusions . What you have a problem this.