I have been puzzled how some good but very limited evidence has been again turned into a political snotfest. Let's look at the evidence here:

1) 70% reduction in transmission in 1.5 years is all fine, but if you extend the timeframe beyond that you're still talking about a lot of people with HIV. I don't see how this obviates condoms in favor of snipping the foreskin.

2) The study finds that uninfected men who insert are less likely to contract the disease; that's nice, but it doesn't give much hope to women who will continue to contract the disease from HIV-infected men. The only possible beneficiaries here are uninfected uncut men who start severely curtailing their partners.

3) It's virtually irrelevant to the epidemic in European and American men because they are getting infected as receptive partners. Anyone who starts barebacking with cut guys thinking they are lowering their risk are foolish.

If you keep your eyes on the science, there's some good stuff here. If you turn it into a political football, everybody loses.

Quote |