Again, America gets it right, Europe gets it wrong - Page 2

ScruffyCub · #16 27th July 2005, 04:19 PM

Where, exactly, did anyone here advocate NOT using condoms?

No one said that circ is an alternative to safer sexual practices.

cutguy · #17 28th July 2005, 10:24 AM

Being circ'd won't "prevent" infection. Being uncut doen't mean you will be infected. It's a matter of risk.

Not everyone who gets barebacked with an infected partner gets infected, in fact, most don't. (DON'T DO IT!!). Sucking off an infected cock is much safer than riding one. It's all a matter of degree.

Even the French, staunch defenders of the foreskin are being forced to admit that the rate of infection is much lower in circ'd guys than uncut ones. To the point that the very poor vaccine which is currently in the works, from a statistical standpoint, is much less effective than having been circ'd in the first place. This isn't an all or nothing issue.

As for me, when I mess around, I much prefer the look (and perhaps the false sense of security) of a cut partner. And I enjoy my uncut men for hand jobs only. My preference. When I am pronounced grand iatollah of America, the infidels will all be cut.

Specific200 · #18 28th July 2005, 08:00 PM

Cutguy:

Tehre is a Vaccine in the works for AIDS? You shitting me? I enver thought I'd hear the day that a virus could have a vaccine because of their mutation rate. Please tell us more.

Specific200 · #19 28th July 2005, 08:13 PM

See below for responses:

Quote:

Originally posted by cutguy
With such deep insight and so many facts at your fingertips, it is no wonder you guys just keep losing elections! (Thank heavens!)

Why we contribute a dime to that hell hole is beyond me, but be that as it may, ol' W had dumped MORE $$$ into Africa than Bill the rapist. Check on line for NIH funding.

There is new evidence that AIDS in Africa can be a threat to the US economically. Don't respond to me about this. Do your own research and you will find the information. Beyond economic matters, children are suffering because their parents had no education about protection, such as condoms, again, the result of inadequate sex education ala the Bush administration repsecting their religious base to deny that education.

And why should my very hard earned tax dollars go to support Mugabe in Zimbab, who steals white land, then proceeds to wreck his economy, or to So Africa, whose brilliant post aparthied president STILL denies that AIDS is a result of infection with HIV. Hell, it's my money, and my family needs it more than they do. I don't need Chirac's hand in my pocket.

"Steals white land." You're kidding right? That's like saying the Indians of North America are stealing "white land."

Now how much did you say France and Germany have contributed to that garden of eden?

Who cares what I think. Do the research yourself. You will find that the US has a great interest in curbing AIDS in Africa, mainly economically. If I rember correctly, one point was that if AIDS is allowed to continue, large portions of the child baring age people will die, which in turn will greatly decrease population of adults who can work, which in turn is a bad thing for the US who wants to develop Africa for proifit. You need people to develop. Tehre are otehr beter examples, but I have forgotten them. Again, if you are interested in facts and solutions, do your own research. If you're still stuck on Bill Clinton's life, write your won book or something. If you are mainly interested in appealing to people's emotions by throwing around button pushing phrases, become and evangelical Christian or look for a job with Rush Limbaugh. I don't know what else to say to you.

Off with their foreskins!

Seems like this is a good argument for the removal of the forskin for sure. At least we agree on that.

cutguy · #20 29th July 2005, 08:58 PM

Actually, there are several vaccines in the works, and none of them are particulary effective. That's the point of this study. The benefits of the vaccine are so inferior, at least statistically, to the efficacy of being circumcised when compared to being uncircumcised, that the trials of the vaccine are almost unethical to carry out.

Math and stats are NOT my forte. Several other guys who post can give you much more info than I can. BUT: If you vaccinate 10,000 guys at high risk, and after 1 year 10 become infected with HIV compared to 12 out of 10,000 who were not vaccinated, you would have a vaccine that isn't particularly effective. But if half of the 10,000 were cut, and half were not, and 9 of those who became infected were uncut, and and all 12 of in the placebo group were uncut, that would strongly suggest that being circumcised played a major role in the guys NOT becoming infected.

Proof? No. But really, really powerful data suggesting that we just might have a powerful weapon at our disposal, if only it were used. I don't expect a mass movement toward circumcision world wide. I know we do it out of habit here in the States. But from what I'm reading on the internet, the rate is definitely increasing in Australia, the Korean's love it, its becoming almost common in Germany, and so on...

Personally, I like the look. Medically, I think you have to be nuts, for many reasons beyond HIV, to keep that smelly flap of skin

Danny

tevaboi · #21 6th August 2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ScruffyCub
Where, exactly, did anyone here advocate NOT using condoms?

No one said that circ is an alternative to safer sexual practices.

Maybe nobody said it here, but this is the thinking in Africa.

I just stopped by a university medical library to pull the latest scientific papers about circumcision and AIDS in Africa. These papers are very clear that they are investigating circumcision as an alternative to using condoms for two reasons -- 1.) People don't like to use them and will "slipup"; but of more importance, 2.) The Catholic and Christian missionaries are blocking the distribution of condoms in Africa.

The primary purpose of these studies is NOT to find out if the foreskin transmits HIV better than other skin surfaces. Although, this is an interesting medical research question.

BTW, cutguy, I don't know if I found the exact paper your newspaper article clipping is referring to, but the latest papers (published in last several months) have cautions in their discussion/conclusion section about the accuracy of their circumcision data. I am not sure why it such a big deal for research doctors to ask the subjects to drop their pants and measure their foreskin (or lack thereof) with scientific rigor. (excuse the pun) But this important variable is not being measured very well.

gbanex · #22 9th August 2005, 05:29 PM

Unfortunately this study does not take into consideration some socioeconomic factors that plague African nations - the very ones who have the high incidences of AIDS and the very ones who were studies. Circumcised men in this region have better access to cleaner standards of living as they have the economic stature to elect circumcision.

With that said, it's true that the men with foreskin are at higher risk, but the post earlier where they stated that circumcision is like cutting off women's breast to avoid breast cancer is a good point.

Finally, consider this. If they circumcised all the men in Africa, I guarantee you that the AIDS rate will still be higher and that it will continue to outpace the rest of the world's.

AIDS is not a cut/uncut debate - it's one of ignorance and/or irresponsible behavior.

tevaboi · #23 13th August 2005, 02:24 PM

Here's the link to a 26 July, 2005 BBC news story http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...th/4719409.stm that says UN health agencies want to use circumcision as a method to stop AIDS, if it is proven effective.

The same illogic of using circumcision for disease prevention would also say we should extract everybody's teeth to prevent tooth decay and the resulting infections that kill many people in Africa.

cutguy · #24 13th August 2005, 04:20 PM

Actually, when recurrent endocarditis or meningitis can be traced to gum/dental disease, the treatment is to remove the teeth.

I know it is politically incorrect for a gay male to approve of circumcision, but I'm afraid that when it comes to saving lives, I'm not particularly politically correct.

Circing is a tool in this war. To abandon it or ignore it as a valid option when we have so little else is just plain stupid.

HomoLiberal · #25 19th August 2005, 10:05 AM

Cutting off healthy tissue to prevent HIV is something I'd expect from a doctor who thinks health care should be reserved for the well-heeled.

The hygenic practices in Africa are a big part of the reason HIV travels so fast through that culture. Open sores on genitilia are not unusual.

Circumcision in this country has always been a procedure in search of a justification. But it supplies a good revenue stream to the medical community so they love it.

Oh, and you people have won elections before but every period of republican rule is followed by LONG periods of liberalism. Check out what happened in the 30s or 60s when republicans dropped off to 20% and 35% control of Congress. Your ideology's policies always hurt MANY more than they help, not to mention that we still control 48% of EVERYTHING.

This next time the republicans stumble we'll see universal healthcare and very progressive taxation make a comeback.

Where will the selfish go then?

cutguy · #26 19th August 2005, 11:04 AM

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

"I voted for the war before I voted against it"

What was liberalism, I am afraid, is now called Republicanism or Libertarianism. It is a concept the Democratic party abandoned sometime around Jimmy Carter. The aberation that is referred to as "liberalism" today is moribund, and probably has not chance whatsoever of coming back in my lifetime. (Thank God!). You don't win elections and the hearts and minds of people by losing elections, and going out of your way to lose elections!

Having someone else do your thinking for you, or expecting your neighbor to financially support your victimization is fine, if that's what you want. Just include me out. I moved from NY to the South for a reason. The good citizens of Mass. and NY stay there for a reason.

As for the insult of restricting healthcare to the well heeled, are you talking about National Health in Great Britain or Medicare in Canada? I'm afraid that I for one do not believe in restricting medical care through rationing. Forces too many foreigners to come to the US for medical care. (Don't believe me? Go into any municipal hospital in New York City, Miami, Detroit, Buffalo. I don't make this stuff up. I'm not that good!)

And yes, if cutting off healthy tissue saves a few more lives from the ravages of HIV, I say sharpen the scalpels boys, Medicaid don't pay for clean ones.

mascguybost · #27 19th August 2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Having someone else do your thinking for you, or expecting your neighbor to financially support your victimization is fine, if that's what you want. Just include me out. I moved from NY to the South for a reason. The good citizens of Mass. and NY stay there for a reason.

Most people I know, inlcuding myself, stay here in MA because we like the change of seasons, the rich history, the architecture, the culture and it's a great place to get a top notch education, no matter what your political agenda. Did you forget our Govenor is Romney by the way? Also, I love living in a city where I can escape to a natural paradise like Provincetown with just a 90 minute boat ride. Just a few things that keep us here.

Oh yeah, The Fenway Community Health Center in Boston has been a leading force regarding HIV research and progress in treatment. Something you seem to be very concerned with. Funny though, the FCHC is one of those places supported by their neighbors. Oh yeah, the neighbors also support clean needle exchanges to cut down on HIV infections. Damn, the nerve of these fucking liberals. That money could have been spent better in my back pocket instead of supporting these people who victimize themselves by getting infected with HIV.

Just got a little pissed off when I read that.

jlba11 · #28 20th August 2005, 01:26 PM

No, doctor, Canadians are not crowding the hallways of American hospitals. What's happenning is this. Americans, by the busload - especially poor seniors - are crowding Toronto drugstores looking for affordable medications.

HomoLiberal · #29 20th August 2005, 07:28 PM

If the republicans the doc so loves get their way, health care will be decoupled from employment. It's part of their "ownership society". This is how it will work: We'll all have to carry expensive catastrophic care and all other charges- doctor visits, medications, etc.- will have to be paid out of pocket. Bascially it'll pit doctors against patients overwhelmed with $160 office visits. Good luck collecting, doc.

Oh, and as the other poster said, the myth of american health care besieged by Canadians is crap. Canada rations on the ability to wait, we ration on the ability to pay. The difference? The Canadian eventually gets taken care of. The only people coming here for medical care are the wealthy Canadians pissed that their government won't give them that tummy tuck or facelift TOMORROW.

Our health care system rates 37th in the world after all those countries that have socialized it. For the top 10% it is the BEST while the middle faces reductions in access and quality. The bottom in this country gets health care equivalent to sub-Saharan Africa. Pretty picture? Even Vietnam has just announced universal health care for everyone under 12. As rich as this pisspoor country is, we've been outdone by VIETNAM. A tip of the hat to the new conservatism and its inherent selfishness and greed for keeping us behind.

As for who runs the country: We're still living under the system put in place by LIBERALS when they ruled for almost a CENTURY. The best thing would be for the conservatives to actually make some headway witht their stalled agenda. They'll be gone very quickly if that happens.

The Medicaid thing? 70% of the money goes to nursing home care to take care of the well-heeled who hide their assets, plead poverty and then let Medicaid pick up the tab. It preserves their heirs inheritance and cheats the rest of us. The only people I know participating in such scams are all REPUBLICANS. Funny thing, huh?

Keep snipping off that healthy tissue. Gotta make another payment on the Range Rover.......