Originally posted by babybunnies
Please remind me again how circumcision is supposed to stop transmission of HIV ?
Actually, its very simple.
The foreskin is the only exposed skin surface on the male's body that contains immune system cells that have the ability to transmit HIV.
This is also why in the U.S., the disease seems not to pass as easily from female to male, but in most of the rest of the world, it became much more
of a heterosexual disease. THIS IS THE PATH that equalizes the male-female and female-male infection rates. With a population that was once 90%
circumsized, the virus did not have an equal path of infection, so women and high-risk groups took the brunt of the early days of the spread of
infection in the U.S. This helped promote the sterotypes that people with this disease are STILL fighting today (i.e. you have to be gay, a drug user,
or a prostitute to get infected).
Circumcision removes Langerhans cells
targeted by HIV
This has been known since almost as far back as 1987, but was proven in multiple trials in Africa in the late 90's and early 2000s'. It is the KEY
to why only 'high risk' groups in U.S. got infected, but in other parts of the world (where it is NOT practiced), the infection rates strikes a
broad section of the general population.
Not surprised many on here don't know this, I have already been educated on just how little people on this website know about this in general. Not to
blame...once again, if a person doesn't have to deal with it, they don't bother to learn.
Now if you want to discuss a conspiracy, then ask: Why does U.S. Medicaid no longer pay for this procedure? Why is is no longer promoted in the U.S.,
and actually discouraged? Could it be an attempt to increase the number of infections to a balanced population group and therefore increase the
support and funding?
Quandry to ponder, since I believe the funding of research for this disease is the key to unlocking the causes of so many disorders, but because of
uneducated and uninformed people, it is a difficult task...therefore increasing the population groups subjected to it is the only way? A quandry,
since promoting funding is good, but as education doesn't seem to work (just read some threads on this subject on this site to confirm THAT!!!),
increasing the infection rates of the general population might do it (bad, BAD)????
Meanwhile, if you are giving birth to a boy, and your doctor says this is totally unnecessary....I suggest you re-think that position and do a bit of