Decline in circumcision rate could cost billions

[FindLiberty]

No formal study here, but IMO cancer causing HPV, AIDS or any other STD germs should grow much better in that dark, moist fold of skin... why not? Sure, washing and wiping off little willie might even help reduce the risks (if performed promptly and gently... maybe followed by a nice blow dry), but even if Circ'd, a few germs may still thrive on the surface of the skin of the penis. How well will those remaining germs do; will they die off or produce a colony on the surface?

My hunch is any germs left behind will have an even better chance to thrive in that nice fold of fore-skin on an uncircumcised penis. It will help get 'em growing, luvin' it and multiplying (it's dark, remains warm and moist, Mmmm-So-Good for germs).

On the other hand, maybe a thick yeast colony living there in the fold will help crowd the bad little buggers out.

Using latex would be more effective and also prevent semen backwash through the urethra as the germ entry point. Without latex, regardless of circumcision status, that urethra germ entry vector welcome mat is always out! A nice wet kiss should also be a HPV vector to consider IMO.

Who really knows what's best? I still take the "keep the gov out of it" position.

 

[idiom]

Wait - Billions are spent on circumcisions? How much can a pair of rocks cost?!?

Also, Smegma.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And you're wrong about the crux being centered on AIDs.

That was a reference to one of your posts. The supposed cost benefit is 80% attributed to AIDS costs. If they cure AIDS, no more (cost) benefit from circumcision.

The model predicted that health-care spending will increase by $313 for each circumcision not performed. Cases of HIV, the AIDS-causing virus, would account for almost 80 percent of the increased costs, the authors said.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And let's be perfectly clear: circumcision does not prevent AIDS! Washing before and after sex probably has a greater safety effect than circumcision, but neither are going to save you if you are engaging in risky behavior with infected people.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Wait - Billions are spent on circumcisions? How much can a pair of rocks cost?!?

Also, Smegma.

What about it? You wouldn't be here without it. (and women produce it too)
"Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma." Thomas J. Ritter, MD

 

[angelatc]

Yes, I am aware of preventative mastectomies. Which makes the analogy very appropriate, and not as absurd as it might seem. It's a matter of "normality", isn't it? Cutting of this part is ludicrous, cutting off that part is common sense. Sounds more like cultural norms than science.

Well, breast cancer is at least somewhat genetic, so the analogy only makes sense if penile cancer is also genetic. And since circumcision reduces the odds of penile cancer, I disagree that it's culture taking precedence over science.

And again, it's quite likely that the cultural norms developed for medical reasons, even if the reasons weren't fully understood as they was developing. Those people had the opportunity to bathe perhaps 2 or 3 times a year. It would make perfect sense that the lack of proper hygiene played a role in sickness, and a circumcised penis was cleaner than an uncircumcised penis. The Jews would claim that God told them this should be done, but it would appear that God had a reason behind the edict.

 

[angelatc]

And let's be perfectly clear: circumcision does not prevent AIDS! .

Nobody said that circumcision stops AIDs. Scientists said that studies proved circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of AIDs in certain populations.

 

[low preference guy]

Again, if you have to resort to the absurd, you essentially are admitting you can't actually make a real case for your position.

you're arguing that it would reduce aids. removing the penis cuts the risk even more, so if your logic is valid, the logical conclusion is to cut the entire penis.

 

[low preference guy]

Cutting of this part is ludicrous, cutting off that part is common sense.

it all comes down to angela having breasts and not a penis.

 

[low preference guy]

The Jews would claim that God told them this should be done, but it would appear that God had a reason behind the edict.

so all those articles and statistics are just a rationalization for people who want to continue primitive and barbaric religious practices.

 

[angelatc]

Using latex would be more effective and also prevent semen backwash through the urethra as the germ entry point. Without latex, regardless of circumcision status, that urethra germ entry vector welcome mat is always out! A nice wet kiss should also be a HPV vector to consider IMO.

Who really knows what's best? I still take the "keep the gov out of it" position.

There is no "best." But at least one of the clinical studies in Africa involved a population that had free condoms, readily available in the home, and the men opted not to use them. Apparently that means they deserve to get AIDs, or something.

One of the biggest frustrations that doctors have is that people don't always do what's best for them. Diabetics stop taking their insulin, depressed people quit exercising, people don't finish the whole bottle of antibiotics, and so on.

Of course they have to accept the consequences of their own actions, but it's in the realm of the sciences to figure out how to improve the success rate even in the face of such obstacles.

 

[angelatc]

Wait - Billions are spent on circumcisions? .

God, this is why I could never be a teacher.

No, billions are not spend on circumcisions. Billions are currently not spent on medical care because our rate of circumcision is high. But that rate is dropping as the population is being liberalized by emphasizing emotion over science, and therefore the illnesses that become more common with uncircumcised penises will, obviously, climb.

 

[angelatc]

Exactly. Ignore obvious factors which effect results.

You're ignoring the actual studies, which clearly addressed those factors. How on earth can dialog progress when your position won't even allow you to address the most basic facts?

Why on earth are you so threatened by facts?

 

[angelatc]

That was a reference to one of your posts. The supposed cost benefit is 80% attributed to AIDS costs. If they cure AIDS, no more (cost) benefit from circumcision.

I believe that was from the original article.

But your math is fuzzy. If 80% of the cost benefit disappears, there is still a 20% cost benefit.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No formal study here, but IMO cancer causing HPV, AIDS or any other STD germs should grow much better in that dark, moist fold of skin... why not? Sure, washing and wiping off little willie might even help reduce the risks (if performed promptly and gently... maybe followed by a nice blow dry), but even if Circ'd, a few germs may still thrive on the surface of the skin of the penis. How well will those remaining germs do; will they die off or produce a colony on the surface?

My hunch is any germs left behind will have an even better chance to thrive in that nice fold of fore-skin on an uncircumcised penis. It will help get 'em growing, luvin' it and multiplying (it's dark, remains warm and moist, Mmmm-So-Good for germs).

On the other hand, maybe a thick yeast colony living there in the fold will help crowd the bad little buggers out.

You're of course entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. The facts are that the foreskin is self-cleaning and smegma makes human life possible (as I pointed out earlier).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You're ignoring the actual studies, which clearly addressed those factors. How on earth can dialog progress when your position won't even allow you to address the most basic facts?

Why on earth are you so threatened by facts?

Why are YOU so threatened by facts?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

For the study, Tobian and his colleagues devised a computer model to estimate the cost of STDs should the U.S. neonatal circumcision rate decline to 10 percent, the rate seen in Europe, where the procedure is not routinely covered by insurance.

The model predicted that health-care spending will increase by $313 for each circumcision not performed. Cases of HIV, the AIDS-causing virus, would account for almost 80 percent of the increased costs, the authors said.

Over a male's lifespan, HIV infections would increase by about 12 percent; HPV by roughly 29 percent; herpes by nearly 20 percent and infant urinary tract infections would more than double, the researchers determined.

In females, high-risk HPV would increase by more than 18 percent, and bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis would increase by 51 percent.

Read More http://www.ivillage.com/curbing-circumcision-boosts-stds-study-contends/

So let's look at these statistics. If the US reduces it's circumcision rate to that of Europe, all of these infection rates will increase by these large amounts? So as of today, Europe has massively more (percentages above) incidents of all of the above types of infections?

Am I missing something here? Do Europeans have that many more incidents of sexually transmitted diseases than people in the US?

 

[angelatc]

So let's look at these statistics. If the US reduces it's circumcision rate to that of Europe, all of these infection rates will increase by these large amounts? So as of today, Europe has massively more (percentages above) incidents of all of the above types of infections?

Am I missing something here? Do Europeans have that many more incidents of sexually transmitted diseases than the US?

Did you read the original article? You just posted it. They mentioned Europe specifically.

 

[angelatc]

Why are YOU so threatened by facts?

The facts are that circumcision reduces the spread and incidences of certain diseases. I'm not afraid of that at all.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I believe that was from the original article.

But your math is fuzzy. If 80% of the cost benefit disappears, there is still a 20% cost benefit.

Rounding. And I don't subscribe to the original estimated projections anyways.