Age-incidence and prevalence of HIV among intact and circumcised men

cambridge.org

3 points·peter_retief··4 comments

I had hear of this myth in the early 2000s. To me, it seemed impossible that circumcision would somehow prevent HIV infection, but whatever, I thought it was good news.

Now it looks more and more like a concerted push by certain religious groups to get men circumcised.

And the people responsible for this will go unpunished, as usual.

Maybe it would make sense to read this scientific study to understand why they came to this conclusion.

I think the overton window has shifted on male genital mutilation. More people are questioning the point of it.

I've never understood removing the Langerhans cells which could be protecting peoples lives.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5712534

Circumcision like Female Genital Mutilation is a form of trauma into submission, which perfectly demonstrates the main ideology of religions in order to maintain order when there would be chaos.

However as HIV uses Langerhan cells to infect the host, I've yet to find any evidence that circumcision protects against infection considering the distribution of Langerhan cells.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28433429

However whilst heterosexual people might think they are safe from infection, there is another attack vector on HIV's side, namely personal lubricants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_lubricant#Risks

And lets not forget that the medical profession can identify and trace strains of virus as seen with covid, and bacterial infections can also be identified and thus traced, so the std sexual health clinics can work out who is shagging who and who is engaging in anal, but the front line staff probably dont know this, only the back orifice staff!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com