Circumcision Could Lower HPV Risk (VIDEO)

Male circumcisions can decrease women's risk of developing the human papillomavirus (HPV), according to a new study published in The Lancet. Women whose sexual partners were circumcised were 28 percent less likely to acquire the virus, the study found.

This information may come as a blow to those who take a strong stance against the routine practice of circumcision -- namely "intactivists," an anti-circumcision activist group in San Francisco that seeks to ban the practice for anyone under the age of 18. The group consideres circumcision to be a form of genital mutilation and should require consent, something newborns are incapable of expressing.

"This is a very heated topic," Karen Boyle, M.D., Director of Reproductive Medicine & Surgery at Chesapeake Urology Associates, told ABC News.

So where does the medical community stand on the issue? "They're kind of wishy-washy," said Boyle. The jury is still out in the medical industry when it comes to routine circumcision; there is not enough data yet to endorse it, nor does it present enough of a safety risk to warrant a ban, she said.

WATCH:

Comments

[fec]

11:37 AM on 03/01/2011

such monstrousness. so, somehow, we STILL have discussions about slicing off the most sensitive pat of a helpless baby boy's penis just days after birth; still with no anesthesia in cases, and somehow THAT is even ok to discuss, but the idea that 1/10th of 1% of the world's girls/women are circumcised and there are international rage fests over THAT., let's start circumcisizing girls at the same rate as boys, if we think circumcision is so great.

also, boys do NOT exist to have their bosies mutilated so that a woman man one day get a disease, maybe. yet, somehow this "scientific" data is the foundation for endless outrageousness over even discussing this barbaric topic. if women don't want to get HPV then DON'T HAVE SEX, PERIOD. i don't exist, as a man nor does any other ma or more importantly baby boy exist to be mutilated to "protect" women.

and how convenient that gardasill was never tested in boys. you know, cause why bother, they are only boys, but GIRLS; well, THEY need every protection imaginable because they are just such huge victims on this planet earth. puhlease.

[Craig Ginsberg]

07:33 PM on 02/24/2011

HPV is the most common STD in the U.S. Its association with circumcision, has been a heavily debated topic for many years.

Most studies on HPV performed before 2006 had poor controls and relatively small study groups. A recent 2008 study on HPV, is currently the largest study on circumcision and HPV ever performed in the U.S. And since the study was performed in the U.S.(not rural Africa), the results are directly applicable to people who live in the U.S. They concluded:

"The percentage of circumcised men reporting a diagnosis of genital warts was significantly higher than uncircumcised men, 4.5% (95% CI, 3.6%–5.6%) versus 2.4% (95% CI, 1.5%–4.0%)".(11)

Circumcised men where about twice as likely to have HPV! The practice of circumcision could very well be a contributing factor to the prevalence of HPV in the U.S.

Nevertheless pro circumcision advocates have continued to mine for data in inapplicable communities like rural Uganda with the intent to prove that circumcision does reduce the risk for HPV. Yet, when these studies are performed they get an incredible amount of press. Why did the previous study I present not gain any publicity?

(11)Dinh, T.H.; M. Sternberg, E.F. Dunne and L.E. Markowitz (April 2008). "Genital Warts Among 18- to 59-Year-Olds in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004". Sexually Transmitted Diseases 35 (4): 357–360.

[Rubiconski]

10:01 PM on 01/23/2011

Sexual violence (circumcision) done to infants often leads to sexual violence and callousness when the child reaches adulthood.

callous |ˈkaləs|
adjective
showing or having an insensitive and cruel disregard for others

[oxjr]

05:45 AM on 01/13/2011

If someone wants to do it as an adult that is fine - but to encourage mothers to mutilate their sons is reckless. Botched circumcisions are very common and trust me - no one wants a split penis.

[wackette]

07:35 PM on 01/11/2011

Who wrote this article?

[JoeAlvord]

06:20 PM on 01/11/2011

There's a vaccine that will prevent it without mutilation.

[Sheldon101]

04:50 PM on 01/10/2011

Take a tip from the rabbi, after all he took one from you.

[ScottSutton]

07:38 AM on 01/10/2011

DEAR GOD!!! STI studies are near useless. None of them take into account the culture norms, that everyone lies about sex and they are presuming that everyone is going condom-less (eww....). Save the cost of the circumsision and teach you son to use a condom EVERY TIME people. Pregnancy is the biggest STI and stays with you till you die.

[ScottSutton]

09:59 AM on 01/10/2011

MEH! Sorry for the typos but I wrote this around 4am.

[ChristianCooper]

04:00 AM on 01/10/2011

The data from Africa between circumcized vs un-circumcized show no decrease in STDs. It is a bunch of BS to say that it cuts the rate of STDs. Look at the numbers.

[jeremyfisher]

07:43 PM on 01/09/2011

Of course sex is pleasurable, foreskin or no. However, when that scar tissue is created, those nerve endings are severed, there is NO WAY sex will EVER feel as good. How can a circumcized person or his spouse ever know what they are missing? They can't, and have no honest opinion to offer. Stop the barbarism. So cruel.

[Salud]

08:23 PM on 01/09/2011

Most scientific studies show no difference in sexual pleasure based on circumcision status (starting with the seminal work of Masters and Johnson). Those studies that have found a difference usually show an advantage for the circumcised. One of the three recent randomized controlled clinic trials that confirmed dozens of earlier studies on the link between foreskin and heterosexual HIV/AIDS transmission also studied the impact of circumcision on sexual performance. This study involved thousands of men and found a large majority of them reporting enhanced sexual pleasure and satisfaction after being circumcised!

[OverseasVet]

05:51 AM on 01/10/2011

If there is no difference why choose mutilation over god's creation?

[Craig Ginsberg]

07:45 PM on 02/24/2011

@salud let me guess those study's were based on self reporting? You do know the denial of loss and the placebo effect are routine psychological phenomenon right?

The well-documented nero-anatomy of the penis was corroborated in a 2006 study which measured the sensitivity of all the parts of the penis. Researchers used an extremely sensitive pressure sensing probe while each test subject, whose view was blocked with a screen, reported a sensation of touch. To demonstrate precision they took each measurement multiple times. The results were statistically consistent. They concluded:

"Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis[...] The glans in the circumcised male is less sensitive to fine-touch pressure than the glans of the uncircumcised male[...]The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface [...] When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive."(52)

(52)Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis . BJU 2006 Oct:22, pp. 864-869

[pinkibus]

06:54 PM on 01/10/2011

jeremy - How can you possibly know that. Chill out.

[Salud]

04:42 PM on 01/09/2011

Most of the media limit their discussion of male circumcision to repeating the claims of a small but very strident anti-circumcision movement that is characterized by highly emotive language and largely driven by Eurocentric cultural prejudice. Meanwhile, a survey of research studies published in professional journals--a survey most in the media don't do--reveals a far different story. Contrary to Dr. Karen Boyle's statement on lack of data, the evidence in medical journals is overwhelming that male circumcision substantially reduces heterosexual transmission of HIV/AIDS and of HPV (associated with cervical cancer). The evidence also is overwhelming that male circumcision very substantially reduces the rate for urinary tract infections in males (some of which are serious enough to damage the kidneys). And all of this is not to mention more mundane health benefits of male circumcision in preventing the phimosis, paraphimosis, and balanoposthitis that characterize a significant number of uncircumcised men. The real scandal associated with this subject is how the clear benefits of male circumcision are being ignored because of cultural prejudice to the very real detriment of the health and well-being of our populations.

[joe King]

04:58 PM on 01/09/2011

Your arrogance knows no bounds, we are mammals perhaps you think we are not mammals?

If a foreskin was such a hindrance to survival, perhaps you could give me some examples of mammals that have evolved the foreskin away, because as you put it "the clear benefits of male circumcisi­on" would imply that male mammals and their progeny would lead more to the survival of any particular mammalian species, again I forced to conclude you do not think we are mammals and by this conclusion am ashamed of your ignorance.

[Hdaryl01]

05:33 PM on 01/09/2011

Interesting point, and one I have made previously. Here's an interesting spin. If you happen to own a male goat, pig, horse, cow, dog, cat, monkey, marmot, or any other mammal in the United States, pick the telephone up and/or visit your friendly neighborbood veterinarian. Simply ask that veterinarian to circumcise your pet mammal. You will be rebuffed, and the veterinarian will refuse to circumcise your donkey on animal cruelty grounds! I have asked any number of veterinarians to perform this procedure and have been refused.

Simply put, there is only one single solitary mammal in the United States it is legal to circumcise-that being the American male neo-natal infant.

What an unmitigated travesty. Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? My ass. Hypocrites.

[Salud]

06:20 PM on 01/09/2011

Failure to circumcise males will not eliminate an entire population or its reproductive capacity. Likewise, the smoking of tobacco will not eliminate an entire population or its reproductive capacity. But both of these will increase the rates for disease and untimely death. This is especially true for societies with a rampant HIV/AIDS epidemic that fail to circumcise their males,

We have known about the link between foreskin and heterosexual HIV/AIDS transmission.for almost twenty-five years. The first studies showing this link were published in the late 1980s. Until very recently, this knowledge has been ignored by most health care policy makers because of incendiary lobbying by the anti-circumcision movement. The end result of this has been millions of unnecessary deaths!

[coveark]

08:12 PM on 01/09/2011

Fanned and faved...........Thank you for a factual comment.

[Hdaryl01]

02:00 PM on 01/09/2011

Wow, what fantastic news! So, if male circumcision (surgically amputating the perfectly healthy male prepuce/foreskin) has been once again shown to be so fantastically successful at reducing or eliminating yet another health threat (which has not yet been debunked like Syphllis), why are we not studying the effect of circumcising females by amputating their prepuces/clittoral hoods in an analogous procedure? If amputating male prepuces is in fact so effective at reducing the transmission of any number of maladies, why are we not studying the effect of amputating female prepuces? Could it be that amputating female prepuces/clittoral hoods would have an equally analogous stupendous benefit? What if we studied the combined aggregate effect of amputating male prepuces/foreskins AND amputating female prepuces/clittoral hoods. If male circumcision is so effective, and studies show that female circumcision is equally effective, wouldn't the macro result be an exponentially reduced transmission of any number of sexually transmitted diseases in the greater population-female and male? Maybe we should be striving for a world where males with amputated prepuces (foreskins) enjoy sex with women with amputated prepuces (clittoral hoods), all in the pursuit of public health initiatives and hygeine.

The fact are there are existing, previously completed studies which show that amputating female prepuces (clittoral hoods) reduces disease transmission. Yet, it is currently illegal to conduct any study on the health effects and benefits of female circumcision based on international and national law. It can't be done.

Why the double standard?

[joe King]

04:12 PM on 01/09/2011

The thing that makes civilization work is the rule of law.

We are taught to believe that our elected politicians run society, I am sorry to say this is not so.

Google Edward Bernays, the people who run western society are the people who run its media, people like Rupert Murdock, circumcised people like Richard Branson, unless you are circumcised you are not one of the people that control the printing of money, circumcised families like the Rothschild's run society by controlling the printing of currency, of course the people who run our media promote circumcision, they would run out of a them and us cabal, to run things wouldn't they?

[Chiknspectr]

01:22 PM on 01/09/2011

Cut, uncut... I don't see a mandate here. I see a matter of watchin' where ya stick that thing, and at the very least, condoms boys and girls. A lot of down low action out there. You never know.
Play nice...

[purenergy]

02:56 AM on 01/09/2011

What a great reason to mutilate an infants genitalia.

[thebigbike]

11:16 PM on 01/08/2011

Given the propensity of early studies to be massaged to show the desired result, a little patience might be in order. Also, why is male genital mutilation is "ok" when female genital mutilation is given so much negative attention