by 
H 2 H
ANSWERS: 4
-
The latest well-publicized study indictated so: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4371384.stm But those results disagree with earlier studies that claimed the opposite: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/ What is clear is that nothing but a condom will lower your risk, and banking on circumcision either way is suicidal.
-
Wouldn't it just be better to throw a condom on...I don't have the medical experience to say whether getting circumcision would help or not, but it would seem that wearing a condom would just be easier... edit:don't know why someone would give this a neg rating, but +3
-
No, not having unprotected sex and not sharing IV needles is the best way to spread the disease. And in all honesty, not having sex with infected people is probably the best way:-) Did you know that the Aids virus can be small enough to penetrate some condoms anyway? They don't always admit that anymore since condom profits are way up, but they used to point that out in the 80's and early 90's.
-
Soap and water are a much better solution. The african study on HIV is faulty, most likely the people doing the study found circumcision to be a factor because they ignored the real answer. The fact that some cultures do ritual washing, and are less promiscous. Good hygiene and safer sex will provide better results, and not require surgery or it's complications. The opposite results can be proved just by comparing the US where circumcised males are common with Denmark where intact males are the majority. Denmark has a much lower rate of HIV, and this proves that leaving males intact is keeping the HIV rate lower in Denmark. Or the first study was bogus, or circumcision protects you in some geographical locations, and increases HIV infection in other locations ???, The study had to be seriously flawed....
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC