HIV circumcision study ends early

[Warpy]

Circumcising men who already have HIV does not protect their female partners from the virus, a study in Uganda has found.
----------
But the research, from the Lancet, showed no benefit in those who already had the virus and was stopped early because of the continued risk to women.

Experts say HIV-positive men should still be offered circumcision, but also warned to use condoms.

The US researchers, from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, say not offering the procedure to men with HIV would stigmatise them.

Much more at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8154134.stm which still needs to learn the difference between a sentence and a paragraph.

[ZombieHorde]

1. Circumcisn offers such a tiny amount of protection that circumcised males have to use the same exact

protection than uncircumcised men.

Education and condoms will so much more than foreskin amputations will.

Each man should have the choice whether or not to have their foreskin cut off.

[Warpy]

2. 60% less transmission rate is not tiny

Please refer to the actual studies before you start shrieking about the precious foreskin.

Thank you.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Circumcised men still need to use the same protection non-circumcised men use.

Next time try looking at my whole post instead of "shrieking" like a wounded 20-headed banshee being viciously hunted by a crazed pack of undead dire harpies about one word in a post and your desire to have precious control over other people's reproduction organs.

Spank you.