What I read here is people seeing this from a 1:1 perspective. One person takes a risk, one person dies. Do the math and try to make the explosion in India, China, Africa work out with only a 1:1 infection. That's not how it works at all.

One person takes a risk, then they, being too ignorant or frightened to get tested, take the results of that risk home to their wife. Their marriage sours, they get divorced. A couple of years into their next marriage they don't feel well, go to the hospital and find out. The first wife has already passed it to her new husband through anal sex. The new wife has it, too, and has probably passed it to their newborn.

One mistake, NUMEROUS victims. That's also assuming that none of the effected partners don't have a partner or two on the side. If they do, then add the other innocent wives and ex-wives and kids and arresting officers and EMT personnel they pass it on to. Call it blown out of proportion, but it happens every day.

So the guy is sitting at the truck stop going over in his mind why he shouldn't worry about it, after all, it is only once. Oh, and anyway he heard that if you are circumcised you've got an even better chance of not getting it. He spins the cylinder and points the barrel at a lot of different people all at once.

There are people who have to tell the wives, ex-wives, kids, etc., of these people that they have HIV every day. I know them. What I am describing is first world infections, too. Now imagine the socio-economic problems in a place like my links above describe, and where this "study" was perpetrated.

No, telling the circumcised unprotected sex is safer than once thought is NOT a good thing to do. Period.

" It seems as whats being said is circumcised men MAY be better off than not being circumcised."

I don't see the word 'may'. The article you link says matter-of-factly:

"So if men were circumcised, fewer would become infected and thus could not infect their female partners."

How would that translate to someone trying to talk themselves into not worrying about unprotected sex? Do you think even tagging the word "potentially" in there is really going to negate the promotion of the idea that circumcised males don't have as much to worry about as the uncircumcised? Come on, this is going to go in the list of myths that in ten years we have to combat with sex education.

"Imagine if you were circumcised and used a condom?"

People who use condoms have a 1-2% chance of condoms failing, and the number of people who are actually exposed during the event, even when the other partner is HIV positive are a small fraction of that. Then take that infinitesimal number and divide it by half of those who might actually be protected by the absence of a foreskin.

Then, contrast that to the effects of a new myth that being circumcised will protect you. There are estimated to be 40 million people worldwide with HIV, many of which know what they have and continue to spread the disease. How do you see the harm/benefit balance falling?

"Personally, Id like to see them all exterminated. To bad Im an actual human being. Because honestly, I do not care about these people at all. I look at them as being a public threat. Get rid of those 40 million, and the spead of HIV would seriously be reduced then..huh? Then the world can stop wasting its money on stupid studies such as this one that are nothing but "myths"."

You're a sick human being, and I've wasted my time talking to you. You admitted that it was common knowledge above that HIV is a disease perpetuated among the many by the few. Still, you advocate the extermination of all of them, knowing that many/most never did anything wrong or irresponsible.

I suggest you don't strain yourself with such current events issues and go back to trolling for pictures of pop stars with no undies. Fewer hard conclusions to come to.

"While I don't agree with Xythe's statement I would say by reading what he said that he is responding to the ones that are SPREADING THE DISEASE. But then YOU change your course and say this: "

You're still a liar, KFC. Xythe said:

" Get rid of those 40 million, and the spead of HIV would seriously be reduced then..huh?"

He didn't say just the ones spreading it. You're a hypocrite if you push the ten commandments and then selectively decide what the truth is based upon your quasi-Christian vendetta against people who point out what you are. You are just flaming me because I chimed in on your Santa is Satan stupidity.

In that 40 million there ARE "many" that spread the disease carelessly or knowingly. That doesn't mean that the vast majority do. Not even a slight majority. If a hundred thousand do it I would characterize that as "many".

Go back to vilifying Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. It suits you better. I'm glad, though, that you are willing to out yourself by defending someone who promotes the extermination of the suffering.

Matthew 25:

[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

No, KFC, again you offer the selective truth. He said:

"Get rid of those 40 million, and the spead of HIV would seriously be reduced then..huh?"

He didn't say just the ones that spread it, so I doubt you thought that's what he said. I personally believe you agree with EXACTLY what he said, you're just too big of a hypocrite to admit it in public.

Baker, do you have AIDS?

I'm with Baker and LW here on this. These types of brain dead "conclusions" always bother me - like the one where silver is the safest colour of car - puhleese!

Knowledge is power, and the key to helping the poor deal with HIV is through education, not cockamamie (pun intended) schemes. Yes, research is necessary. But not this kind of pseudo-scientific "correlation equals causation" research.

Think about it for a minute; unbridled sex in unhealthy conditions is the perfect way to increase the transmission of HIV. Dollars to donuts that this study group included many men with factors that the study did not consider, including number of partners, other STDs, cuts and wounds to the foreskin, and local rituals/customs.

From the link, "This analysis shows that male circumcision could avert nearly six million new infections and save three million lives in sub-Saharan Africa over the next twenty years". How many new infections could be prevented simply through education or condom use?

Grasp the low-hanging fruit first for God's sake. Don't go for the top of the tree.

I see no value in pursuing this line of reasoning at all, as it will definitely end up with a net increase in the number of HIV infections. This is exactly what we don't need!

You think ideas that embolden people to have unprotected sex won't increase infection? You don't need a study for that, you just need common sense.

"You think that studies that show that medicine cant lowerer the risk of HIV infections?"

I don't even know what that sentence is asking.

"Common sence told people the world was flat at one point. Thats why we do studies, and continue to study rather than just think about things."

Every HIV website you go to has a FAQ that addresses misconceptions. One of those is based upon the truth; it is much, much more difficult for a man to get HIV from a woman during vaginal intercourse than homosexuals during anal intercourse. Yet we have to spend a lot of time reinforcing the idea that heterosexuals have to practice safe sex. Why should they bother, since you believe that if a fact is the truth it doesn't lead to more infection?

Well, if the truth of lower infection during heterosexual sex merits special warnings on websites, then I would imagine the "truth" of circumcision will also merit special warnings. Every time they release things that embolden people, they have to combat it later. Bank on the fact that there will be people who use this as an excuse not to use condoms, and people will be infected.

Like I said, you can sit here and play Mr. Science, but there's not much you could educate me regarding this. You damn well can't sit there and liken my knowledge of the subject to someone who believed the world was flat.