Rich posts about HIV circumcision research

I (Rich) posted a response to:

https://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-and-aids

Aside from the methodological pitfalls involved in using a pool ofmen who desire to be circumcised (selecting for pre-existing sexual dysfunction), what's missing from this half-truth is the questionof circumcision's impact on male->female HIV transmission. There are numerous studies bearing on this issue, quite aside from theobvious epidemiological comparison to be made between the USA and Europe, which in itself raises serious doubts about circumcision'sutility in controlling HIV. One need only recognize that circumcisionincreases friction during coitus due to the loss of the frictionless sleeve of the foreskin and the drying out of residual male erotogenic mucosal tissue. In the absence of such friction the female's intact mucosa would be expected to provide a strong barrier to HIV receptivity

http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/74/12/5577?view=long&pmid=10823865
as borne out by empirical findings

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/chao/http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#heteroFurthermore, unanticipated consequences of circumcision, such aschanges in sexual practices and promiscuity of sexually amputatedmen may outweigh any benefits in per-intercourse female->male HIV transmission rates.

Finally, I note the deafening silence regarding Rebecca Stallings's findings as reported to the Rio conference on HIV in 2005, which founda similar prophylactic effect for FGM on female HIV receptivity.

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandHIVinfectionintanzania.pdf

It's tempting to speculate on the origins this unscientific propaganda onslaught given the current medico-legal situation in the United States. One can only hope that whatever the ultimate outcome of this debate, itwill not be used as a post-hoc justification for the wholesale atrocity which has been committed against non-consenting American infants.