Male Circumcision and Genital Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection in Males and Their Female Sexual Partners: Findings From the HPV Infection and Transmission Among Couples Through Heterosexual Activity (HITCH) Cohort Study | The Journal of Infectious Diseases

  1. The last sentence really shows an issue with how scientific ethics is conflicted by our cultural biases. If we consistently find that involuntarily cutting off people’s body parts doesn’t have a benefit, the logical conclusion to that finding is not to cut up more penises to see if they can find a benefit for it. They need to identify a need for involuntary circumcision in humans that outweighs the violation in personal autonomy. We don’t prop up a single other medical practice based on arbitrary “benefits” discovered in a statistical test in an attempt to justify it post hoc. It’s absurd.

  2. Can I get vaccinated in my 40s? What if I already was exposed and have a strain that's dormant, what will the vaccine do if anything?

  3. Go figure. Foreskin designed by evolution to uncover the glans during sex is not really a factor of protection or risk during sex, when it is not covering the glans.

  4. I once had this argument with a friend that claimed it needed to be done to reduce propagation of certain diseases. I told him that pubic hair allowed for the transmission of other diseases, did he plan to have her daughters pubes shaved? He had no answer (and I have no social skills, apparently).

  5. If I've learned anything from my years on Reddit a post were the topic involves male circumcisions will have a reasonable a level headed discourse.

  6. Maybe I am biased (uncut and against circumcisions) but most of the time it comes up, the debate seems relatively fine.

  7. I wonder if anyone is interested in the relationship between the surgical modification of female newborns and the health of the men with whom they might one day be sexually involved with.

  8. "Four hundred thirteen couples were included in our study. The prevalence OR for the association between MC and baseline infections was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], .56–1.16) in males and 1.05 (95% CI, .75–1.46) in females. The incidence rate ratio for infection transmission was 0.59 (95% CI, .16–2.20) for male-to-female transmission and 0.77 (95% CI, .37–1.60) for female-to-male transmission. The clearance rate ratio for clearance of infections was 0.81 (95% CI, .52–1.24)."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *