Tell that to the majority of circumcised Amercican men infected by the virus. The fact is, that the virus is passed on in seminal and other fluids, and whether or not a few centimetres of skin around the willy is there or not, will make NO difference at all.

Sadly, this article is phrased dangerously, by encouraging men to think if they are circumcised that stand a better chance..

What drivel!

Denialist?. Hey Puyi, it’s clear that you have some deep-seated issue with circumcision. I guess all those researchers must not know what they are doing ? while you of course know more than them? The article says that the evidence shows that circumcised men are LESS likely to contract HIV – it does not say that they can’t or won’t.

and garlic also cures… Yeah right, like the researchers who said garlic also helps prevent HIV transmission.
I’m not denialist at all. My response clearly says it is DANGEROUS to imply that circumcisions prevent – whether to a greater or lesser extent – HIV transmission.

As for my qualifications, I am a qualified HIV counsellor.. like you perhaps?

Regarding my issues with circumcision, you are quite right. They are certainly deep-seated. I advocate circumcision for medical or religious reasons only. In my opinion any other reasons are frivolous.. but then, that’s my opinion!
To suggest that circumcision may or definitely will lead to circumcised men being LESS likely to become infected, is as wise as saying that garlic and other veggies will help prevent HIV transmission. Why not have a look at a website called “thebody.com”, in which questions relating to similar issues have been researched FOR DECADES?

regards,
P. (er,… WITH a foreskin)

Hey Puyi, it’s clear that you have some deep-seated issue with circumcision. I guess all those researchers must not know what they are doing ? while you of course know more than them? The article says that the evidence shows that circumcised men are LESS likely to contract HIV – it does not say that they can’t or won’t.