I've seen numerous claims that circumcision reduces HIV risk, both on TV and online.
Have there been any studies to verify if circumcision does or doesn't reduce HIV risk in a statistically-significant manner?
|show 3 more comments|
I would have to respectfully disagree with Russell's answer and say: No. Circumcision does not reduce HIV risk.
A Cochrane review of circumcision questions the validity of previously performed studies on circumcision for the following reasons:
They identified 14 cross sectional studies with inconsistent findings - 4 were statistically significant for a benefit to circumcision, 2 were statistically significant for harm from circumcision. They also mentioned study heterogeneity.
They summarize with (bolded emphasis mine):
If those clinical trials in Africa are flawed, how can one justify using them as the basis for a policy?
There is a real risk of risk compensation reducing the 'benefit' of circumcision.
The various pro-circumcision studies all cite the need for 'other' forms of prevention, ie. condoms - which in Africa aren't as available (or used) as they are elsewhere in the world.
I'll be happy to counter the other sources at a later point, it's 10:30 pm here and I'm knee deep in setting OEL limits.
|show 15 more comments|
My own answer ripped straight from this question:
Research indicates reduced HIV risk for circumcised men, both in labs and in the real world (where people don't always wear condoms, for whatever reason).
Basically every significant health organization in the world is behind this, entailing almost 40 different clinical trials since the 1980s and numerous lab trials demonstrating that the uncut penile tissue around an intact foreskin is more receptive to HIV infection.
Also of note, this only speaks to the risk to the male in question. It also may not apply to subsets (for any medical research you will always be able to find some subgroup of the population that has a different outcome)
Thanks to @OddThinking it appears another real world trial has been performed supporting this claim. This study directly provides real evidence against the risk compensation claim.