Interesting Paper

[greg_b]

This is an interesting article. It follows the fate of men, based upon thier circumcision status, with regard to acquiring HIV and STI diseases. The author concludes that circumcision was not effective at preventing HIV.

https://www.academia.edu/1913204/Mor...=weekly_digest

Regards

[Reality]

What I think about, after reading this, is that there are many fronts involved in the change of circumcision from a more-or-less accepted practice, seen even as a possible quasi "treatment" because it's otherwise "harmless" (with some of it performed in a clinical setting but without any real scrutiny, or a strict definition of patient consent), to a practice that should have only the most strict clinical application (penile cancer, intractable infection, etc).

And you know my adopted cause celebre: working towards the expectation of a strict, standardized definition of 'circumcision' (who can perform it, why (for neonates), and how (for neonates). This doesn't exist as far as I know.

Really, I think that's the obvious place to begin, because that's where it happens medically, legally. That will be the toughest battle; there's professional territory, and of course profit involved. This was Distalero's point, and I can see the wisdom of it. But if more studies similar to the link you've provided are done, then that can only help the cause on another of those fronts.