http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050924/...th_africa_aids

Article text:

S. African AIDS Expert Urges Circumcision

By CLARE NULLIS, Associated Press Writer
Sat Sep 24, 7:21 PM ET

CAPE TOWN, South Africa - A South African AIDS expert Saturday
advocated male circumcision as the best available "vaccine" against the
virus in his country, where an estimated 6 million people are infected
and more than 600 people die every day.

Francois Venter told a congress of health activists in the Treatment
Action Campaign that a recent survey in the Soweto township indicated
that circumcised men were 65 percent less likely to contract AIDS than
those who had not been circumcised.

"We dream of a vaccine which has this efficacy," said Venter, clinical
director of the Reproductive Health and HIV Research at the University
of Witwatersrand. "The results are phenomenal."

The association between circumcision and a reduced risk of HIV was
noted as early as 1987, when Dr. William Cameron of the University of
Manitoba in Canada reported findings from a study in Kenya. Some
researchers in early studies have said they believe cells in the
foreskin may be particularly susceptible to infection.

Venter urged the Treatment Action Campaign, an influential movement of
13,000 activists, to consider promoting circumcision as a vital
prevention tool, given that existing methods were failing to slow the
spread of the epidemic.

South Africa has the highest number of people living with HIV/AIDS in
the world. Nearly 30 percent of pregnant women are infected, according
to a health department survey published in July, and in the hardest hit
province of KwaZuluNatal this rises to 41 percent. The disease is now
one of the main causes of death among young adults and infants.

Some traditional communities in South Africa practice circumcision, but
there are calls for tighter medical controls to limit health risks from
blunt and contaminated instruments.

"We don't want our men to go to the chop shop but have medical
circumcision," said Zackie Achmat, an AIDS activist who said the
congress - which meets every two years - would debate whether to
encourage mass circumcision.

Achmat, who is HIV positive, said much more needed to be done on
prevention. He said that even though government distribution of condoms
increased from one million in 1994 to 40 million in 2004, this still
only amounted to 35 condoms per sexually active male per year.

He said that 73 percent of young people without the virus believed that
they were not at risk of catching, and 62 percent of young people with
the virus also believed there was no risk.

Achmat criticized the government's record on treatment. Of the 500,000
people who need AIDS therapy, only 76,000 are currently receiving it
through the public health sector. The World Health Organization has
singled out slow progress in South Africa as one of the main reasons it
will likely miss its target of putting 3 million people worldwide on
therapy by the end of this year.

"We are dying. We are still dying," he said.

Achmat has for years attacked the government for doing too little too
late against the AIDS epidemic. In a sign of the mutual antagonism,
health ministry officials refused invitations to attend the congress.

"President Thabo Mbeki tragically still shows symptoms of AIDS
denialism," said Achmat. Mbeki reputedly doubts the link between HIV
and AIDS. Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang has repeatedly
voiced doubts about the safety and efficacy of antiretrovirals, instead
stressing the benefits of a diet heavy in garlic, lemon and olive oil.

The Soweto study, was conducted by French researchers between 2002 and
2005 with more than 3,000 healthy, sexually active males between 18 and
24. About half the volunteers were circumcised by medical
professionals, and the rest remained uncircumcised.

All the men received counseling on AIDS prevention. But after 21
months, 51 members of the uncircumcised group had contracted HIV, the
AIDS virus, while only 18 members of the circumcised group had gotten
the disease.

The World Health Organization and UNAIDS welcomed the results of the
study, released at a conference in Brazil in July, but says that more
trials should be conducted before circumcision can be recommended as a
preventive method.

A study conducted by the U.S. National Health Institute involving 5,000
individuals is now under way in Uganda.

CAPE TOWN, South Africa - A South African AIDS expert Saturday advocated
male circumcision as the best available "vaccine" against the virus in his
country, where an estimated 6 million people are infected and more than
600 people die every day.


So, here again, the question begs to be asked:

How is it that the only continent in the entire world where the
heterosexual pandemic of AIDS occurs is Africa?

HIV has spread worldwide now, right?

What behavior are the African people engaging in that causes HIV to spread
like wildfire among heterosexuals much like it spreads among homosexuals
in the rest of the world?

How could poverty and malnourishment be such a powerful aphrodisiac?

-Paul Whiting

pauleewhiting wrote:

Your world map must be quite small.

B/

"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote...
I've wondered the same thing. In the early years of the epidemic the gay
activists were insisting that they were just the proverbial canaries in
the coal mine, that it would soon spread like wildfire among the straight
population, yet it never occurred. In just about every Western country I
can think of the virus is largely confined to the homosexual population
(aside from IV drug users of course). And even in the West the small
numbers of heterosexual cases seem to be confined to people of African
descent, in fact Haitians made up a significant number of early U.S. cases
for reasons we still don't understand and the mostly-black Carribean is
a hotbed of infection.

Could it be that Africans are more susceptible to the HIV virus? I
realize it is politically taboo to discuss such things, but while white
people are more susceptible to skin cancer, blacks could be more
susceptible to certain viruses. Cultural differences in Africa don't
explain why Magic Johnson contracted it heterosexually (so he claims),
so perhaps there is a biological reason. I also thought that it might
be a different viral strain, but then U.S. blacks seems to have the
same strain that infects U.S. whites and they still suffer a higher
heterosexual infection rate.

"How is it that the only continent in the entire world where the
heterosexual pandemic of AIDS occurs is Africa?

Your world map must be quite small."


Okay, Brian, where else in the world is heterosexual pandemic of AIDS
spreading with anywhere near the same ferocity as it is in Africa?

Name your continent...

I have (hahahahahaha!) a lot of trouble (heeheeheeheehee!!) writing this
post, because (HAW! HAW! HAW!) the subject is so utterly ridiculous.
The barbaric and slightly perverse practice of circumcision has been in
existence for a long time. Obviously there are still people who will go
to any length to force it on innocent victims.
Here in Europe, we don't indulge in such mutilation. If people over here
are dropping dead with AIDS, I'm not aware of it.
Just a question (always nice to educate yourself): How does your HIV tell
the difference between a permanently exposed glans and one where the
foreskin is rolled up during intercourse?
This whole idea is so insane that I'm really very anxious to know what
"scientific" explanation the orthodoxy will come up with this time
(Hahahaha!)
<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZNfox000'
target='_blank'><img
src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif' alt='ROTFL'
border=0></a>

Iconoclaster wrote:


Why does that sound like nervous laughter?

Instead of a childish theatrical display why not simply seek the
scientific explanation?

Below is the explanation of the infection mechanism from two studies and
the effect of circumcision on reducing the rate of infection of HIV in
transmissions from female to male is:

"Male circumcision is equivalent to a vaccine with a 63% efficacy."

Impact of male circumcision on the female-to-male transmission of HIV
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=2675

===============
Comparative investigation of Langerhans' cells and potential receptors
for HIV in oral, genitourinary and rectal epithelia.

Hussain LA, Lehner T.

Division of Immunology, United Medical School, Guy's Hospital, London.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is commonly transmitted, during
homosexual and heterosexual intercourse, through the rectal and
cervicovaginal mucosa, foreskin and urethral epithelia. However, there
is uncertainty about HIV transmission through the oral mucosa by oral
sex. We have carried out a comparative immunohistological investigation
of primate oral, cervicovaginal, foreskin, urethral and rectal epithelia
for potential HIV receptors. We investigated epithelial tissues for CD4
glycoprotein, which is the principal receptor for HIV, Fc receptors of
IgG for binding HIV-IgG antibody complexes, and HLA class II, which
might enable HIV-bound CD4+ cells to gain access to the epithelial
cells. CD4 glycoprotein was not found in oral, foreskin, urethral,
vaginal or rectal epithelial cells, although CD4+ mononuclear cells were
present in the lamina propria of each epithelium. Fc gamma II and Fc
gamma III receptors were found in urethral, endocervical and rectal
epithelia, and Fc gamma III and Fc gamma I receptors in the foreskin.
However, Fc gamma receptors were not found in oral epithelium (buccal,
labial, lingual or palatal) and only Fc gamma III receptors were
detected in the gingival epithelial cells. HLA class II antigen was also
not detected in foreskin, oral or rectal epithelium, but it was
expressed by endocervical cells from most human specimens and in male
urethral epithelia of non-human male primates. Langerhans' cells were
found in all epithelia except those of the urethra and rectum, and they
can express CD4 glycoprotein, Fc gamma receptors and HLA class II
antigen. The mean number of Langerhans' cells expressing CD4 in the
upper third of oral epithelium was significantly lower compared with
vaginal epithelium or foreskin. The HIV-binding V1 domain of CD4 was
significantly decreased in Langerhans' cells present in oral compared
with vaginal epithelium. The results suggest that the foreskin in
uncircumcised men and the cervicovaginal epithelium in females might
become infected via the CD4+ Langerhans' cells. However, urethral
infection might be mediated by HIV-antibody complexes binding to
urethral epithelial Fc gamma receptors. The paucity of Langerhans' cells
expressing the V1 domain of CD4, the absence of Fc gamma receptors, and
a lack of expression of HLA class II antigens in most oral epithelial
cells, argue against transmission of HIV through the normal intact oral
mucosa.

PMID: 7558138 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

===========================================

BIOLOGIC MECHANISMS OF HIV INFECTION OF HUMAN FORESKIN: IMPLICATIONS FOR
TRANSMISSION

Carlos R Estrada*, Dennis A Pessis, Antonio H Chaviano, Bruce K
Patterson, Alan Landay, Joan N Siegel, Zareefa Flener, Robert C Bailey,
Chicago, IL

Introduction and Objectives:
Epidemiologic evidence indicates a protective effect of circumcision
against HIV-1 infection in men. The biological mechanisms by which the
foreskin increases HIV susceptibility are unknown. This study assessed
the susceptibility of human foreskin to HIV-1 infection through
quantification in foreskin tissue of major HIV target cells, detection
of coreceptors, and through ex vivo exposure of foreskin tissue to HIV-1
in organotypic culture.

Methods:
We evaluated 8 pediatric and 6 adult foreskins with and without a
history of infection. T-cells (CD4+), macrophages (CD68+), and
Langerhan's cells (LC)(CD1a+) were quantified using immunohistochemistry
and image analysis. Cells expressing the HIV-1 co-receptors CCR5 and
CXCR4 were quantified using 2-color immunofluorescence and image
analysis. Foreskin tissue biopsies grown in organotypic culture were
infected ex vivo with cell-free HIV-1 and the phenotype of specific
target cells infected was determined using simultaneous
immunophenotyping/ultrasensitive in situ hybridization. We compared the
quantity of HIV-1 DNA copies in foreskin tissue with cervical biopsy
controls infected in vitro with HIV-1.

Results:
Compared to cervical tissue, high proportions of CD4 T-cells,
macrophages and LCs were found in foreskin tissue of pediatric and adult
foreskin, with higher proportion in adults. Tissues contained cells that
expressed predominantly the CCR5 HIV-1 coreceptor compared to CXCR4
expression. CD4+ T-cells and LCs in the inner, mucosal surface of the
foreskin had a 7-fold greater susceptibility to HIV-1 infection than did
cells in cervical tissue infected under the same conditions.

Conclusions:
Increased risk of HIV-1 infection in uncircumcised men is likely caused
by the presence in foreskin of large numbers of HIV-1 target cells,
especially T-cells and LCs, expressing primarily CCR5. Since
uncircumcised men are likely at greater biological risk of heterosexual
HIV-1 acquisition, male circumcision should be considered as an
additional HIV protection strategy. The development of topically active
agents capable of blocking HIV binding sites and that can be applied to
the penis or vagina should proceed.

http://aua02.agora.com/planner/displ...ntationid=2429

Well I read quite some time ago that the foreskin contains some sort of cell
that contains receptors especially conducive to HIV attachment. The other
part of the theory was that the foreskin trapped HIV-infected fluid between
it and the glans, preventing air from deactivating the virus and allowing
much more time for it to penetrate the skin. This was at least 5 years ago
when they began noticing the connection, maybe longer.

I snipped the link to the article, but I'm still confused about why
circumcision would reduce the rate of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa
which is a hotbed of supposedly heterosexual female-to-male infection,
but in Europe where hardly any men are circumcised (it's a largely
American custom), the female-to-male infection rate is virtually zero.
Or can someone produce numbers that show the female-to-male infection
rate is higher in Europe than in the mostly-circumcised USA?

Paulee, to be fair the orthodox lads they have been taught to believe that
Asia, and particularly China and India are about to befall a horrid
epidemic -- driven of course by inaccurate tests for antibodies and
self-interested western calculations of impending doom and profits for BIg
Pharma.

Granted poverty, drug abuse, and the same old illnesses explain this
"heterosexual transmission" outside Africa but we are taught that Asians
are dying because of hetero sex just like Africans. Estimates by India and
China are often hinted at underestimating the dire threat.

Given the actual rate of female to male transmission it is the height of
barbarity to even be considering cutting off foreskins to prevent
transmission.

Perhaps Wilhelm is laughing because as a European he has foreskin. His
nervous response one to the pleasure such barbarity disallows -- unlike me
the North American who had it chopped off by a doctor who sedated me with
brandy as an infant. Circumciscion is a religous practice and should
remain so. It should never be forced upon people. All men should be free
to remain uncut. Wish someone would have given me a choice.

Man haven't we been hearing the whole sex=death thing for hundreds of
years now. We didn't stop having it for fear of hell now they are using
fear of AIDS. Goodness the birds do it the bees do it and I'm sure as heck
gonna do it
I sure wish they were not hurting people with chemo that need clean
water and food. God help them

Thanks Robin.
At least someone doesn't wear a blindfold the whole time.
I haven't got all the references immediately to hand, but there is a
burgeoning HIV epidemic in other continents outside subsaharan Africa
which is sexually driven in the main.
A few observations
1. The African HIV epidemic is not just heterosexally driven. remember
the furore over the paper in Int J STD and AIDS suggesting most of it
was through contaminated needles? (Even then, the authors said
heterosexual spread was about 40%, though many authorities have since
climbed into that fray to show it is around 70%)
2. There is a strange lack of HIV/AIDS in the poorest countries of the
world. For instance, Afghanistan, ravaged by malnourishment and
malaria, has precious little HIV. Some of the countries in the sahara
region or north of it like Sudan/Ethiopia have minimal HIV, but are
impoverished, and have high incidence of TB and other disease. If AIDS
is so selective for malnutrition, why is it so choosy as to which
starving children it seems to affect?
3. We are told by denialists that South Africans are starving and
suffer malaria - that is why they are dying of "AIDS". Strangely, the
HIV burden in SA is mainly an urban phenomenon, wiping out hundreds of
nurses, teachers, accountants etc off the map each week. SA is one of
the richest, if not the richest African nation. Pockets of malnutrition
exist, but not on an Ethiopian/Sudanese scale. And malaria only affects
those in the far North East of KwaZulu Natal - 95% of the country is
malaria free.

But some will just ignore all these inconvenient facts, and pretend HIV
does not exist.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 02:58:35 -0400, "Fondoo" <dale601@hotmail.com>
wrote:

That is NOT the message. Sex is fine. But sexual activity CAN be
associated with disease. Or do you think syphilis, gonorrhea and
chlamydia have not been proven to exist or cause disease?

"I haven't got all the references immediately to hand, but there is a
burgeoning HIV epidemic in other continents outside subsaharan Africa
which is sexually driven in the main."

Okay, David, then explain how the population of Africa has been
*increasing* if the continent is being decimated by "HIV."


"The African HIV epidemic is not just heterosexally driven. remember the
furore over the paper in Int J STD and AIDS suggesting most of it was
through contaminated needles?"

So Africans can afford recreational drugs?

"Male circumcision is equivalent to a vaccine with a 63% efficacy."

I prefer patients that can afford unnecessary surgery can also afford
antibiotics, clean water and more food

Some can of course, but they are talking about unsterile needles
used/reused in medical care.

You'd know this if you bothered to use more than one neurone before you
rush to your keyboard and if you posessed even some basic knowlege on
the subject under discussion.

"Some can of course, but they are talking about unsterile needles
used/reused in medical care."


Okay, what percentage of all "HIV" transmission can be attributed to
unsterile needle use?

And is "HIV" really being spread predominantly by African healthcare
workers, rather than by heterosexual sex?

Thus, does this practice explain the rampant spread of "HIV" in Africa or
is AIDS still considered a sexually transmitted disease?

Absolutely, Mr. Carter. Driving a car or playing football also carry
certain risks. But does that discourage anybody from engaging in those
activities?
What's so terrible about contracting Syphillis, Gonorrhea or Chlamidia?
Right! They were not bad enough (too easy to get rid of), so they had to
invent AIDS to be able to scare people again.

OK (hahahahaha!), Mr. Jordan, I'll get serious. But then I also get pissed
off because you're trying to sell me again on two papers where they don't
look at control samples.

cervicovaginal mucosa, foreskin and urethral epithelia."

Oh, right... because they say so. Those boneheads have never seen an HIV
particle in their lives, but they know exactly how they are transmitted.

become infected via the CD4+ Langerhans' cells."

and:

especially T-cells and LCs, expressing primarily CCR5."

I was complaining about a lack of control experiments. Let me explain
what I mean by that:
Why the hell did they only examine foreskin tissue? Is that any different
from the skin of the penis shaft? And if so, how does "HIV" know the
difference?
Look, if they really want to prove that circumcision makes a difference,
then they have to prove at least that there is a difference between the
cells of the foreskin and those of the shaft.
But in HIV-science controls are never performed anymore. The conclusions
have already been made before the experiments are done. This kind of
"science" sucks. The people who produce this balderdash are morons and
should be tarred and feathered. But you, sir, are worse. Because you
really believe that drivel. At least the authors who did those trashy
studies got paid for their work. Do you? For propagating it?

malaria, has precious little HIV. Some of the countries in the sahara
region or north of it like Sudan/Ethiopia have minimal HIV, but are
impoverished, and have high incidence of TB and other disease. If AIDS is
so selective for malnutrition, why is it so choosy as to which
starving children it seems to affect?"

Are you aspiring to be a politician, Master David?
Even I am surprised that anybody could have the balls to write this. You
know as well as I do that these countrie have minimal "HIV" but have high
incidence of TB and malaria BECAUSE TB AND MALARIA HAVE NOT YET BEEN
RENAMED HIV/AIDS THERE!
Give the HIV-goons a small chance, and they will make sure the incidence
of HIV/AIDS is going up sharply.
It's not very likely that chance will materialize, because these are all
Muslim countries. And they are not eager to let empire builders from
outside change their society.
South Africa was a far better candidate, were it not for the brave
opposition from president MBeki and his minister of health, Manto
Tshabalala MSimang. Yes, SA is the richest African country. That's why
Big Pharma sees a great market there.