Flawed Studies Used to Claim Circumcision Reduces HIV Infection

"... Unfortunately, it appears that this compulsion continues to drive some professionals and authorities to promote circumcision without proper critical analysis."

Medical research indicates that circumcision does not stem or control the flow of HIV and AIDS.

(BOSTON) - An article in the December Journal of Law and Medicine cites numerous flaws in three African studies that claim male circumcision reduces transmission of HIV. (see: the article here)

According to the article, the studies, which are being used to promote the circumcision of up to 38 million men in Africa, had selection bias, inadequate blinding, problematic randomization, experimenter bias, lead time bias, supportive bias, participant expectation bias, time-out discrepancy, and lack of investigating of non-sexual HIV transmission among other confounding factors and problems.

The absolute reduction in HIV transmission associated with male circumcision for the three studies was only about 1.3%. The African studies had cited the relative reduction in HIV transmission, a misleading figure. Reports in the popular press have been even more misleading. Furthermore, there are at least 17 observational studies that have not found any benefit from male circumcision in reducing HIV transmission. Since condom use after male circumcision is essential to prevent sexual transmission of HIV, circumcision does not have any additional value.

Ronald Goldman, Ph.D, executive director of the Circumcision Resouce Center and author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma, stated, "This article is another serious, critical analysis of flawed research that is being used to promote circumcision. We have seen such claims about the 'preventive benefits' of circumcision for over 100 years. They have all been refuted. No other normal, healthy body part is cut off for supposed 'preventive benefits.' From our psychological work, we know that there is a compulsion on the part of some circumcised men to have others circumcised.

Unfortunately, it appears that this compulsion continues to drive some professionals and authorities to promote circumcision without proper critical analysis. They also ignore the serious sexual and psychological harm caused by circumcision."

The article, which also discusses ethical and legal concerns about circumcision, concludes that a recommendation for mass circumcision programs in Africa is not justified. "Male circumcision is a dangerous distraction and waste of scare resources that should be used for known preventive measures."

Source: the CIRCUMCISION RESOURCE CENTER

Reports From Iraq

Salem-News.com Top Stories
Medical Marijuana Finally Recognized by The Oregonian

---

Peace Chaplain - From the Book RADICAL PEACE: People Refusing War

---

SRI LANKA: Calls Mount for Government Action on War Inquiry

---

Khader Adnan Is A Requested Palestinian Gandhi; Yet They Saw Him Not

---

Former Afghan FM: US Seeking to Legitimize Taliban through Negotiations

---

It's sad that human beings defend their barbaric practices as medicine.

Mike Collin said:

"It seems the anti-circ activists love to promote the idea tha[t] circumcision is dangerous and useless."

Not exactly. We promote the idea that circumcision, like any other surgery, should only be performed when there is a medical necessity that other treatment was unable to remedy. It's not an original intactivist "idea" as much as it is standard medical practice.

"Well is it? First, if we lived in a perfect world withou[]t harmful viruses etc.[, ]and if body parts such as a foreskin never caused a person any problems, then maybe we could consider circumcision harmful and useless. Sorry but its not a perfect world."

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication for circumcision (which is actually extremely rare), or a man is actually requesting it for himself, "harmful and useless" is precisely what it is. I'm a bit curious what circumcision has to do with the presence of harmful viruses, as harmful viruses affect the body whether a person is circumcised or intact.

"Viruses such as HIV,[ ]Herpes and HPV all have an easier time entering the inner surface of the foreskin either through small [tears] in the lining or because of the immune response from such cells as Langerhan[s]. Unfortunately an immune response to a virus such as HIV and Herpes is pretty much the same as the Trojan horse, and once its in its there to stay."

It sounds like somebody isn't too familiar with their medical literature

DOES HIV "have an easier time entering the inner surface of the foreskin either through small tears in the lining or because of the response from such cells as the Langerhans" cells?

I'm afraid there isn't a single piece of literature that says this. To be sure, "researchers" have been thusfar unable to produce demonstrable proof that the foreskin facilitates the transmission of HIV etc. in any way. Are you aware that all of what you are saying is conjecture which has been thoroughly debunked?

Let's begin with the notion that "HIV has an easier time entering the iner surface of the foreskin" through "small tears in the lining" of the foreskin. This is the oldest hypothesis for the idea that "circumcision prevents AIDS," which was invented by Jewish circumcision enthusiast Aaron J. Fink. He pulled this explanation out of thin air without any scientific evidence.

As it turns out, recent studies, however, disprove this hypothesis. One study found that there is "no difference between the keratinization of the inner and outer aspects of the adult male foreskin," and that "keratin layers alone were unlikely to explain why uncircumcised men are at higher risk for HIV infection."[1] Another study found that "no difference can be clearly visualized between the inner and outer foreskin."[2]

The above hypothesis has been shown to be entirely false, so other "researchers" have tried to claim that the Langerhans cells were the culprit that facilitated HIV transmission via the foreskin. The Langerhans cells were supposed to be the prime port of entry for the HIV virus. According to this hypothesis, circumcision was supposed to prevent HIV transmission by removing the Langerhans cells found in the inner mucosal lining of the foreskin. (Instead of wearing a condom or trying to somehow disabling them?)

deWitte completely destroyed this myth, when he found that not only are Langerhans cells found all over the body and that their complete removal is virtually impossible. Furthermore, deWitte found that Langerhans cells that are present in the foreskin are actually quite effective in repelling HIV, producing Langerin, a substance that has been proven to kill the HIV virus on contact, acting as a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells.[3] The idea that the Langerhans cells "facilitate HIV transmission" is categorically FALSE.

Let it remain clear; [select, carefully manipulated] "studies" have produced a statistic that the authors WOULD LIKE to attribute to circumcision, but they are unable to demonstrably prove that the presence of the foreskin "facilitates HIV tranmission," and that removing it "reduces the risk of HIV transmission." The "studies" are nothing more than highly manipulated statistics with ad-hoc/post-hoc assertion.

"As we all know, a number of studies show each of these viruses to be more common in uncircumcised males."

While others show that there is no difference, or the trend is in the opposite direction. According to USAID, HIV transmission was found to be more prevalent amongst circumcised males in 10 out of 18 African countries. Scientists are unable to explain why HIV transmission is more prevalent in America, where 80% of US men are circumcised, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare.

"Circumcision is not a cure all but it is considered by many to be a preventive measure."

Who's "many?" It is also considered by "many" to be useless mutilation.

"Yes condoms provides protection from these viruses, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think for one second that people always use them. Have you ever checked into unplanned pregnancies for example, especially among young people, i think this speakes for itself."

An irrelevant point; are you suggesting men and children be vasectomied as well?

You, my friend, are living in a fantasy world if you believe for one second that heterosexual intercourse is anywhere near effective in transmitting HIV. You are also living in a fantasy world if you believe for one second that circumcision has any effect in reducing HIV transmission. World statistics show that HIV transmission is low in many countries that do not circumcise. In fact, they show that they are often lower than many other countries where circumcision is near-universal.

"From day one after an infant is circumcised, benefits start."

This sounds copied and pasted from website written by one particular Australian circumcision enthusiast. I wouldn't be surprised if this is infact he.

There is not a "benefit" that circumcision advocates claim circumcision has that can't already be obtained without surgery. This line alone is daftly upsurd.


"UTI's are less frequent for the first year of life..."

Actually, no, Wiswell's work was proven to be heavily unreliable by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1999. There is no proof that circumcision reduces UTI, and more proof that circumcision actually CAUSES it.


"phimosis," is rare and circumcision to remedy is even rarer.

"paraphimosis," is perfectly preventable, and easily treated WITHOUT surgery, when and if it happens...

"balanitis, thrush," and other inflammatory infections are rare, and circumcision is not a requirement for their treatment. Actually, balanitis is still possible in the circumcised male.

"cancer," is infinitesimally rare, and studies across countries show that circumcision has no effect in reducing it whatsoever. Actually, there is no demonstrable proof that circumcision prevents penile cancer whatsoever; penile cancer happens to both circumcised and non-circumcised men of older age who smoke and have bad hygiene.


"frenulum tares (which can be very painful involving a lot of blood ) can all be either reduced or eliminated for a lifetime."

If they happen at all. When they do happen, circumcision is not necessary, as the problem can be remedied without radical amputation.


"As for c[l]eanliness, well, thats a no brainer."

Well, at least it should be. The "Circumcision Policy Statement" produced by the "Task Force on Circumcision" appointed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which was published in Pediatrics in 1999 and reaffirmed on September 1, 2005, "there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene".[4]

"Smegma, and fermented urine can form under the foreskin within a couple hours especially if small amounts of urine get trapped and start mixing with oils and shedded skin. Many reports describe the smell as repulsive. If anything can be done to help give someone and better defence against all these problems then maybe it should be considered more and parents should start requesting it more often."

Brian, what would you suggest for girls and women where the same thing happens?

Talk about a "no-brainer." Hygiene is what a shower's for.

1. Dinh, MH; McRaven MD, Kelley Z, Penugonda S, Hope TJ (2010-03-27). "Keratinization of the adult male foreskin and implications for male circumcision.". AIDS 24 (6): 899-906. PMID 20098294. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098294. Retrieved 2011-06-28. "We found no difference between the keratinization of the inner and outer aspects of the adult male foreskin. Keratin layers alone are unlikely to explain why uncircumcised men are at higher risk for HIV infection.".
2. Dinh, Minh H; Sheila M Barry, Meegan R Anderson, Scott G McCoombe, Shetha A Shukair, Michael D McRaven, Thomas J Hope (2009-12-06), "HIV-1 Interactions and Infection in Adult Male Foreskin Explant Cultures" (PDF), 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Montreal, Canada, http://retroconference.org/2009/PDFs/502.pdf, retrieved 2011-06-28, "No difference can be clearly visualized between the inner and outer foreskin."
3. de Witte, Lot; Alexey Nabatov, Marjorie Pion, Donna Fluitsma, Marein AW P de Jong, Tanja de Gruijl, Vincent Piguet, Yvette van Kooyk, Teunis B H Geijtenbeek (2007-03-04). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" (PDF). Nature Medicine. doi: 10.1038/nm1541. http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
4. American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement; Task Force on Circumcision" Pediatrics Vol 103 No.3 March 1999, pp.686-693. (Statement Reaffirmed Sept. 1, 2005).

Editor: Joesph, in the future please send anything of this length to the newsroom email, I would rather carry it as an article, and it is one of the only times I have approved a comment of this length, it is a good explanation and I appreciate it.  

To Ralph Stone: Ralph.. Please... You continue to make an unsupportable connection and assert it has some credibility as an argument for HIV as the cause of AIDS. I am going to quote you below..although, your statement is actually near verbatim pamphlet material.

"I wonder why those who dispute that HIV causes AIDS have not conducted their own large-scale controlled studies to find out whether the incidence of AIDS-defining diseases are higher among individuals infected with HIV than among the general uninfected population and whether or not HIV may be just a harmless passenger virus."

To address the absurdity of your quoted comment, I will restate that there is no way to determine if a person is "HIV" positive. I have referred you to an article that explains the science behind this statement in rather good layman's terms and I have referred you to the actual literature supplied with the tests in question. If, as is indisputable fact, the manufacturers of the tests you religiously believe to be diagnostic for HIV and AIDS state that these tests are NOT diagnostic NOR are they predictive of EITHER "HIV" "Infection" or progression to "AIDS" (and the tests are NOT licensed for that use) it is a fraudulent use of those tests to be utilized for such purposes. I am, therefore, perfectly within rights to claim it as fraud despite your opinion that stating as such does not add to the conversation. Fraud is fraud.

That aside, and more in line with the now clear fact that you are not able to counter any of my arguments and, therefore, support your own, evidenced by your failure to respond in any manner to the challenges I have offered (and they are really very simple challenges even for a layman)I will state that the entire premise of your quoted statement, above, is logically and scientifically absurd.

In order to fulfill your query, scientifically, the first place one would have to start is with the isolation of a novel retrovirus. I have stated that this ultimately important bit of science has never occurred. I cited the most pertinent sources (those you honor for supposedly discovering this novel retrovirus) admitting the fact that this bit of ultimately important science has not been conducted. So, absent the isolation of a novel retrovirus claimed to be the cause of a disease (which, due to its persistent failure to conform to any of the definitions applied to it has been repeatedly redefined over a 30 year period) ,it is logically impossible to conduct the studies you pose (and not actually you as your statement is, as I previously stated, near verbatim of one of the many poorly constructed circular arguments of the "AIDS" invested "researchers" found in their defensive literature).

In review, there has been no isolation of a novel retrovirus. This being an essential in the formation of tests which can determine, to a moderate degree the presence of antibody to an antigen (which, in all other tests is considered to be only an indicator that one has come in contact with the antigen.. NOT that one has become infected by it, nor that it is currently present within the body...an important bit of science which remarkably disappears when one discusses the so-called "HIV" tests). The tests, inappropriately called "HIV" tests, are clearly stated by the manufacturers to be other than tests for "HIV" or "AIDS". They come with direction NOT to be used for the purpose of determining the "HIV" or "AIDS" status of an individual. They are NOT licensed for that purpose and so are fraudulently used in direct contradiction to the above...sadly, with impunity. There exists not one so-called "AIDS" researcher in the world who has ever actually worked with "HIV" (simply because they can't.. it has never been isolated). Their failure to indicate this in their studies is a false presentation of scientific method, unethical proffering of supposition as fact, and in many instances clearly fraudulent. Neither Gallo nor Montagnier ever produced a paper (study) which demonstrated the process through which their supposed novel retrovirus was determined to be the cause of AIDS.

Have studies been conducted to help determine the cause of disease syndromes that present within the oft changed definition of "AIDS"? Yes Ralph, there have been many and because they are not funded by the mainstream institutes who refuse to fund research that tests their own hypotheses (fear of being proved failure) they do not gain the coverage of industry journals and/or the media which, I'm sure you know, are almost entirely funded by BIG PHARMA. If you are sincere about doing some research and asking real questions as opposed to the circular arguments from your defensive pamphlets or NIH website, I will gladly point out such studies.

The main culprit, from the bulk of research, indicates that oxidative stress, antigen overload (a phenomenon finally being discussed with regard to autism and vaccine)and malnutrition show a much stronger correlation to the disease syndromes than does the imaginary HIV (based on what the literature attributes to this phantom). More and more unbiased researches are coming to agree that the common assay tests are actually fair indicators of oxidative stress. Causation is difficult to universally prove unless one has an antigen that fulfills Koch's Postulates or a toxin which can be demonstrated to have been introduced in each body in sufficient amount to reproduce the same effect in each. The "HIV" hypothesis failed this reality immediately upon presentation (which is, in part, why the definitions changed so rapidly and so often).

Ralph, I have investigated the hypothesis from day one, was involved with the first organization in the world to actually work with patients said to have "AIDS", was president of one of the premier alternative AIDS organizations for 10 years and an advisor to dozens of others. I have debated researchers and writers for the entire period, have had numerous articles, interviews and radio/tv spots, am signatory to calls for reappraisal and return to genuine scientific method and have worked as an advisor to a committee chartered to investigate AIDS by the former President of an African nation. I studied virology for some time and gained a tremendous awareness and understanding through my connections to, and work with some of the worlds top scientists in a number of fields.

You can certainly apply the dodge of "We shall have to agree to disagree", however, I view that as an unwillingness to stretch your mind and challenge your religious indoctrination on the subject. I would certainly have higher regard had you been honest from the start and stated your unwillingness to look at the challenges to "AIDS" science, accept the simple challenges I offered and discover some interesting facts for yourself as opposed to my attempting to indoctrinate you with them, and unwillingness to offer any proofs whatsoever in defense of your beliefs or to disprove anything that I stated.. even the statements from your honored founders of the hypothesis that betray their own hypothesis.

It is religion to write, as you did, the "AIDS" 101 liturgy. As presented, you attempted to embarrass me through "schooling" me on the subject with a presentation of dogma condescendingly exploiting "everybody knows this is what it is" dogma. However, it is only dogma and dogma is not what everybody knows. It is what everybody is told to believe. That is what makes it religious. You believe it even though you have no basis other than faith and you push it on others as what they should also unquestioningly believe. When your dogma was challenged, you were unable to defend it with anything but more religious dogma. When pushed to show any actual knowledge on the subject, you dodged and weaved and then suggested we would have to agree to disagree. My suggestion is to avoid attempting to "school" someone until and unless you have something more to offer than dogma.

In a previous comment I challenged you to inform us which disease, after being called antigen mediated for extended periods of time and to the denigration of those who suggested otherwise ,was actually antigen mediated. A very simple challenge which exposes the historical problem of religious belief versus science. The answer is that none of them are antigen mediated. Three are caused by nutritional deficiencies and the remaining one, SMON, is an iatrogenic (doctor/med induced) disease caused by a medication offered as treatment for diarrhea.

I truly regret that you lost a son in the 80's. Not being someone with a background in this area, you are, no doubt, unaware that pneumocystis is commonly correlated to a number of other conditions. The actual nomenclature has changed since and where you were told it was PCP carinii you would now be told it was PCP jirovecii, carinii being that form found in rats. This should be an indicator of just how little they understood and how poorly their work was conducted. Pneumocystis is actually prevalent in the population in a number of forms and is inactive in most individuals. Prolonged immuno challenge to the body (radiation , chemo, steroids, antibiotics, antifungals) allow for overgrowth and thus toxic effect from whatever form of pneumocystis prevails. Back in 1984, if you had pneumocystis but did not test positive on Gallos assay (only one available)you were said to be suspected of being positive but not reactive to the test or you were considered an anomaly (later said to be ICL or Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia). If you had Kaposi's sarcoma but did not test positive on Gallo's assay, you were again ICL or not reactive but assumed positive. You are aware, I assume, that Kaposi's sarcoma was removed as an "AIDS" "defining" disease during one of the many definition changes. Didn't matter. Volberding overdosed you with AZT back then and you likely died. AZT being the chemotherapeutic agent that was pretty much useless as it was too toxic for human consumption.. except if you were diagnosed HIV positive based on a test not licensed for that purpose and not proven specific, or even marginally so, for HIV which had never been isolated and therefore not available to make a test for in the first place.. oh.. and the manufacturer despite Gallo's ire, stated the test was not diagnostic for hiv or aids.

It seems the anti-circ activists love to promote the idea tha circumcision is dangerous and useless. Well is it? First, if we lived in a perfect world withought harmful viruses etc.and if body parts such as a foreskin never caused a person any problems, then maybe we could consider circumcision harmful and useless. Sorry but its not a perfect world.

 Editor: With respect Mike, I am going to go through your worthy comment point by point  I think you are well intended in your aim,  but that your overall message rings of misunderstanding and also emotion. First, what is the value of life?  Each year more than 100 male infants die from circumcision; this stems from several things that potentially take place like infection.  This is documented.  Second, it is unnatural and an extremely painful and traumatizing event, I know a large number of people on this side of the issue and among them are a large number of uncircumcised men.  We don't live in a perfect world yet we always need to strive.  This Jewish and Muslim practice didn't even come into play until the mid 1800's when a popular British writer suggested that mutilating the penis in this way would reduce masturbation.  You see, people truly believed then that masturbation caused blindness, seriously.  It is not even part of western culture, however cleanliness is, it is taught at home and in school and I grew up in an almost completely Hispanic part of Los Angeles and few guys were circumcised, it was not problematic.    

Viruses such as HIV,Herpes and HPV all have an easier time entering the inner surface of the foreskin either through small tares in the lining or because of the immune response from such cells as Langerhan. Unfortunately an immune response to a virus such as HIV and Herpes is pretty much the same as the Trojan horse, and once its in its there to stay.

Editor: Please Mike, what are you talking about?  The way to prevent the spread of all sexually transmitted disease is simply to use protection, everyone knows that, there is absolutely no evidence of your point, however there is evidence that groups were profiting from selling this idea in Africa.

 As we all know, a number of studies show each of these viruses to be more common in uncircumcised males. Circumcision is not a cure all but it is considered
by many to be a preventive measure. Yes condoms provides protection from these viruses, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think for one second
that people always use them. Have you ever checked into unplanned pregnancies for example, especially among young people, i think this speakes for itself.

Editor: Again, the profit based studies that were released have all been debunked.  When a male is circumcised, 30 percent of the tissue that receives sexual stimulation is cut off, this is the root cause of all types of sex-based male problems in the U.S. and provides a market for things like V...ga.  While people may not use condoms regularly, I blame things like this and the religious right's endless drive to deny people sexual education and protection, rubbers, condoms, whatever the name.  You are implying that people like to have sex in highly unwashed states, I think not if they have a choice, a circumcision has little to do with whether or not a person is a dirtbag and doesn't wash.  

From day one after an infant is circumcised, benefits start. UTI's are less frequent for the first year of life, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, thrush,
cancer, frenulum tares (which can be very painful involving a lot of blood ) can all be either reduced or eliminated for a lifetime. As for ceanliness,
well, thats a no brainer. Smegma, and fermented urine can form under the foreskin within a couple hours especially if small amounts of urine get trapped and start mixing with oils and shedded skin. Many reports describe the smell as repulsive. If anything can be done to help give someone and better defence against all these problems then maybe it should be considered more and parents should start requesting it more often.

Editor: I disagree with every single point you made Mike, hopefully people are coming along and at least trying to get past their personal comfort levels when dealing with this important subject.  It is genital mutilation, please stand against it.

To Dr. Paul: We will just have to agree to disagree. Obviously, you are a true believer. But we two non-scientists are not going to resolve the issue in the comment section of an article about circumcision in Africa. All you are doing is pointing to articles by others. I wonder why those who dispute that HIV causes AIDS have not conducted their own large-scale controlled studies to find out whether the incidence of AIDS-defining diseases are higher among individuals infected with HIV than among the general uninfected population and whether or not HIV may be just a harmless passenger virus. I do admire your technique of labeling those who agree with you as scientists and those who are still skeptical as religious believers.

To:Ralph Stone..You have not responded to one challenge I have offered. Instead, what you offer is more of that old time religion. I am going to refer you to an article that explains, scientifically why this religion is a false and dangerous one. http://www.healtoronto.com/rodney_richards2.html Please make the effort to read it. I am quite familiar with all of the individuals you mentioned. Are you actually familiar with the research they have done or are you simply tossing names about? Would you care to tell me about their research? Rather than it being based on a "foundation" of "HIV" existing, it is based on a belief that is absent any genuine science. Not one of them has ever actually worked with "HIV". Again, I challenge you to show otherwise. Your ending comment regarding 28+ yrs of HIV research never happening...in reference to my challenges to you... is something quite beneath you, in my opinion. Let me address it, however, ...If, as I have positioned, HIV has never been isolated (according to your first 2 references from your previous note, it has not)

I must ask, again, what is it they are doing this research on? Logically, it cannot be a virus as they have yet to prove its existence in the most rigorous methods required by science. now, let's consider, beri beri, smon, scurvy and pellagra..are You familiar with any of these? All of these were religiously believed to be antigen mediated diseases for years and decades. Scientists, doctors and researchers were ridiculed and dismissed for suggesting otherwise. There labs were shuttered, funding shut off, and academic standings destroyed. So here is another challenge for you. Please tell us which one of those diseases was actually proven to be antigen mediated. Science has been fooled and has fooled itself and the public over and over again throughout history...typically because of money and greed and religious belief in the unfounded. Again, let's talk science as the religion of HIV is unfounded and extremely dangerous.

To Dr. Paul: I did not realize I was tangling with a very vocal HIV/AIDS debunker. While I am not a scientist, I do have more than a passing interest in AIDS. My 19-year old son Michael was diagnosed with pneumocystis, a common AIDS-related illness. He died in 1984. My wife Judi, a licensed clinical social worker, was the social worker for the AIDS-dedicated unit at Kaiser Hospital here in San Francisco. In 1984, an AIDS diagnosis was considered a death sentence. Today, because of new therapies, AIDS is now considered a treatable chronic illness. True there is no cure. But then again, we don't as yet have a cure for cancer. Here in San Francisco, we have had such pioneer physicians and researchers like Dr. Volberding, Dr. Donald Abrams, and Dr. Constance Wolsey, who set up Ward 86 at San Francisco General Hospital to treat and perform valuable research. The research by these physicians and many others is based on the foundation that HIV exists and it causes AIDS. By arguing otherwise, would be to deny that 28+ years of HIV research has never happened. You tell me what causes AIDS. By the way, throwing around words like "fraud" doesn't enhance the conversation.

To Ralph Stone: This is a subject I am afraid you know little to nothing about. You talk about "antibody" tests. I offer a challenge. Read the labels/literature accompanying any of these "antibody" tests.. specifically where each states these tests are not diagnostic for the presence of "HIV" nor are they capable of diagnosing or predicting "AIDS". If you understand what this means, you will know where your comments fall flat. But there is much more... please find the original study by either Robert Gallo (who is a fraud in so many ways.. and I can document these)and Dr. Montagnier where they evidence the isolation of a novel retrovirus which became labeled "HIV". I can tell you without doubt that such a study does not now, nor has it ever existed. If you are familiar with Dr. Montagnier, you know, perhaps, that he admitted many years ago that "HIV" was never isolated by either he or Gallo. Without isolation, how do they come by the proteins which are tied to the assay tests called "HIV antibody tests"? Please explain. Further, you are, perhaps, aware that Montagnier has stated that what we call "AIDS" is a disease of nutrition, curable (Yes, he stated "curable") with proper nutrition. I have a great deal of admiration for your work, however, what you have offered in your comment is completely false and I challenge you to prove otherwise by providing the very simple proofs I have requested. In advance, please do not come back with any nonsense regarding PCR and "viral load". The (Nobel Laureate)inventor of that process is a friend and I will use his own words to discredit that bit of falsehood. I am actually amazed that you would support this fraud when the evidence is so readily available to you. There is a difference between science and religion. You have so far presented religion. Let's talk real science. 9BTW..I am not an MD).

THE CURE for HIV/AIDS.......AMBUSH CURES AIDS http://www.ambushcuresaidsfree.com is now operational. 1. We are located in Dallas, Texas, USA. 2. AMBUSH is supplied as the dried powdered form of the Palm plant with ginger added as taste and preservative. 3. The package size is 6 x 9 approx and weighs approx 2 oz. per pack. 4. Kindly use the PAYPAL account to send your love GIFT of $25 or more to cover shipping and handling. AMBUSH is FREE but it cost to send it to you. 5. For Fed Ex please calculate the cost from its website FROM Dallas Texas to YOU . 6. Please fill out the CONTACT US page with your NAME ( or fictitious ) and complete MAILING ADDRESS and we will send you the AMBUSH complete with directions. 7.Thanks for waiting. http://www.ambushcuresaidsfree.com

Dr. Ennis: I feel somewhat silly explaining AIDS 101 to a physician. But here goes: An antibody test is the most common type of test used to diagnose HIV in individuals. This test shows whether a person has been infected with HIV by looking for HIV antibodies in a person's blood. When HIV enters a person's body, special proteins are produced, which are known as antibodies. Antibodies are the body's response to an infection. So if a person has specific antibodies against HIV in their blood, it means they have been infected with HIV (an exception is the case of an HIV negative baby born to a positive mother, who will retain her antibodies for some months). Depending on the clinic, the test results from an antibody test can come back in under an hour (in the case of rapid HIV antibody tests), or may take a few days or weeks (in the case of standard antibody tests). Someone who is infected with the virus is called HIV positive. But it may take years for the virus to damage enough T cells for that person to get sick and develop AIDS. We can thank two separate research groups led by Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier independently discovered that HIV caused AIDS.

Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. ---------------------------- Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds In The Adult Penis British Journal of Urology International, 2007, Vol. 99, No. 4, 864-869 Sorrells et al.

don't upset by herpes. I met many herpes singles on a h dating site www.herpesloving.com . Good luck!Most of them are very sexy.

DateHSV.℃○M~ is a warm-hearted and exclusive community for you to find friendship, support, and even love with STD or learn about medical information about STD. If you just need to find someone to talk to or offer help or advice, this is the best place.

Until such time as a test comes into existence which does not offer a disclaimer stating it is not sufficient for the diagnosis of either HIV infection or AIDS, it is safe to assume that any offered "research" study is little more than a tool for sale of some product or promotion of some racist ideology... in other words, BULLSHIT. There are NO tests which demonstrate infection by "HIV" and there is not a single study which shows without a doubt that "HIV" is the cause of "AIDS". (There are no definitive proofs of even isolation for a novel retrovirus named "HIV").

Name:

Enter the text from the image to confirm you are human.(Cookies are required)

HTML tags and certain characters are removed - (numbers, letters only or post may be cut short.) certain words are banned to stop spammers. All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.