![]() |
|
|||||||
| Calls to Action Bail someone out, sign a petition, write a legislator, phone a DJ, etc. Use FORUM TOOLS to Subscribe and get e-mail alerts when new items are posted. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
I just stumbled upon this conference in the Netherlands on the doctor and the foreskin. It takes place in June 2012.
-George H. http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Agenda/Agen...e-foreskin.htm |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd love to go to this, if I could guarantee a microphone hearing.
This--"On the other hand though, there are currently large scale campaigns going on throughout Africa promoting circumcision as a possible means of preventing HIV-infections." Anyone know the source of this suggestion? What is the mechanism by which incidence of infection is reduced if there is no foreskin? What is the proposed increased danger of infection with the presence of a foreskin? |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
the African studies tried to use the mechanism. ie that the langerhan cells are more receptive to the HIV virus. that might be true but only because the HIV virus attacks immune cells. and langerhan cells are in high concentration in the foreskin. so by removing the langerhan cells it makes it slightly harder for the virus to enter the body. combined with the fact that when exposed the glans starts to keratinize and thicken. but as these might be slightly true a condom does a much better job. also these mechanisms dont help women. these mechanisms do nothing directly against the virus.
__________________
Time consumes all and destroys nothing |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks. If that's the reasoning in a nutshell then it's as I thought--pathetic bullshit by vested interests. All goes in the "it's beneficial" dossier.
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|