Study links women’s obesity, birth defects

Posted on by

By LINDSEY TANNER
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 – Page updated at 02:06 AM
The Associated Press
CHICAGO — Women who are obese before pregnancy face a higher risk of having babies with a variety of birth defects than women with a healthy weight, a new study suggests.

I shouldn’t, but I’m going to assume that when they talk about obese women they aren’t speaking of women that are just 20 pounds overweight. It makes sense that if a woman is so overweight that she has health problems due to weight her unborn baby may be affected. If any woman takes in too much caffeine, alcohol, or certain over the counter medications it can have serious effects on her unborn child, so it makes sense to me that a woman that has a wholly unhealthy lifestyle (in this case diet and exercise) could also cause negative effects to her baby especially if the bulk of her diet is overly processed foods with long ingredient lists (my bias, sorry). But does obesity automatically mean that the person has a bad diet and/or is unhealthy? To me that’s like assuming skinny people are healthy and/or vegetarians.

The results involving nearly 15,000 women from eight states found abnormalities of the spine, heart, arms, legs and abdomen, building on previous research that showed heart and spine defects. The greatest risk was for spina bifida.

Were these obese women or just 15,000 random women? If they were all obese how did the rates compare to women of a healthy weight and women that are overweight?

“Obese women should not be overly alarmed by these findings because their absolute risk of having a child with a birth defect is low, and the cause of the majority of birth defects is unknown,” said University of Texas researcher Kim Waller, the study’s lead author.

So why are we sharing this “news”? You’re only telling us that their absolute risk is low. Is absolute risk higher than for healthy weight women and over weight women? – if not why are we wasting this valuable newspaper space?

Still, the results underline yet another reason for women to maintain a healthy weight, Waller said.

Great, any F@#$ suggestions for those that have thyroid problems or for those that already have a healthy diet and adequate exercise?

The findings, published Monday in the August edition of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, suggest that about 4 percent of women who are obese before pregnancy will have babies with major birth defects, versus 3 percent for healthy-weight women, Waller said.

A one percent difference? Are you F#@$ing Sh@tting me? That’s not a found link in birth defects! That’s like getting pulled over for doing one mile an hour over the speed limit and calling it reckless driving.

Obese women faced double the risk of having babies with spina bifida than women of healthy weight. With spina bifida, the most common disabling birth defect in the United States, the spinal column fails to close properly.

Babies born to very heavy women also were 60 percent more likely to have a rare defect in which abdominal organs protrude through the belly button; 40 percent more likely to have heart defects; 36 percent more likely to have shortened arms or legs; and at least 20 percent more likely to have any of several gastrointestinal deformities.

Ok this sounds extremely significant, but we’re always hearing that the rate of obesity climbing in the US…if obesity is the link than is the rate of these birth defects also climbing?

Related posts:

Even carrots taste better at McDonald’s

Posted on by

Preschoolers in study liked food more if it had a Golden Arches wrapper
By LINDSEY TANNER
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Last updated August 6, 2007 11:45 p.m. PT
CHICAGO — Anything made by McDonald’s tastes better, preschoolers said in a study that powerfully demonstrates how advertising can trick the taste buds of young children.

We really needed another study for this? I could have told you that after watching the Saturday morning cartoons and then taking a walk through the cereal isle of any grocery store to watch the ever popular, “can I please have this – I promise to clean my room” tantrum reenacted as children hold their favorite sugary sugar coated sugar pops infused with sugar and a little sugar on top cereal (tastes great with a little dab of honey).

Even carrots, milk and apple juice tasted better to the children when they were wrapped in the familiar packaging of the Golden Arches.

I would just like to take this time to point out that the “familiar packaging” is only familiar if the child has seen it before. I’m thinking my house will have the Saturday morning Netflix cartoons just to avoid commercials.

The study had youngsters sample identical McDonald’s foods in name-brand and unmarked wrappers. The unmarked foods always lost.
“You see a McDonald’s label and kids start salivating,” said Diane Levin, a childhood development specialist who campaigns against advertising to children. She had no role in the research.

Levin said it was “the first study I know of that has shown so simply and clearly what’s going on with (marketing to) young children.”

Dr. Tom Robinson of Stanford University, author of the study, said the children’s perception of taste was “physically altered by the branding.”

It wasn’t physically altered you dimwit (he must have watched too much ‘Baby Einstein’). Physically altering would require taste bud removal.

The study involved 63 low-income children ages 3 to 5 from Head Start centers in San Mateo County, Calif. Robinson believes the results would be similar for children from wealthier families.

True, but only if the children of wealthier families watched the same commercials. It’s possible that the wealthier kids have such a huge library of videos that they never watch TV in all its commercial glory.

The research, appearing in August’s Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, was funded by Stanford and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The study likely will stir more debate over the movement to restrict ads to children. It comes less than a month after 11 major food and drink companies, including McDonald’s, announced new curbs on marketing to children under 12.

McDonald’s says the only Happy Meals it will promote to young children will contain fruit and have fewer calories and less fat.

Adding fruit – Yay! Big plus. Unfortunately, they don’t say if it’s fresh fruit or dried fruit which is typically dried with fruit juice containing high fructose corn syrup. They also don’t mention how many calories or fat in the meals, but merely state that it’ll be less. Less than what? I have a small car – it weights less than an elephant. It’s a Hummer. You see how it’s all relative?

“We’ve always wanted to be part of the solution and we are providing solutions,” company spokesman Walt Riker said.

Translation: We see that people are going back to the 80′s trend of eating healthy and exercising so aside from offering diet coke and crappy salads we’re going to package carrots and apples with our trade mark and sell it with less freshness and higher prices than a grocery store now that it’s been kid tested and mom approved.

But Dr. Victor Strasburger, an author of an American Academy of Pediatrics policy urging limits on marketing to children, said the study shows too little is being done.

“It’s an amazing study and it’s very sad,” Strasburger said.

“Advertisers have tried to do exactly what this study is talking about — to brand younger and younger children, to instill in them an almost obsessional desire for a particular brand-name product,” he said.

Well Duh! They want money! Did he just wake up? It’s called CAPITALISM.

Related posts:

Videos hardly creating baby Einsteins

Posted on by

Sensational non-news. Overly dramatized for your panties in a bunch pleasure…

By Amber Dance
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 – Page updated at 02:06 AM
Los Angeles Times

Parents hoping to raise baby Einsteins by using infant educational videos instead might be creating baby Homer Simpsons, according to researchers.

I just love how they more than insinuate that you might actually be making your child dumb by showing these videos.

In a study published today in the Journal of Pediatrics, researchers found that, among babies ages 8 months to 16 months, every hour spent daily watching programs such as “Brainy Baby” or “Baby Einstein” translated into six to eight fewer words in their vocabularies as compared with other children their age.

Oh NO! Jr. isn’t ever going to make it to college *eye roll* I can see how a child might be delayed in learning if their parents/caregivers use TV as a babysitter and never interact with the kid, but they can pick up those eight words later on. Hell, Einstein himself didn’t speak until he was about five years old.

The video makers have sold hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth to parents aiming to put their babies on the fast track.

Unfortunately, it’s all money down the tubes, according to Dr. Dmitri Christakis, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington.

I don’t think it’s money down the tubes if you just want to entertain your kid while you do the laundry and dishes without Jr. underfoot. I just wouldn’t rely on it getting your toddler into medical school – that requires more advanced videos.

Christakis and his colleagues surveyed 1,000 parents in Washington and Minnesota. They determined the babies’ vocabularies using a standard set of 90 common baby words, including “mommy,” “nose” and “choo-choo.”

Note to self, must teach baby Sophia the word “choo-choo” so that should we ever participate in a study she’ll appear intelligent.

The researchers found that 32 percent of the babies watched the videos; of those, 17 percent watched more than an hour a day, according to the study.

So what are you saying? 32 percent of Sophia’s classmates will be dumb and 17 percent of those will be truly dee-dee-dee? Let’s blame the video those are always easy targets and then when the kids are teens will blame other TV shows, violent computer games, and their music.

The videos, which are designed to engage a baby’s attention, hop from scene to scene with minimal dialogue and include mesmerizing images, such as an active lava lamp.

Christakis said children whose parents read to them or told them stories instead of showing them videos had bigger vocabularies.

Is reading truly the key ingredient here? Maybe it’s the fact that reading a child means that someone is spending time interacting with her. I understand that if you leave the kid with a video that doesn’t have many words the child is just watching shapes and sounds with no meaning and probably won’t be picking up a lot of vocabulary for that hour or so that the TV is babysitting. What if the parent watched the video with their toddler and pointed out different objects, colors, number of items, or whatever? How would that be so different from reading to them?

“I would rather babies watch ‘American Idol’ than these videos,” Christakis said, explaining that there was at least a chance that the parents would watch with them, giving the babies contact and perhaps interaction that would have developmental benefits.

Oh good GOD NO! Anything but “American Idol” – Why on earth can’t Christakis just suggest that parents spend some time watching the silly videos with their kids and point out stuff – like I said above. I bet Christakis kid didn’t get into the prestigious preschool. He just has it in for the creators Baby Einstein videos.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no television for children younger than 24 months.

What?! Why the hell not? Aside from most babies not having the attention span to watch the History channel go on and on about WWII and Hitler why *shouldn’t* they watch TV?

The Brainy Baby Co. and Walt Disney Co., which markets the “Baby Einstein” videos, did not return calls Monday.

You called on Monday and published this article on Tuesday – was that really enough time?

Related posts:

The “to do” list

Posted on by

Last week’s goal was to complete the goals of the previous week, which I still have not done. I did remove some of Kurt’s stuff from Sophia’s room, but it’s now sitting in the hallway. I don’t really count that as much of an accomplishment.

I also added 31 blogs that I frequently read to my side bar under the heading, “Link Love”, but there are still a few things I’d like to add/change/fix/replace.

This week’s goals are to keep on picking away at the goals of last week and to arrange the after baby shower dinner reservations, make a vet appointment for Gandalf, call the babysitting referral a coworker gave me, and make a doctor appointment for myself.

The first one I’ve already done *Yay* and no it’s not cheating cause I say it’s not.

Gandalf has quite literally chewed off (not plucked but chewed) all of the feathers from one of his wings. Because he’s shredding and not plucking and because it’s limited to just one wing I think he may have an ingrown feather or some other medical issue. It’s hard to tell with birds. I’m just hoping it’s not some emotional issue of him feeling neglected since Kurt and I have to do so much to get ready for baby because I’m sure it’ll only get worse once baby is here.

I really have no idea what questions to ask a babysitter. I already know that she does take infants, but I do need to know if she’s going to be able to take my infant when she’s six months old. I also know that she is licensed by the state and takes DSHS (not that I need that but from what I understand it means she gets inspections more often). The person that told me about this sitter says that this is the only sitter she ever took her son to and that anytime she passes by the sitter’s house her now eight-year-old son asks to visit the sitter. – I really don’t think you can get a better referral than that, but I still want to go in with some good questions.

I need to make my next doctor appointment for sometime around the 16th and after that appointment I get to see the doctor twice a month. I’m so happy and scared that the end is near. On Saturday Kurt and I went to our first Child birth Prep Class and well neither of us wanted to see THAT movie. I swear if they showed that in high schools the days of teen pregnancy would be OVER!

Related posts:

Birthing center tour

Posted on by

Last night Kurt and I went through a tour of the birthing center at the hospital and I was happy to find out that many of my birth plan requests are standard procedure there. Unless I require a cesarean section I will be in the same room from labor through delivery and postpartum. All care for the baby will also take place in my room. Kurt will be able to be with me through the entire process unless an emergency cesarean is necessary where they knock me out completely. If for some reason a planned cesarean becomes necessary for me, Kurt will still be able to be there. Cesarean would be the only reason why I wouldn’t be able to stay in one room for the whole process, but baby still stays with me the whole time. There is still a nursery that is usually only available at night, so that I can sleep, but I’m thinking I would rather just keep her with me.

They have a very cool baby security system too. There is a monitor that they attach to the baby’s leg – if it’s removed an alarm goes off at the nurse’s station. If someone tries to walk away with a baby that has the security tag still on – once the person gets within three feet of an exit all doors of the hospital doors will lock.

Someone at the tour brought up video cameras – blah! That’s really the last thing I want to see blown up on my TV screen. My cousin said that for her deliveries they brought in a mirror so she could see the baby come out. It’s great that they do these things for the people that want that, but my thought is nothing beautiful has ever come out of my body before. I have never once wanted to put a mirror by my crotch so that I could watch myself poop. Nor have I ever wanted to reach down and touch it as it comes out. The evidence in the toilet is really good enough for me. From what I understand babies aren’t very cute in the first few hours of life and according to Kurt, “don’t look human until they pink up”. Therefore, I will be fine waiting to hold her until after she’s been cleaned up and the first pictures can wait until after that point as well – thank you very much.

Related posts:

I may as well have served chicken heads

Posted on by

Yesterday I made stuffed bell peppers. I specify bell peppers because I occasionally (twice) make Chile Rellenos as well. I have a few dishes that I never really make the same way twice and stuffed bell peppers is one of them. Here is the basic recipe:

Four bell peppers
One can of diced tomatoes (14 ounce)
One can of black beans (14 ounce)
One can of salsa (4 ounce? – very small) or make a little of your own
A couple small slices of Monterey Jack cheese
Sour cream

Mix the tomatoes and beans together and stuff into peppers. Add a couple teaspoons of salsa and a couple slices of cheese in each pepper. You can either place the peppers in a crock pot and have dinner ready right after work or put in the oven at about 400 degrees Fahrenheit for about 45 minutes (I place the peppers in a enamel coated cast iron Dutch oven). Serve with a dollop of sour cream. Depending on the size of the peppers they may not be fully stuffed with just those ingredients and this is where the changes take place.

One time I made this dish and added some polenta. It was edible but I wasn’t impressed – never bought the stuff again. Another time I had some extra frozen corn from another dish I had recently made and so I added that. With both of those variants, Kurt took little notice. Last night I made it and cut up a couple carrots – he freaked out. “You added carrots!” he says with disgust. He likes carrots. I guess he felt they don’t belong in this dish at all! He acted like I may as well have served live chickens.

Related posts:

Emotional doubts

Posted on by

In about 58 days people will be able to say that I’m a mom, and when people ask me if I have kids I don’t have to ask, “Do pets count?” I will have my own squishy pink vomiting poop machine. That’s right after four pets (one malamute, one husky, one cat, and an African Grey parrot) I don’t have any delusions of what it’s like to care for another being, yet I still want my own little devil spawn. I’m told “it’s worth it” and that being a parent is “amazing”. It’s not that I don’t believe them, but I’m just not feeling it. Yes, I cried the first time I heard the heartbeat, and it was amazing to see Sophia open and close her mouth during the ultrasound. She even stuck her fist into her mouth. The first kicks were a little weird. They didn’t even really feel like kicks. Maybe I just need to be able to hold her and see her face in person instead of on a screen in black and white because right now it feels like I have an alien inside me that’s keeping me awake at night with a lot of heartburn and acid reflux. There have been a couple of times recently where I felt very close to my growing parasite (aside from the obvious, she’s inside me). I mean emotionally of course. Will I actually become as attached to her as I think I should? Shouldn’t I already feel this way?

Today Kurt and I were playing City of Heroes and because I have no lap, the cat curled up on my stomach. Sophia kicked him off. Her kicks are of course much stronger now. A couple of times her kicks caused me to nearly jump out of my seat at work. In the evening, I’ll sometimes roll my shirt up to watch her roll around in my stomach. It looks like my stomach is Jell-O that’s been flicked – watch it wiggle, watch it jiggle. It’s somewhat gross. In the past two days, she has been into holding her poses. I don’t get to see an actual foot print in my stomach yet but when I push in certain spots, I can tell I’m touching some part of her.

Related posts:

Kurt as a dad

Posted on by

On Friday, the BMW dealership called him in the late afternoon to let him know they fixed his motorcycle. If he went down there picked it up and came all the way back home we wouldn’t be able to eat diner until 8:30 at the earliest, and that’s assuming Friday traffic isn’t too bad. I asked him what he wanted to do. I suggested that I could follow him in my truck. He said no because he would be in the carpool lane (they gave him a loaner bike) and I would be stuck in regular traffic, so he came up with a plan. He told me he would go down, get the bike, and then call me when he’s about to leave so that I could take off from home and meet him about halfway for dinner out. That sounded good to me. He gave me the time frame for when I should be getting his call and as he’s leaving to get his bike he says sternly, “Now when I call just get in your truck and go. No, oh I had to go to the bathroom, feed the bird…” Raised eyebrow – Excuse me? When did I become his teenage daughter? And who is it that routinely makes us late for things? “Ok dad” I answered. He became all huffy and said, “Fine I’ll just come all the way back home and we can eat late.” He called me and we met halfway – no big deal. I even went to the bathroom AFTER he called. *eye roll*

I didn’t get any breakfast before leaving for our first baby class on Saturday so I brought a banana and an applesauce cup to eat on the way. I finished the banana and put the peel into the trash bag. Yes, I actually keep a trash bag in my truck. As soon as the peel is in the trash Kurt says with an authoritative voice, “Make sure to throw that trash out when we get back or you’ll have fruit flies in here.” What!?! Again with this micromanagement attitude? With one eyebrow raised, I saluted him – actual salute not the one-fingered kind. This is the second time he’s talked to me like that. What are you practicing your parenting skills on me?

I really hope that “New dad’s” class he’s going to take soon helps calm him down. And if Sophia is anything like me, I hope he realizes quickly that the micromanagement crap will get him NOWHERE after about age three, if anything it’ll work against him. Wish us luck – we’re going to need it!

Related posts:

Cleaning up for baby

Posted on by

My goal for last week was to clean my upstairs, which consists of the main bathroom, mater bedroom, master bathroom, the computer room and Sophia’s room. Three out of five ain’t too bad. :P I’m actually pretty happy about the amount I did since I’m not just doing a regular cleaning. I’m trying to get all the things that I don’t do every time like the windows. I hope that tonight I’ll be able to finish cleaning the computer room with the help of Kurt, and maybe Tuesday I’ll have the rest of Sophia’s room cleared and cleaned.

On Saturday Kurt took his stuff out of her closet and installed some shelves, but now his stuff is scattered on the floor. When he finished the shelves I immediately climbed over his stuff to take all the things I purchased for her out of the crib and organized it on the shelves. The closet looks really nice. :)

Last week I said I would probably make adding more categories to this blog my next project to add a little more depth, but I’ve mostly completed that.  This week’s goal will be to finish last week’s goal and finish some of the little odds and ends I wanted to add to this blog.

Related posts:

Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS spread

Posted on by

This is the latest circumcision headline along with, “Circumcision may offer Africa AIDS hope”. I smell BULLSHIT!

I don’t see how the US can be so adamant about male circumcision. They’re now trying to change minds in other countries about it, but I don’t see anyone promoting social health effects of female circumcision. That doesn’t seem fair. Female circumcision curbs promiscuity. That would put a huge dent in teen sex and teens have the highest rates of STDs. Heck, we should terminate all teens and that will get rid of all STDs. Ok, Seriously I know there is a HUGE difference between male and female circumcisions, but if I was having a boy I wouldn’t circumcise him. I figure he’s born with a foreskin, I’m thinking he should keep it. If he hates me for it and wants it removed later on, I’ll pay for the surgery. Again, I know as an adult the surgery isn’t quite as quick and simple, but at least it would be his own choice. I’m not going to point fingers and say someone is wrong for circumcising their boy – it’s your kid, your choice. But this article is Bullshit!

From the Seattle PI

Last updated July 24, 2007 5:31 a.m. PT
Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS spread
By MERAIAH FOLEY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SYDNEY, Australia — A U.S. health expert urged governments worldwide Tuesday to endorse circumcision to slow the spread of HIV, saying men without the procedure have a greater risk of contracting the virus from infected female partners.

A U.S. health expert? If you have the goods, the info, wouldn’t you want your name attached to this? And wouldn’t sex with an infected female partner be the key to such a risk and not having skin around the tip of your penis?

Experts at an AIDS conference in Sydney also warned that HIV infection rates were rising among men who have sex with men in developing countries because of discrimination and lack of access to health services.

Wait what does this have to do with foreskin or no foreskin? The headline, dear Ms. Meraiah says, “Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS”. Do these men having sex with men have foreskins or not? And is the HIV rate really rising due to lack of access to health services? I’m thinking the rate rises when they’re having unprotected sex. Read: CONDOMS.

The World Health Organization says male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male transmission of the disease by around 60 percent. But only 30 percent of men worldwide have had the procedure, mostly in countries where it is common for religious or health reasons.

Around 60 percent? Boy that sounds scientific. I’m so convinced (that was sarcasm). Plus or minus what margin of error? In the US (according to the CDC) from 1979 – 1999 65% of the males born in the US were circumcised. If circumcision is actually helpful we should have a very low percentage of HIV/AIDS, yes? And the percentage of people with HIV/AIDs should be lower than most other countries since the US is the only country that routinely circumcises the majority of infant boys even without medical necessity or religious reasons, yes? Now I don’t have any statistics on US circumcision prior to 1979, but I know it was prevalent in English speaking countries in the early 1900’s and while it slowed down in other English speaking countries around the end of WWII it continued in the US.

Here is a map (I believe it’s current) of countries and the prevalence of male circumcisions. The map is from a site that is clearly biased against circumcision, but I think the representation of where this surgery is prevalent and not seem accurate. Take note that in Mexico, central and South America circumcision is rare. It’s also rare in Europe, China, India, and Russia. Now here is a Chart of the Adult HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rate (aged 15-49). The US is at .6%, Mexico .3%, Guatemala .8%, Honduras .7%, Nicaragua .2%, Costa Rica .4%, Colombia .6%, Ecuador .3%, Brazil .4%, France .4%, Spain .5%, Germany .1%, China .1%, India .3%, Russia 1.1% Because the countries in which circumcision is rare have HIV/AIDS percentages above and below the US I’m thinking it has to do with something other than foreskin.

Robert Bailey, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois, said studies in Africa showed that uncircumcised men were 2 1/2 times more likely to contract HIV from infected female partners, though many health officials were still unclear about its benefits.

I found two sources [1], [2] in which it states that the studies in Africa were halted “after their interim analyses found that medical circumcision reduced male participants’ risk of HIV infection”. The “Doctors against circumcision” site, which is obviously biased, suggests that if the studies went as scheduled the results would have been similar between the two groups. The circumcised men may not have been given adequate time to heal. From what I can tell all of the men were adults and were not circumcised prior to the study. From the CDC, “In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared to men assigned to the wait list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these deviations, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk of HIV infection compared to those who were not circumcised.” So basically it’s business as usual for the uncircumcised who get a head start while the newly circumcised men wait a bit to heal. I don’t know how long it takes a newborn to heal but I’m thinking it might take an adult a bit longer before the boinking may commence again.

“If we had a vaccine that was 60 percent protective, we would be very happy and we would be rolling it out as fast as we can,” Bailey told reporters at an International AIDS Society Conference in Sydney, Australia.

It’s my understanding that vaccine tests are not halted before their scheduled date just because initial tests confirmed desired results. I don’t think the FDA would approve.

“The next step is to get the leaders of countries to actually come up with policy statements endorsing the practice,” said Bailey, who has conducted circumcision-related studies in Africa and the United States.

Without local support, international agencies would be unlikely to encourage the procedure to avoid being seen as imposing foreign cultures or values, he said.

Circumcision, the removal of the foreskin from the penis, has long been suspected of reducing men’s susceptibility to HIV infection because the skin cells in the foreskin are especially vulnerable to the virus.

I suspect that a combination of condoms and AIDS education would be even more effective than removal of the foreskin since circumcised men also contract HIV.

In March, the WHO urged heterosexual men to undergo the procedure because of compelling evidence that it reduces their risk of getting the disease. However, it cautioned that male circumcision is not a complete protection against HIV, and said men should still use condoms and take other precautions such as abstinence, delaying the start of sexual activity and reducing the number of sexual partners.

What about gay men? If the skin cells on the foreskin are truly more susceptible to HIV – wouldn’t this also help gay men? Shouldn’t the WHO urge men in general and not just the ones with the “acceptable” sexual preference?

“Circumcision could drive the epidemic to a declining state toward extinction,” Bailey said. “We must make safe, affordable, voluntary circumcision available now.”

Yep, at .6% it’s nearly extinct in the US all due to circumcision I’m sure because countries like France, Spain, China that don’t circumcise have soaring rates like .4%, .6% and .1%.

Bailey also called on international agencies to ramp up funding for circumcision in countries hardest-hit by the epidemic.

Michel Kazatchkine, the executive director of the Global fund, a leading international health agency, also called for increased funding.

“I believe that the evidence is overwhelming for the efficacy of circumcision,” Kazatchkine told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the meeting. “And if countries come to us … I see no reason at all why we wouldn’t fund that.”

Yep we want everyone to be just like us because clearly we know what’s best. We’re the greatest and have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies and their children and especially their penis.

Kazatchkine said his organization had not yet received any requests for funding for circumcision, and noted that the WHO advice on the topic was only released in March.

Also at the conference, a leading American AIDS research group said HIV infection rates among men who have sex with men were rising in Africa, Asia and Latin America, citing figures from UNAIDS.

Studies also show that less than 5 percent of that group have access to HIV-related health care, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, or amfAR, said.

Again, what does this have to do with foreskin or no foreskin? The headline, dear Ms. Meraiah says, “Circumcision urged in curbing AIDS”. Stay on track dear.

“This is a massive failure of the HIV/AIDS response globally and I think one that needs to be addressed,” said Kevin Frost, amFAR’s chief executive officer.

In Kenya, around 40 percent of men who have sex with men are estimated to be HIV positive, compared to a 6 percent rate in the country’s overall population, amFAR said. In Senegal, nearly 22 percent are believed to be infected, compared to less than 1 percent of the general population.

In Uruguay and Mexico, 21 percent and 15 percent are estimated to have the disease.

Let us be clear here – we’ve switch from talking about men that are cut or uncut and their chances of contracting the virus to the percentage of HIV/AIDS positive people that are gay men. Dear Ms. Meraiah, your hard hitting reporting seems a little misleading and off topic. Please focus.

Under an initiative launched at the AIDS Society Conference, amFAR will seek to raise $3 million in the next three years to provide grants for AIDS education and research among men who have homosexual sex in developing countries.

That’s fantastic, but should probably have been in a different article under a different headline.

AIDS study halted – From the CDC site:

“Three randomized, controlled clinical trails have been undertaken in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa [10], was stopped in 2005 and those in Kenya [11] and Uganda [12] were stopped in 2006 after their interim analyses found that medical circumcision reduced male participants’ risk of HIV infection.”

10. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298.

11. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369:643-656.

12. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomized trial. Lancet 2007;369:657-666.

Related posts:

Page 65 of 81« First1020306162636465666768697080Last »