[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Health See other Health Articles Title: Adult circumcision could potentially halve risk of prostate cancer Relaxnews Since 2007, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended circumcision as a way to limit the spread of HIV. . View photo Since 2007, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended circumcision as a way to limit the spread … When performed on men over the age of 35, circumcision could reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer by nearly half, according to a Canadian study published in the British Journal of Urology International. The study's authors emphasize that the effect was particularly significant among black men. In addition to having strong cultural and religious significance, circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections. The removal of the foreskin is even recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS as a preventative measure to limit the risk of HIV transmission, particularly in Africa. Now proponents of circumcision have yet another argument in their favor. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Montreal and by the INRS Armand Frappier Institute indicates that the operation could significantly reduce the risk of prostate cancer when performed on men over the age of 35. Andrea Spense, working under research directors Marie-Elise Parent and Marie-Claude Rousseau, interviewed a sample population of 2,114 men, half of whom had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. All the men answered a questionnaire on various aspects of their lifestyle and medical history. On the whole, the data showed that circumcised men were 11% less likely to develop prostate cancer. Men who were circumcised as infants were 14% less at risk than others. But for men circumcised over the age of 35, the risk dropped by no less than 45%. The researchers point out that prostate cancer is rare among Jewish or Muslim men, the vast majority of whom are circumcised. More surprising, however, were the findings related to the study's 178 black men (78% of whom were of Haitian origin). The 30% of the black study participants who were circumcised were 60% less likely to have prostate cancer. The researchers noted that ethnic origin -- along with age and family history -- is a significant factor in determining an individual's risk for prostate cancer, and that black men are generally more likely to develop the disease than those from other ethnic groups. While further research need to be conducted to confirm the link between circumcision and reduced risk of prostate cancer, other recent studies seem to point to similar conclusions. One study carried out by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, the results of which were published in Cancer in March 2012, indicated a 15% reduction in the risk of developing prostate cancer among circumcised men. Poster Comment: [tollbooth willy] No author of this poorly written piece - it just says from Relaxnews? Here's the conclusion from the actual study... "Circumcised men had a slightly lower risk, albeit not statistically significant, of developing PCa than uncircumcised men" Does the author of this article (whomever it is hiding behind this dribble) understand what not statistically significant means? Also continuing to perpetuate the debunked study in Africa regarding HIV reduction is reprehensible. There is no "safe" unprotected sex - circumcised or not.+16-4 [victoria] I'm not buying it. No one really knows what causes prostate cancer. There are "risk factors" and on a basic level, prostate cancer is caused by changes in the DNA of a prostate cell. Some genes control when our cells grow, divide into new cells, and die. Certain genes that tell cells to grow and divide are called oncogenes. Others that normally slow down cell division or cause cells to die at the right time are called tumor suppressor genes. Cancer can be caused in part by DNA changes (mutations) that turn on oncogenes or turn off tumor suppressor genes. DNA changes can either be inherited from a parent or can be acquired during a person's lifetime. Most DNA mutations related to prostate cancer seem to develop during a man's life rather than having been inherited. Every time a cell prepares to divide into 2 new cells, it must copy its DNA. This process is not perfect, and sometimes errors occur, leaving flawed DNA in the new cell. There is NO way anyone can convince me that removing the foreskin has anything to do with prostate cancer. It's just not logical! +24-5 [Rebecca] Hmmm, I have an alternative explanation. Could it be the rare few men who would choose to be mutilated at 35 years old have more money/healthcare then the typical male, especially in the case of blacks? I would think this would be a higher correlation coefficient and the real cause, since we know that diet (richer people eat more fruits and vegetables) is a big factor for prostate cancer. People want to repress the penis like it is an evil weapon and perform cosmetic surgery against the owner of the penis's will. THERE SHOULD BE A LAW AGAINST GENITAL MUTILATION! +5-5 [KarlD] I've always been a fan of circumcision, because it helps make cleanliness easier. That reduces the bacteria/virus load. Stresses from germs are hugely carcinogenic, so I'm not surprised circumcision helps. Most cancers start when people are older, so it makes sense that you would still get most of the benefits if you're circumcised as an adult. Still, I think it's better yet when you're young. My parents had me done, not for religious reasons but because it makes medical sense, and I had my son get it before we left the hospital. I don't get this "don't circumcise" movement, and the "no vaccines" people are downright scary.+7-6 [Foster] Just bath now and then and you won't have to worry about it.+4-3 [Luda] In Europe, circumcision isn't as popular as in the US, yet, it's not like European men are less healthy or get cancer more often. The only people who could really benefit from circumcision are those living in very unsanitary conditions with limited access to water for cleaning themselves. [Full Moon at Noon] If the human papilloma virus (HPV) can cause cervical cancer in women, then maybe it follows that there's a viral component to prostate cancer that is fostered by having a foreskin that traps and incubates it. Just found this related to cervical cancer on a medical website: "Cervical cancer tends to affect women of African descent more often than Caucasian women. Women who practise abstinence from sex, such as Catholic nuns and women of certain religions (for example, Amish and Mormon), tend to have lower rates of cervical cancer. This is likely due to the fewer number of sexual partners that these women have, which can reduce their exposure to the human papillomavirus." Jan If the Doctors are smart, they will push this because they can save the skin, make small bags out of the for carry on. Then once on board the plane, rub it three times and vioula, it becomes a full size suitcase and you totally out fox the airline for fees! +6-1 Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||