Can anyone explain the theory that circumcision protects against HIV infection?

Circumcision is being encouraged in Africa because it is claimed that it protects against HIV infection. The reasons for this , it is claimed, is that the cells of Langerhans which are concentrated in the foreskin are easily infected by HIV and therefore aid infection. The following paper can be found to back this up: "How HIV enters the human penis" by students at the University of Melbourne (www.aids.net.au/aids-circum-penis.pdf). But the latest news from health.msn.com/healthnews/articlepage.as... tells us that in fact the cells of Langerhans *protect* the body from HIV by "eating" HIV! There is apparently a protein called langerin which can destroy HIV. Langerin is from the cells of Langerhans. The researcher says: "we observed that Langerin is able to scavenge viruses from the surrounding environment, thereby preventing infection,"

Whoops? Can some HIV experts please explain???????

I think the respondents are kind of missing the point of my question. It is a fact that new policy in the "fight" against AIDS in Africa is that men must be circumcised because they have "incontrovertible"proof that it confers protection against infection. The reason they say this is because they believed that the cells of Langerhans which are concentrated in the foreskin were MORE susceptible to infection. This new study provides evidence that in fact the cells of Langerhans are PROTECTIVE. The exact opposite of the currently held assumption. If this is so, then how does circumcision protect against infection?ie what is the mechanism if the cells of Langerhans protect against infection??

I'm not an HIV expert but as a healthcare worker, I know a lot about the disease.

Circumcision has NO effect on HIV contraction. It will NOT prevent it in any way, shape or form.

You can prevent exposure by protecting yourself. However, NOTHING is foolproof. Get tested at any time you think you might have been exposed to the disease. Be smart. Use common sense.

And for God's sake, don't believe all these quacks. There is NO cure for HIV or AIDS. One person can contract it as easily as the next. The human body has NO natural defense against HIV or AIDS. Remember that.

It has no effect.

As a matter of fact if you have sex with a person with HIV immediately after a circumcision, you're highly likely to contract the disease because of the possibility of bleeding and the weakness of surrounding skin.

While I'm not an expert, I am circumcised. No I don't have HIV but I'm not going to go screw around with someone who does because I'm helmet.

Well, there's a lot of evidence that the uncircumcised are more susceptible to HPV and some other diseases. So I believe it is very likely true that being uncircumcised increases the chance of contracting HIV. The only concern is not having people think they can go without a condom if they are circumcised...which would be idiotic.

One of my classes discussed this last semester. In fact, men that are not circumcised in Africa tend not to thoroughly cleanse themselves, therefor they are at greater risk for the infection. They just don't have access to clean facilities to bathe. So, the health care industry (doctors, etc) are pushing for men to get circumcised so even though they don't bathe, they don't have trapped bacteria around the glans in the foreskin.

There are a couple different reasons why circumcision is being argued as an effective HIV block. While the Langerhans-cell theory may have turned out to be less clear than originally thought, there are a couple things to keep in mind. First, the data in the studies does show a pretty clear link between being circumcised, and having a decreased chance of contracting HIV. It may be because the inner foreskin is almost a mucosal membrane, which is highly susceptible to HIV infection, or that the cells in the glans haven't keratinized and lack a "protective coating" if you will.

Second, the protein langerin. I'm a bit skeptical about that particular result since, if that were true, we'd probably be producing it synthetically as an anti-HIV medication. As far as we know, there are no natural defences to HIV other than physical barriers. Once HIV enters your blood, you have have contracted it. There are ways to slow it down, but not to destroy it. It's a very resilient virus within the body (ironic, because it's so fragile outside of it).

Clearly, if there is a link showing decreased incidence of HIV infection in men without foreskins, and a link showing increased incidence of HIV infection in men with foreskins, and there are no other differences between the men, then the foreskin appears to be a site of susceptibility. Basically what I'm getting at is, just because the langerhans thing wasn't right, doesn't mean the rest of the study is wrong, or that circumcision isn't an effective HIV-preventative.