# Langerhans Cells (in foreskin/genital mucosa) Proven to Destroy HIV



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:

For decades, the common wisdom was that HIV easily enters and infects Langerhans cells. Geijtenbeek's team has now cast doubt on that notion.

Looking closely at the interaction of HIV and Langerhans cells, they found that the cells "do not become infected by HIV-1, because the cells have the protein Langerin on their cell surface," Geijtenbeek said. "Langerin captures HIV-1 very efficiently, and this Langerin-bound HIV-1 is taken up (a bit like eating) by the Langerhans cells and destroyed."

In essence, Geijtenbeek said, "Langerhans cells act more like a virus vacuum cleaner."
http://health.msn.com/healthnews/art...&wa=wsignin1.0

Here are some others as well:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...ticlekey=79688

Note, that circumcision REMOVES these langerhan cells. Could this be why developed intact countries have incredibly LOW HIV rates?


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

Notice how they want to make a VAGINAL artificial barrier against HIV. Ummm how about NOT CUTTING OFF THE FORESKIN?!!!! The way they dance around the issue disgusts me. But I'm glad this is in the news.


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

Wow! So if that's true, then how the heck are they getting any data showing that being circumcised decreases the risk of HIV transmission?

This seems like really good news - wasn't it the Langerhans cells that they thought was the method of entry of HIV into the body?

And my biggest question: Why isn't the health news headline today "Foreskin cells crucial in protecting body from HIV transmission"?

Julia
dd 11 mos


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 
Wow! So if that's true, then how the heck are they getting any data showing that being circumcised decreases the risk of HIV transmission?

This seems like really good news - wasn't it the Langerhans cells that they thought was the method of entry of HIV into the body?

And my biggest question: Why isn't the health news headline today "Foreskin cells crucial in protecting body from HIV transmission"?

Julia
dd 11 mos









There are a lot of things going on in Africa that you typically don't see in other parts of the world. Things such as :

1. Dry sex practices (which can actually cause tearing).
2. Untreated genital lesions/sores
3. Disease which increases viral loads (malaria being one of them).

They did also seem pose the question that the langerhans cells function could be compromised/vary by the person...so what if the basic lack of nutrition and having an overly stressed immune system somehow compromises their function.

The cultural/physical environment in those areas where they did those male transmission/circ HIV studies is so different from other parts of the world.

Of course, our culture is Pro-circ they want some easy answer which glorifies the US in some way. So, they rather would not think that those studies only apply to the areas which they were run or that there are any "limits" to the idea or circ somehow protecting against HIV. Which, it has been shown over and over NOT to. This reasearch which has been reported just shows yet another hole in their argument. Though, most people won't make the connection unless they are educated on the subject.


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 
This seems like really good news - wasn't it the Langerhans cells that they thought was the method of entry of HIV into the body?

Forgot to respond to this one, in one of the articles I read it did state that it was previously though. But that previous study had poor methodology and tested dead cells from cadavirs (sp?). This new research tested using fresh live cells from human donors.

Cool huh?


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

The fact that this isn't plastered all over msnbc only verifies to me that all this pro-circ stuff is 100% money driven.


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dynamohumm6* 
The fact that this isn't plastered all over msnbc only verifies to me that all this pro-circ stuff is 100% money driven.

Of course it is. There's no money in keeping children whole. Huge industry built around carving them up.

They even tried to start up FGM over there in Seattle, remember?


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daisyuk* 
Of course it is. There's no money in keeping children whole. Huge industry built around carving them up.

the thing is though, that it's so blatantly obvious that it's money driven to anyone with half a brain, WHY isn't there a huge freaking uproar about it? I mean, it should be EVERYWHERE! This is what news stations and lawyers live for, isn't it? Huge business and corporations harming the little guy? In this case, newborn freaking babies?? How much worse does it get for pete's sake??

Quote:

They even tried to start up FGM over there in Seattle, remember?
No...please tell!


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phatchristy* 
Forgot to respond to this one, in one of the articles I read it did state that it was previously though. But that previous study had poor methodology and tested dead cells from cadavirs (sp?). This new research tested using fresh live cells from human donors.

Cool huh?

Ugh.

I still don't understand how circ is profit-driven (not arguing, just not getting it). The facial cream thing isn't based on volume; it only uses cell line derivatives from a couple of foreskins. Lots of insurance companies don't cover circ. It's been popular/pushed both when it was and wasn't covered by insurance. So where is the financial boon in circ? Who is lobbying for circ? Is it hospitals, b/c of a profit on the surgery on "every" newborn boy? Please help me understand.









Julia
dd 11 mos


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 
Ugh.

I still don't understand how circ is profit-driven (not arguing, just not getting it). The facial cream thing isn't based on volume; it only uses cell line derivatives from a couple of foreskins. Lots of insurance companies don't cover circ. It's been popular/pushed both when it was and wasn't covered by insurance. So where is the financial boon in circ? Who is lobbying for circ? Is it hospitals, b/c of a profit on the surgery on "every" newborn boy? Please help me understand.









Julia
dd 11 mos









It's cosmetic companies and biogenetics companies. Tissue engineering. And never underestimate the $$$ that is in cosmetics!!
Organogenesis is the name of a Canton, MA based company that was pretty much bankrupt before Apligraf pulled it up by it's bootstraps (they are a private company so their financial info is not public record, unfortunately...but some digging showed enough to go on). Apligraf is engineered tissue derived from neonatal foreskin. We're talking about dozens of patents for the process, and it's worth BILLIONS of dollars a year.
Some links:

http://www.nyscc.org/news/archive/tech0902.htm

Quote:

The Development of Fibroblast Conditioned Media

Skin like a baby's. It's what we all want. But just what makes a baby's skin so soft, plump and smooth? And what changes as we grow older?...A newborn baby's skin produces an abundance of compounds important to healthy young skin, including growth factors antioxidants, soluble collagens, and matrix proteins that confer structure to skin.
...
This natural mixture of newborn skin compounds is produced by Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc. from a *pioneering process in the emerging field of tissue engineering that utilizes fibroblast cells from neonatal foreskins to produce human tissue replacements for the treatment of serious burns, wounds and other therapeutic indications.* Fibroblasts are the cells responsible for growth and repair of the dermal layer of skin. The patented tissue engineering process stimulates normal human newborn skin fibroblast cells grown in the laboratory to deposit matrix proteins, including collagens, growth factors and antioxidants to form a human dermal tissue structure. The resultant fibroblast conditioned media is separated from the cells and tissue to serve as a natural, highly efficacious, ingredient for anti-aging cosmeceuticals. The fibroblast conditioned media contains the array of naturally produced factors which aging skin makes less efficiently and sometimes in smaller quantities....
...To date, the *company has invested over $300 million to develop its patented process* for growing young, healthy skin to treat victims of serious burns and wounds, from which fibroblast conditioned media is derived. Product functionality is supported by clinical studies that demonstrate a reduction in the appearance and depth of fine lines and wrinkles with improved skin texture and elasticity - all in as little as 45 days. With *over 40 patents for its proprietary*, three dimensional tissue engineering process and the first patent issued for the use of fibroblast conditioned media in cosmeceutical applications, Advanced Tissue Sciences is uniquely qualified to supply this revolutionary, differentiated ingredient.

http://www.japmaonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/1/19

Quote:

Apligraf, a tissue-engineered bilayered human skin equivalent, provides another safe and effective grafting option for treating diabetic, venous, and pressure ulcers. This skin equivalent has an epidermis and dermis similar to human skin, largely due to its derivation from neonatal foreskin. Apligraf is also easily accessible and has shown little immunoreactivity.
Just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## whateverdidiwants (Jan 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 
Ugh.
It's been popular/pushed both when it was and wasn't covered by insurance. So where is the financial boon in circ?

Two things spring to mind:

Lube to take the place of the gliding mechanism that the foreskin provides.

Viagra to combat impotence.

Plus, the added patriarchal bonus of making women think they're defective because they can't produce enough lubrication for how long intercourse takes, or because sex is painful.


----------



## Eman'smom (Mar 19, 2002)

From a dr's standpoint, this is a fast and cheap procedure, that they can charge 100-400 dollars a pop for


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whateverdidiwants* 
Two things spring to mind:

Lube to take the place of the gliding mechanism that the foreskin provides.

Viagra to combat impotence.

Plus, the added patriarchal bonus of making women think they're defective because they can't produce enough lubrication for how long intercourse takes, or because sex is painful.

Oh, actually there was a thread a LONG while back which I posted where it estimated the money that the biotech companies made on EACH foreskin, and it was to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Scarry stuff.

This study SHOULD make it on Wikipedia you'd think with regards to langerhan cells.

I too don't *get* why this isn't being posted more? We'll see...


----------



## trmpetplaya (May 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daisyuk* 
Of course it is. There's no money in keeping children whole. Huge industry built around carving them up.

They even tried to start up FGM over there in Seattle, remember?

Absolutely money-driven... WE don't make any money, but doctors who cut foreskins do... and doctors who don't cut foreskins make less money than those who do...







:

WTF??? I live right by Seattle... I don't remember that







: How long ago was that? Please elaborate.

love and peace.


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *trmpetplaya* 
??? I live right by Seattle... I don't remember that







: How long ago was that? Please elaborate.

http://www.cirp.org/news/1996.09.13_SeattleTimes/

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?47+Duke+L.+J.+717

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

Sorry, I've posted this so many times into this forum, I thought everyone had read it.

http://tinyurl.com/gb4ol
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj.../dlj47p717.htm
Interesting article. What happened when a Seattle clinic wanted to introduce a new income stream by doing mild FGM as a service to immigrants.


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 
Ugh.

I still don't understand how circ is profit-driven (not arguing, just not getting it). The facial cream thing isn't based on volume; it only uses cell line derivatives from a couple of foreskins. Lots of insurance companies don't cover circ. It's been popular/pushed both when it was and wasn't covered by insurance. So where is the financial boon in circ? Who is lobbying for circ? Is it hospitals, b/c of a profit on the surgery on "every" newborn boy? Please help me understand.









Julia
dd 11 mos









I wrote this post in another thread which gives lots of information on business use of neonatal foreskins.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...6&postcount=21

It's a huge industry, worth billions a year, and the reason why RIC will not be stopping any time soon. Parents are actively colluding in the providing of the raw materials, and don't even realise they're doing it.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 
Wow! So if that's true, then how the heck are they getting any data showing that being circumcised decreases the risk of HIV transmission?

The randomized study only lasted 2 years, so the first reason would be that the circ'd men will have abstained from sex for several months while recovering. Then if you look at that at the end of the study they decided to offer circ to all partipants (preventing long term follow ups) only 80% of the non-circ group decided to go for it you can reason that a similar 20% of the originally randomly selected to be circ'd group dropped out of the study and that they were likely to be the 20% who cared the least about safe sex (basically it wasn't really random.)


----------



## phatchristy (Jul 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pdx.mothernurture* 
http://www.cirp.org/news/1996.09.13_SeattleTimes/

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?47+Duke+L.+J.+717

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract









:


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

I actually wonder how many people in this country have their daughters circumcised off the radar.
I bet the number is staggering.


----------



## buckeyedoc (Nov 9, 2006)

I like this part of the Duke Law link:

"As I discussed in Part III, permitting male circumcision while disallowing this symbolic form of female circumcision likely would violate the Equal Protection Clause. But even if this constitutional prohibition were not implicated, there still would be the moral question of how to justify abusing boys but not girls. Either our society wants to eradicate all forms of non-accidental injuries to children, or it wants to continue to allow for such injuries under certain circumstances. But if the latter is the predominant view -- and it may well be -- it is anathema to other societal values to define the permissible injuries on the basis of gender. Religion or health-based motivations are condoned in general, but gender-based motivations are not. Thus, as I concluded earlier, if the child abuse argument is used against Harborview's proposal, it works only so long as society also is willing to address the issue of male circumcision."


----------



## fishface (Jan 6, 2007)

I presented this to my boyfriend last week. His responses? "European countries have lower HIV/AIDS rates because they practice safer sex." He gave no supporting evidence and left it at "they obviously have safer sex because their HIV/AIDS rates are lower". That really plays into it but no way in heck is it the whole story.

He also brushed me off and said, "That's just ONE study." (the one that broke last week) Oh, ok. But he can shove the INCOMPLETE Kenya/Uganda study in my face. ARRRRRG. SO FRUSTRATING.


----------



## purposefulmother (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daisyuk* 
Of course it is. There's no money in keeping children whole. Huge industry built around carving them up.

They even tried to start up FGM over there in Seattle, remember?

Ok, what?! Please tell more...








:2bfbabe:







:







:







:


----------



## Mamm2 (Apr 19, 2004)

Interesting study!!!


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eman'smom* 
From a dr's standpoint, this is a fast and cheap procedure, that they can charge 100-400 dollars a pop for

Plus I read that 10% of circed boys will have some kind of complication that requires further medical care. There is a lot of money in that.


----------



## Revamp (May 12, 2006)

Down with the outrage and up with the distribution of this data, if the mainstream e-media isn't going to spread this stuff then getting angry about it isn't what's called for: we must instead endevour to do the task which they are entrusted yet unwilling to do.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)




----------



## Yulia_R (Jan 7, 2006)

I wish WHO read it before recommending circ to fight HIV







: ...


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lady Lilya* 
Plus I read that 10% of circed boys will have some kind of complication that requires further medical care. There is a lot of money in that.

IRC 10% will have meatal stenosis, *and* 10% will need the to be recirc'd. Those are the 2 most common problems then you have less common problems like buried penis that require repair.

There is probably some over lap in those groups, but it it probably isn't that large an amount of over lap, so it adds up to well more than 10%.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 
IRC 10% will have meatal stenosis, *and* 10% will need the to be recirc'd. Those are the 2 most common problems then you have less common problems like buried penis that require repair.

There is probably some over lap in those groups, but it it probably isn't that large an amount of over lap, so it adds up to well more than 10%.

According to the WHO/CDC's figures, meatal stenosis and re-circing either basically doesn't exist or doesn't matter. They're going with archaic data for the US from the 1970's for their RIC complication rates.








:


----------



## kerilynn (Sep 9, 2005)

just read this and think it deserves a


----------



## Daisyuk (May 15, 2005)

I wonder how African health systems are going to cope with all the complications from circ, like, what is their treatment going to be for meatal stenosis, and how are they going to cope with all the need for recircs, and surgical corrections for when it all goes horribly wrong?

Or are there just going to be a lot of African men with botched, probably painful and non-working penises in about 20 years time?

(Or was that the idea, if the penis doesn't work, he's not going to get HIV is he? OK I'm being cynical).


----------



## Yulia_R (Jan 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daisyuk* 
I wonder how African health systems are going to cope with all the complications from circ, like, what is their treatment going to be for meatal stenosis, and how are they going to cope with all the need for recircs, and surgical corrections for when it all goes horribly wrong?

Or are there just going to be a lot of African men with botched, probably painful and non-working penises in about 20 years time?

(Or was that the idea, if the penis doesn't work, he's not going to get HIV is he? OK I'm being cynical).

They will benefit from it because men with circ complications won't be having (or having less) sex which DOES prevent them from getting HIV. You see, this way or the other circ works!







:


----------

