ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>There is conclusive epidemiological evidence to show that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men
>The inner surface of the foreskin contains Langerhans' cells with HIV receptors; these cells are likely to be the primary point of viral entry into the penis of an uncircumcised man
Did the Jews invent HIV just to promote circumcision so they could eat more crispy foreskins?
Other urls found in this thread:
Uncircumcised fellow checking in. I don't have sex with men or niggers and I don't do drugs and wow, I have no communicable diseases!
Uncut faggot checking in
Don't be a fucking slut and you probably won't get AIDS
>cells with HIV receptors
I'm pretty sure foreskins existed long before niggers created HIV by fucking monkeys.
>HIV receptors
You're an idiot. Why would the human body have 'receptors' to a virus?
Do you even know what a receptor is?
If you dont fuck men in the ass you don't get HIV it is very simple.
Circumcision is mutilation and those who promote it should be gassed.
Circumcision is dumb unless you were born with a fucked up foreskin like mine was, but you're a fucking retard. The human body doesn't have "virus receptors" you dumbass
If you remove your fingernails you have a better chance of not catching diseases. You can play that game all day.
and if you dont eat fruit you get scurvy, this study is so shit wtf they had like 200 guys have sex with this one woman with Aids just to see if they caught it and it turns out guys with intact dicks are more likely to have AIDS, syphilis and gonorrhea.
So the conclusion of this study should be, "watch who you're fucking you are more likely to get AIDS" not "get circumcised goyim you wont get AIDS no matter how much you fuck around."
Completely removing your toenails decreases the risk of ingrown toenails.
Removal of testicles has been scientifically proven to prevent testicular cancer.
>the body has no viral receptors
it's just words you fucking retards, if it said CD4 receptors would the argument be valid then?
So according to that article there were only 50 circumsized men and 137 uncircumsized and some of the men were wearing condoms on top of that with no indications of which ones so for all we know half of the circumsized guys were the ones wearing condoms. Great study.
A bunch of the guys were weaeing condoms too and only 50 of them were circumcised.
HIV receptors aren't actually called HIV receptors. They are receptors that can bind with the Virus, however they are not there just to bind to it and are supposed to bind to other molecules with the same structure and shape. However HIV mimics it.
And Jews like to pretend they are different to Arabs.
Horrible.
Because dick cheese is fucking gross clean your penis up circumcised or not
I got circumcised whoop de fucking do I have a 7 inch hard dick
>HIV receptors aren't actually called HIV receptors.
They were in OP's bullshit.
Words convey meaning. Don't call shit "HIV receptors" if that isn't what you mean.
microbiology major here
you're a fucking idiot, how do you think viruses get in human cells? It's usually via receptors, though sometimes can be stuff like clathrin pits.
the receptor isn't normally for HIV, but HIV high jacks it
The white women you fuck have probably fucked a dozen niggers before getting to you.
>There is conclusive epidemiological evidence to show that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men
But if we correlate circumcision rates with crime statistics and then correlate those crime stats to HIV infection would it be racist?
Let's give it a try, Sup Forums
Congratulations, you're now rich and can milk that white woman