MedPage Today: Circumcision "Cuts HIV" In Africa - STDs Soar In USA

This week, medical news outlet MedPage Today published some interesting, if conflicting reports, regarding the acquisition and prevention of STDs.

Just today, they published an article titled "Mass Circumcision Cut HIV Acquisition," where so-called "researchers" try to give the credit of a recent reduction in HIV cases in a select place in Africa, to, you guessed it, circumcision.

The article is, of course, not saying anything that's exactly new. It touts the obligatory reference to the three major trials that make the claim that "circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60%." (The figure given in this article is 50%.)

The article's sole objective seems to be to reiterate the claim that circumcision prevents HIV, the only evidence for this is the assertion that circumcision "is working" in Africa, based on mathematical models.

The article admits "[I]t's impossible to tabulate an infection that doesn't take place."

We are told that the "investigators" used three different mathematical models to estimate the impact of the 2015 numbers over the period from 2008 through 2015.

However, flawed models yield flawed results; the model is based on the unsubstantiated hypothesis that male circumcision reduces HIV transmission.

One of the biggest flaws in the trials on which these models are based, is the lack of a scientifically demonstrable causal link.

Without one, the trials, and thus any models based on them, are baseless; researchers must demonstrate how circumcision reduces HIV transmission in the first place, let alone by any percentage; circumcision may not even have anything to do with the recent drop HIV infection.

At best, the models attempt to forcibly graft circumcision into the HIV reduction equation; without a causal link, it must be asked how circumcision fits into the picture at all.

Even taking the results of the questionable trials at face value, even if circumcision could be said to prevent HIV prevention by the fabled 60% , circumcision would be ineffective at preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. So ineffective that, in fact, circumcised men and their partners must be urged to continue to wear condoms.

The recent drop in HIV infections might have more to do with the increased mindfulness of safe sex practices, such as faithfulness and condoms, and nothing to do with circumcision at all.

Reports from other parts of Africa note quite the opposite; an increase in HIV infection, in spite of circumcision indoctrination efforts, can be observed. (See here and here.)

And yet in others, promoting circumcision seems to be giving men a false sense of security, causing them to forgo condoms. (See here, here and here.)

It must be asked; are the "researchers" observing "averted infections" in intact men?

Are they monitoring their behaviors to see how they can prevent HIV transmission without the need for surgery?

Is the goal to prevent HIV transmission?

Or to justify the controversial practice of male circumcision?

Is promoting circumcision actually resulting in the opposite effect of increasing the risk of HIV transmission?

It must be noted that the article opens with the following disclaimer:

Note that this study was published as an abstract and presented at a conference. These data and conclusions should be considered to be preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

...which begs the question of why MedPage Today is even bothering to give this "study" any attention to begin with.

Meanwhile in the US...
While models "prove" circumcision is "preventing" HIV transmission in select parts of Africa, American organizations, such as the CDC and the CIA tells a different story regarding STD transmission in America.

Just a few days ago, the same medical news source published an article regarding a report by the CDC titled "STDs Hit Historic High: CDC."

While the rate of male infant circumcision in the US has dropped to about 56%, according to the very CDC, the prevalence of adult males circumcised at birth is still about 80%.

Circumcision has been near-universal in the US for quite some time now.

Circumcision advocates tout that it "reduces the risk" of countless other STDs, not only HIV, and yet real-world data doesn't correlate with these claims.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the US has a higher HIV prevalence rate than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced.

In the case of the US, the blame is being put not on the lack of circumcision (80% of adult males are are already circumcised from birth), but on the eroding health systems.

So while near-universal fails to prevent STD transmission, including HIV in the US, somehow we're supposed to believe that it is somehow working miracles in Africa.

Something has got to be wrong with "research" that fails to correlate with reality.

Promoting male circumcision in Africa is a worthless waste of money at best, an unethical disservice which may actually be resulting in an increase of HIV/STD transmission at worst.

Related Posts:

UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV
Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

 

UGANDA: Myths about circumcision help spread HIV

ZIMBABWE: Circumcised men abandoning condoms

Botswana – There is an upsurge of cases of people who got infected with HIV following circumcision.

Zimbabwe – Circumcised men indulge in risky sexual behaviour

Nyanza – Push for male circumcision in Nyanza fails to reduce infections

UNICEF Seeking Strategist to Scale Up Male Genital Mutilation in Africa

It's almost as if this were lifted right out of George Orwell's 1984.

The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, otherwise known as UNICEF, whose role is supposed to be protector of children's rights is promoting the genital mutilation of male children in the so-called name of HIV prevention.

Currently they're looking for a strategist/consultant to formulate plans to mutilate millions in Africa.

The pretext, of course, is HIV prevention.

However, genital mutilation by any other name would still be genital mutilation.

Their recruitment page can be visited right here.

It appears the focus of the strategy is on cost and creating demand for doctor-facilitated male genital mutilation.

Some of the existing programs focus on indoctrinating and pressuring boys at schools.

In some cases, organizations are outright taking school boys without parental consent, as well as circumcising newborns, even though this was not part of the original WHO plan.

It's time we start calling the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors what it is.

Even if "research" showed female circumcision to be "beneficial" to women, forcibly cutting healthy, non-consenting girls would still be a violation of the most basic human rights.

A sad day in the world when an organization whose role is supposed to be protecting the basic human rights of children is actually promoting the very violation of these rights.

Something needs to be done to alert UNICEF donors.

Are they aware of precisely how their donations are being spent?

Related Post:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

AFRICA: NGO's Taking Children from School to Circumcise Them Without Parents' Knowledge

MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

MALAWI: Christian Health Organization Pushing Male Circumcision

A recent report tells of a Christian health organization in Malawi, doing what they can to upscale male circumcision in the area.

A few things jump out at me.

A Christian Organization? Promoting and Facilitating Circumcision?
First, the fact that this is, at least on the surface, supposed to be a Christian health organization, one apparently run by a Catholic Church.

This is strange, as the New Testament expressly forbids circumcision for gentiles in the New Testament (see Galatians 5), and yet here is this "Christian" organization run by a Catholic Church facilitating precisely that.

Will the Catholic Church also run abortion clinics?

They might as well.

Is the Message Being Lost?
Secondly, this whole program seems to be run under the current alibi for promoting circumcision; preventing HIV transmission.

And yet, the free circumcision program is alluring to men, boys and their parents for other reasons.

Asked about their reasons for participating in the program, they give the following responses, according to the report above:

"At the hospital, trained staff do the circumcision. Besides, they use safe tools and this is important for the boys' health," said a father.

"In Balaka, this is the season of initiation camps when young boys are taken to be circumcised as a rite of passage into adulthood. However, this year is tough. Most of us did not send our children because we cannot afford to pay for them due to the ongoig food crisis in the district," said another father.

"Medical circumcision is safer for the kids than getting what they go through in initiation camps, locally known as ndagala, here thy face the risk of HIV infection as the elders use unsterilised equipment. That aside, the boys are subjected to harsh conditions and some boys die due to inadequate care given after circumcision," laments a mother.

"It is pleasing that parents are realizing the need to get their kids circumcised at a health facility and not initiation camps," said a coordinator for the Christian organization.

It sounds like most people are interested in having the boys circumcised at medical facilities, so as to avoid having them be circumcised in the bush as African tribal traditions call for.

This is a real concern, as every year, scores of boys and men lose their penises to gangrene, and scores of others die in the process, or take their own lives at the prospect of living without their male organs.

(Complications are also a concern when it comes to female circumcision. Somehow, I doubt that suggesting girls and women be circumcised by doctors in the hospital setting would be a welcome solution to the problem.)

So it sounds like these boys and men were already going to be circumcised as a matter of religious or cultural course.

In which case, the Christian health organization isn't "promoting" or "upscaling" circumcision per se; they're merely re-routing circumcisions that were going to take place anyway and taking credit for it, raising new questions altogether. (Is there any real upscaling going on? Are there actually any new men and parents of boys being won over to circumcision? Or is this merely a publicity piece exploiting already existing circumcision adherents? In other parts of the country, circumcision campaigns have failed, where circumcision simply isn't part of the culture. Do a search on Soka Uncobe in Swaziland. A good article can be seen here. [Last Accessed 9/3/2016])

Boys and men are now being circumcised in medical facilities, and I suppose in contrast to the initiation schools in the bush where they risk loss of their organs or death, this could be a good thing, but if they're more concerned at getting circumcised to meet a cultural/tribal requirement, do they even care about the so-called "benefits" of circumcision?

Will they be interested in HIV prevention through condoms?

Or will it send the wrong message that being circumcised is a "win-win" because they get circumcised "safely," they meet their cultural requirement, AND they're "protected" from HIV transmission?"

It just seems like a juncture where the message of HIV prevention could easily be lost.

That circumcision might "reduce the risk" of HIV transmission, but males and their partners should still wear condoms is sketchy enough.

If men and their families are more concerned about being circumcised safely to fulfill their cultural requirement, the importance of HIV prevention and wearing condoms may not even register.

Conclusion
Is this about HIV prevention or culture facilitation/preservation?

This initiative is being paid for by PEPFAR for the supposed purpose of HIV prevention, but is this message lost on those who see this as nothing more than an opportunity to get a free alternative to the mutilations that go on at initiation schools?

What will be the take away message?

"Get circumcised AND were protected from HIV! (So who cares about condoms?)"

Fact: 80% of US males are also circumcised at birth.

Fact: In the 1980s, when the epidemic hit, that number was 90%.

Fact: According to the CIA World Factbook, the US has a higher HIV prevalence than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced.

Fact: According to USAID, HIV prevalence was found to be higher among *circumcised* men in 10 out of 18 African countries.

Fact: Even if the latest research is correct (and it has many questionable flaws, namely the lack of a scientifically demonstrable causal link, failure to correlate with world data, unconfirmable results, etc...), circumcision would still be ineffective at preventing HIV, so ineffective that circumcised males and their partners must still be urged to wear condoms.

Fact: Circumcision is forbidden to Gentiles under the New Testament.

It must be asked why so much money is being pumped into such a questionable procedure for which more effective, less invasive alternatives are already available.

How is something that never worked for the US going to suddenly start working miracles in Africa?

If circumcised men and their partners must still be urged to wear condoms, what is the point of promoting circumcision?

What's the point of spending millions of dollars promoting a surgery, when that money can be better spent?

Like food and water? (See what one of the parents above had to say.)

Is no one going to question the ethics of promoting what is essentially genital mutilation in a hospital setting?

Is no one concerned that this is a green light for tribal circumcisions which result in injury and death?

Is no one going to talk about all the mishaps that happen even in the medical setting?

The fact that male circumcision promotion is a stumbling block to activists trying to stop female circumcision?

The fact that this promotion is resulting in the forced circumcision of non-consenting minors?

Even against parental wishes?

The coercion of boys and men to get circumcised?

What is this about?

Is this truly about HIV prevention?

 Or is this about legitimizing, preserving a controversial procedure that is dwindling back home?

(Back home meaning the home country of those pumping money and effort in spreading circumcision in Africa and elsewhere under the guise of public health? PEPFAR? JHPIEGO? Bill and Melinda Gates? The Clinton Foundation? CDC? What do these organizations that are so eager to circumcise millions of males in Africa have in common? They all come from America, where male infant circumcision used to be a common procedure for the majority of newborn makes, and where these numbers are falling and doctors are struggling to convince parents to circumcise their children. So is this about medicine? Or culture preservation? Subplantation? Look at the fine print; these companies' organizations' ultimate goal is to implement infant circumcision in Africa as it exists back home. Never mind this hasn't helped to prevent STDs. What is this really about? Why does the world watch in silence as the US imposes male genital mutilation on Africa under the guise of disease prevention?)

Related Posts:
Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

 

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis

UGANDA: Myths about circumcision help spread HIV

ZIMBABWE: Circumcised men abandoning condoms

Botswana – There is an upsurge of cases of people who got infected with HIV following circumcision.

Zimbabwe – Circumcised men indulge in risky sexual behaviour

Nyanza – Push for male circumcision in Nyanza fails to reduce infections

JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised

AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"

 

AFRICA: NGO's Taking Children from School to Circumcise Them Without Parents' Knowledge

MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

AFRICA: NGO's Taking Children from School to Circumcise Them Without Parents' Knowledge

In a post I published earlier this year, I talked about a case where US-funded organizations taking the liberty of simply kidnapping children off the streets and circumcising them without their parents' awareness or their consent.

This happened in Chipakuza Village, T/A Lundu in Chikhwawa, where a 9-yo boy had lost his entire penis, and his angry father was seeking to sue the Malawi Ministry of Health for damages.

It appears that NGOs are now simply going to schools and taking children away to have them circumcised, again, disregarding their parents' knowledge, consent, and/or cultural background; in some cases, parents are from a cultural background where the tribe traditionally does not circumcise.

It is not clear here whether the NGOs were being US-funded or not, in this case, although it could be assumed, given that "mass circumcision campaigns" are being funded and pushed by American organizations, and it's happened in the past.

UPDATE (8/3/2016):

Apparently the NGO responsible is Baylor Uganda and it is being sponsored by the CDC/PEPFAR, so this NGO is definitely being US-funded. Baylor Uganda's website can be accessed here.

Are the WHO and UNICEF aware that this is happening?

What is happening here is anything but "voluntary."

The original article can be accessed here.

Trouble after school circumcises pupils without parents consent

By Violet Namatsi, Citizen Digital

Published on  1 August 2016

Parents at Shikomari Primary School in Navakholo Constituency, Kakamega County are up in arms after the heat teacher of the institution allowed a non-governmental organisation to circumcise their children without their consent.

According to the parents, the NGO has been visiting the school since last week and circumcising their children aged 5 and above without informing them.

Led by Joseph Otieno and Marygoeti Onbonyo, the parents claim that the school’s management went against their culture and tradition and now want the Ministry of Education to intervene in the matter.

The parents now claim that the issue could lead to a breakdown of their marriages, giving the example of one boy who was disowned by his father, a Bukusu, for being circumcised while at his in laws’ place.

“You cannot do anything you want to my child without asking me first. I am from the Luo community and in my culture we don’t allow circumcision,” one parent lamented.

“He is turning away parents using abusive language instead of explaining what exactly happened. Next week they have exams and the students can’t sit exams while in pain,” another parent commented.

A woman, who is a parent at the school, said the female pupils were separated from the male pupils, and then the male pupils were inspected to find out whether or not they were circumcised. The male pupils were then told to get into a vehicle and transported to the place where the circumcisions were done.

Another parent stated that in their culture the circumcised child must return home with the foreskin, but in this case she was called to pick up her child from the school while already circumcised, a matter that angered the child’s father.

“I don’t know who to ask for the foreskin and I don’t know what to answer as the child’s mother about where the skin is,” she lamented.

Speaking to Citizen Digital, a Standard Four pupil said that the members of the organisation went to the school and circumcised them, adding that his wound is infected.

“They came to the school and took us where they circumcised us and called my mother to come pick me up. Right now the wound is infected,” he said.

However, speaking to Citizen Digital on phone, the school’s head teacher John Musungu rubbished the parents’ claims saying the NGO had registered the pupils who wanted to be circumcised following an agreement with their parents.

“We have an NGO that circumcises the children for free but only for willing parents and willing children. So they came and registered the pupils in school. However one pupil lied that his parents had given consent,” he said.

The head teacher attributed the issue to propaganda by enemies of the school saying: “Some people who don’t like the school have blown up the issue to the point of making phone calls using different numbers to create the impression that there are many complainants,” he said.

Related Posts:

MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised

AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"

LATEST FROM AFRICA: 2 Circumcision Initiates Die

Yearly, circumcision initiation rites happen all over Africa. Every year scores of men either die, or they lose their penises to gangrene, but for whatever reason, these deaths and loss of external genital organs in male initiates are overshadowed by female circumcision.

In a recent news article, the deaths of two initiates have been reported. (Link available here. Last accessed 6/22/2016) A list of articles in past years can be read here.

For whatever reason, human rights activists come down hard on female circumcision, but when it comes to male circumcision, there is a deafening silence.

In some newsreports, readers are supposed to take comfort in the fact that some very shoddy "studies" show that male circumcision "could" "reduce" HIV transmission by "as much as 60%."

So male circumcision should still happen, although it should be performed by medical professionals, although death and other complications still happen when medical professionals perform them.

I ask, would human rights groups stop decrying female circumcision if "research" could "prove" that female circumcision "could" reduce HIV transmission by some magical number like "60%?"

Or would they still be decrying it?

What if female circumcision could be made "quick and painless" with "no detriment to female sexuality?"

Would it still be viewed as a human rights violation?

A paper calling for a compromise procedure for females has recently been published in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

The authors are actually coming out and admitting on a published journal that there are forms of female genital cutting that are less severe than male genital cutting as commonly practiced in the US and elsewhere.

There is a sexist, self-serving double-standard when it comes to publishing research on male and female circumcision. Whereas publishing "research" that claims that male circumcision is "harmless" if not "beneficial" is not a problem, publishing research that minimizes female circumcision or that it may even be beneficial, is.

Whereas "researchers" were eager to push the idea that "circumcision is a harmless intervention that could help prevent the spread of HIV," scholars discourage the publishing of research that would "play right into the hands of those who defend female genital cutting" and/or "encourage female genital mutilation."

It's not a problem if "research" gives the green light to tribal circumcisers of men to go ahead and perform circumcision on initiates, but it is a problem if research givesthe green light to tribal circumcisers of women.

Why is that?

Related Links:

MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

Male Circumcision and HIV in Africa: EPIC FAIL

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised

AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"

FGM NEWS: Gynecologysts Urge a "Nick" as Compromise for FGM

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

AFRICA: Yet Another Circumcision Botch

When people try to minimize male circumcision, but make a big commotion about female circumcision by saying "Female circumcision is worse," what are they comparing?

I want to know, because it seems the comparison being made is that of male infant circumcision as it happens in hospitals in the United States, to the worst possible scenario as it happens somewhere in the African bush.

"With female circumcision, women are forcibly tied down to have their labia and clitoris cut off with a rusty blade, glass shard or tin can lid, and have the remaining area sewn up to leave only a small hole for menstruation. Afterwards the must be cut back open if they want to have children, and they will never experience orgasm in their life, ever. Women experience excruciating pain. With males, it's just a little piece of skin, performed in the hospital by professionals, and they don't even remember it," seems to be the usual argument used to shut down any protest against male circumcision.

But is the comparison really this clear cut?

Is female genital cutting really only a matter of the materials used to perform the procedure? Pain management? The person who does it being a professional? In a medical setting? Is not remembering the pain and/or enjoying sex really at the crux of the argument?

The fact is that the kind of female circumcision described above is actually the rarest form of female genital cutting, also known as "infibulation." Even the WHO recognizes that there are different degrees of severity.

Could forcible female genital cutting really be made more acceptable if it were made as equal to, or less severe than male circumcision? If it were performed by a medical professional? In a medical setting? With sterile utensils under the most pristine conditions? With pain management? When a baby girl does not remember?

In the past, the AAP tried to approve a form of female genital cutting that they themselves admit would be much less severe than male infant circumcision. A "ritual nick," as it were. As recently as 2014, a paper was released in the Journal of Medical Ethics calling for a similar compromise.

Is it really just a matter of severity? Pain management? Setting? Facilitator? Effects on sexual prowess?

What if the proposed "acceptable" form of female genital cutting could result in the reduction of some disease? Say, HIV. Would it be more ethical to forcibly perform on healthy, non-consenting girls?

I'll leave the reader to answer this question for him or herself.

For now, I'd like to, once again, point out the fact that comparing the worst case scenario for female genital cutting to male infant circumcision as it is performed in hospitals in the west, is a false comparison. (Who reading this has actually seen male infant circumcision as it is performed in medical hospitals? Through the magic of YouTube, it is now possible to actually see, and hear, what happens during the forced circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting minor.)

In Africa, boys are circumcised pretty much in the same way girls are; in the bush, by amateurs, using raw utensils, under filthy conditions. As in female circumcision, male circumcision also results in failed procedures where the resulting male's organs are deformed, and/or dysfunctional. As in female circumcision, male circumcision also often results in infection. In many cases, it results in the loss of the organ itself. As in female circumcision, male circumcision often results in death.

Every year come circumcision season in Africa, the news is filled with reports of scores of men having been infected, having lost their organs, or their lives.

Yet, for whatever reason, this isn't a problem.

It isn't a problem worth reporting, and if it is, it is usually minimized or dismissed because "Circumcision helps reduce HIV." It's the men's loss for not having gone to get circumcised by a trained professional.

Why is female circumcision as performed on girls and women in Africa compared to male circumcision as it is performed in Western hospitals? Why is it not compared to its corresponding counterpart in Africa itself?

This frustrates me to no end.

The implication seems to be that female circumcision could be made more acceptable if only it were performed in the hospital, by a trained professional, using sterile utensils, with pain management, on girls too young to remember the pain.

The thing is, girls are already circumcised in this manner.

Girls are circumcised in infancy at hospitals by trained professionals in South East Asia, namely Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore.

The people of those countries justify it by saying it is less severe than male circumcision.

And they're right.

Most female circumcisions performed in those countries are carried out without a hitch.

As in America, most women don't see a problem with it, and don't have any problem demanding that the same happen with their daughters.

So why isn't male infant circumcision as performed in the US compared with THAT?

Is it that it hits too close to home and Americans don't want to be put in the awkward position of ratifying female genital cutting? Or conversely, of questioning their own practice?

Why do purposefully avoid comparing like with like?

In Africa, yet another boy loses his penis to ritual circumcision. According to Waza:

A 13 year old boy is recuperating at his parents’ house in Webuye after a circumcision rite turned tragic. The boy accidentally got sliced on his pen!s on Tuesday as he was being initiated in to manhood in the ongoing Bukusu circumcision festivals.

The boy’s parents’ rushed him to Webuye district hospital after they realized he had been wrongly cut. They described this as an accident that was not intended.  Webuye district medical superintendant Dr. Bita confirmed they had received the boy whos manhood had been chopped off slightly  by what they suspected to be a quack circumciser and treated him before releasing him . Dr. Bita appealed to the general public to be aware of the quacks performing the cut cautioning them of other possible dangers like HIV.

Um, I'm quite sure slicing his penis was intentional. Slicing off the foreskin from a penis is the whole point of circumcision. Later the report must clarify that the boy was "wrongly" cut, meaning that the cutters cut off more than they intended. But I assure you, slicing the penis was no "accident."

And unless there is a clinical or medical indication for surgery, circumcisers are ALL "quack doctors."

In the comments, someone is already saying that circumcision is "beneficial," and that the boy should have been circumcised by a "professional."

What if female circumcision could be deemed "beneficial?"

Would we still be against it?

Related Post:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

As if it weren't already bad that circumcision advocates were using questionable "research" to push "mass circumcision campaigns" in Africa under the supposed guise of "HIV prevention," apparently US-funded organizations are now simply taking the liberty of kidnapping children off the streets and circumcising them without their parents' approval.

According to this report, SSDI, a component of the Malawi Ministry of Health, has been simply picking up children off the street, coaxing them with candy, cookies and drinks, forcibly circumcising them without their parents' awareness, and dumping them near their homes, much to their parents' dismay upon discovery.

SSDI apparently receives support from USAID to promote and perform male circumcisions through a campaign known as the "Sankhani HIV Prevention Project."

In one particular case in Chipakuza Village, T/A Lundu in Chikhwawa, a 9-yo boy has lost his entire penis, and his angry father is seeking to sue the Malawi Ministry of Health for damages.

The lawsuit documents served to the Attorney General and Chikhwawa District Hospital, stressed the need for authorities to take this matter seriously, chiefly citing the fundamental right of the minor, which had been violated, and the fact that the parents' wishes were not disregarded.

Furthermore, the father has complained that the people involved forcefully circumcised his son against the values and customs of the Sena culture, his culture of origin.

Given that circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery with dubious "benefits" that are already afforded by less invasive, more effective means, given that it was forcibly performed on a healthy, non-consenting child, given that his fundamental rights were violated, and given that his parents were completely disregarded, the fact that this child has lost his penis is a disastrous tragedy in more ways than one.

This needs to be brought to the attention of the WHO and UNICEF; what has happened here is anything but "voluntary."

Related Posts:

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised

AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

Circumcision horror stories are common on Facebook, it's too bad they never make mainstream media. I can only imagine what we do see is only a tip of the iceberg.

This was on my Facebook news feed just a few days ago:

Children bleeding uncontrollably is the most common story I see, usually a mother asking for "prayers" because her baby "won't stop bleeding."

In Africa, where circumcision is being pushed as a "safe" HIV "prevention", a 14-yo boy has died during the procedure.

And, as usual, his parents and others are trying to blame something else.

Read a news article about it here.

The fact of the matter is this; the child was alive and otherwise perfectly healthy, and not in need of surgery.

The "benefits" the surgery was supposed to give him were already affordable by less invasive, more effective means.

Had he not undergone this needles surgery, the child would still be alive.

This happened at a hospital setting; yearly, scores of African boys undergoing tribal initiation rites die following their circumcisions. Still others lose their penises to gangrene; others commit suicide.

The risks of circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhaging and even death.

Without medical or clinical indication, how is it that doctors are performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

Given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, how is it conscionable that healthy, non-consenting minors are being put at these risks?

How is it concsionable that any number of botches, complications and deaths is deemed "acceptable?"

These are circumcision cases that manage to surface on Facebook.

Consider that there are other cases which, for reasons of shame or protection, remain secret.

When are respected medical authorities going to recognize the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors for the needless, harmful, deadly, abuse and violation of basic human rights it is?

Related Posts:

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION RISK: Two More Circumcision Botches

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

AFRICA: Boys Circumcised at School Without Parents' Knowledge

As if it weren't enough that male circumcision is being promoted in Africa under the dubious pretext of HIV prevention using questionable "research", and as if it weren't enough that parents are being brainwashed to have their children circumcised, organizations in Africa are taking the liberty of going to schools and circumcising children without their parent's knowledge.

Since "mass circumcision" campaigns began to be rolled out across Africa, promoters of male circumcision were careful to really push that the circumcision of males would be "voluntary," where it can mean that, at least theoretically, men would not be circumcised without their fully informed consent. 'Voluntary" can also mean that parents could "volunteer" their children to be circumcised. (Intactivists, such as myself, contest that a child forcibly circumcised without his own consent is no "volunteer.") "Voluntary Male Medical Circumcision", or "VMMC", it was called, for short.

But now, it seems that "voluntary" doesn't even matter anymore, and organizations are taking it upon themselves to visit schools and circumcising male students without even consulting parents on the matter.

In a recent case, at least 25 boys were circumcised at Oderai Primary School in Soroti sub-county, Soroti District, prompting furious protest by parents, some who were extremely distraught that their children were circumcised without their permission. The boys were circumcised at Soroti Health Centre III in an exercise that was facilitated by NGO Baylor Uganda.

District medical workers came, and a woman filling in for the head teacher (she was away on sick leave) simply authorized them.

When queried, the official in charge of the facility where the boys were circumcised, Harriet Amuat, insisted they were carrying out a government programe and Soroti District administration had signed a partnership with Baylor Uganda to fund the circumcision exercise in Teso sub-region.

The question is, who gave the go-ahead with a "circumcision exercise" that would forcibly circumcise healthy, non-consenting children, completely sidelining their parents?

Who held these talks?

Who made the preposition that children were to be circumcised without informing their parents?

Who accepted?

That's what I'd like to know.

Incidentally, Baylor Uganda is funded by none other than PEPFAR and the CDC. The CDC, a strong partner and supporter of BIPAI’s efforts in Uguanda, provides a majority of the Baylor-Uganda $24 million annual budget, through the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

American organizations are essentially bankrolling the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting children. Some may argue that "parents can give consent," but in this case even parents were disregarded.

Not the first time
This might be dismissed as a "one-time accident," but unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened; a similar case happened recently in Eldoret, Uasin Gishu, just this April.

In this case, 30 children were forcibly circumcised by NGO Impact Research Development Organisation (IRDO) based in Kisumu, which has a clinic in Eldoret. Apparently the children were lured by strangers into cars with sweets.

Here too, parents protested the fact that their children had been forcibly circumcised without their knowledge.

It appears here too, the NGO has ties with PEPFAR, as evidenced by the "about" tab on their Facebook Page.

In yet an even earlier incident, high school students were being targeted at Embakwe High School.

Here too parents were furious to find that their children came home circumcised.

I cannot find any reference as to who gave the go-ahead, and who financed it in the linked article.

Wrong on so many levels
First off, the "mass circumcision" roll-outs are based on questionable material.

Even if the so-called "research" could be lent any credibility, circumcision would still be considered so ineffective at preventing HIV, that circumcised males and their partners must be urged to wear condoms. There is not a single doctor or "researcher" that can deny this fact.

If adult men wish to be circumcised, even being fully informed, that's one thing, but it is despicable that the procedure is being presented to parents as a "decision."

But lastly, it is simply horrific that children are being forcibly circumcised, completely disregarding their parents, and something needs to be done about it.

Was this an accident?

Or was it deliberate?

Those who authorized programs that go to schools and circumcise children without their parents' knowledge ought to be investigated and held responsible.

Relevant Links:

Parents protest forced circumcision of children

Anxiety in Eldoret after NGO ‘forcibly’ circumcises 30 boys

School circumcises pupils without parents knowledge

Commentary on Times Live Article: Deny This

In a recent article on an African publication that calls itself "Times Live", so-called "scientists" tried to dismiss Ron Goldman as a "fringe fanatic." Rather than address what he had to say directly, they retorted to name-calling, and to quoting the usual canned responses saved for all PR venues.

Rather than do what I usually do with articles such as these, which is basically destroy them bit by bit, I'm just going to post the e-mail I sent to the link on their article.

Dear Sirs,

This is in response to the article "Circumcision denier derided."

In the article, in order to reply to the claims made by Ron Goldman, so-called "scientists" retorted to name-calling, instead of addressing his claims directly.

Ron Goldman was called a "fringe fanatic," "conspiracy theorist." They said he was "without a scientific evidence base," though they made no attempt to substantiate this claim. He is also called an "anti-circumcision fundamentalist" and a "circumcision denier," whatever that means. No one is denying circumcision, only the false claims made in favor of it.

Only after the so-called "scientists'" ad hominem attack did they decide to quote scientific figures, which are really nothing more than repetition of the same tired claims that circumcision "reduced the risk of contracting HIV by up to 60%."

As usual, the HIV claim is rather weak, so it is always typically reinforced by a claim that circumcision "was associated" with the reduction of some other disease, this time a supposed "59% reduction of syphilis in men."

It must be pointed out; the so-called "benefits" of circumcision aren't as clear-cut as circumcision "scientists" would like their audience to believe.

People ought to read the fine print: There is no scientifically demonstrable causal link between circumcision and a reduction in HIV transmission. Without one, "scientists" can't be sure that circumcision reduces HIV transmission AT ALL, let alone by "60%."

Circumcision was "associated with a 59% reduction in syphilis in men?" What in the world is that supposed to mean? We're supposed to circumcise everybody based on a mere "association?"

Without a demonstrable causal link, one could claim that an absence of vampires in the vicinity of garlic is "proof" that garlic "is associated" with keeping them away.

Without a causal link, the African "trials" are meaningless statistics embellished with correlation hypothesis. Circumcision "researchers" merely juxtapose carefully chosen statistics and assume a causal relationship exists as a matter of fact.

The so-called "findings" contradict reality.

According to USAID, HIV was found to be more prevalent among circumcised men in 10 out of 18 African countries. 80% of American men are circumcised from birth. Yet, according to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has more HIV than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced. If the CIA is to be believed, we have more HIV than Mexico.

And finally, even if the 60% claim were irrefutably true, circumcision would STILL be ineffective at preventing HIV.

So ineffective would circumcision be at preventing HIV, that circumcised men and their partners would still have to be urged to wear condoms.

I would like to see any of the "scientists" who responded to Mr. Goldman deny this very simple fact.

I am a happy man with anatomically correct genitals, and if any of them tried to sell me this crock I would laugh in their faces.

I posit that no man with intact genitals in the right mind would fall for this, unless he were being lied to by self-interested scientists trying to secure funds from the HIV pie.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it."
~Upton Sinclair

Thank you for your time,

Josep4GI

Related Links:
UGANDA: Myths about circumcision help spread HIV

ZIMBABWE: Circumcised men abandoning condoms

Botswana – There is an upsurge of cases of people who got infected with HIV following circumcision.

Zimbabwe – Circumcised men indulge in risky sexual behaviour

Nyanza – Push for male circumcision in Nyanza fails to reduce infections

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised

So a friend contacts me about a recent "study" published in the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

"You've got to blast it on your blog!" he says.

So I skim through the article and my first thought is "meh."

I mean, so what. Yet another junk "study" that adds nothing of any actual value to science or medical literature, and serves as nothing more than another chance to repeat the same dubious claim, as always, that "circumcision prevents HIV transmission by 60%," and tries to pretend as if it were bygone conclusion. (Researchers can't actually prove that circumcision prevents HIV transmission AT ALL, let alone by 60%.)

What can I say about one more trash "study" that I haven't already said about all the rest? Only just two or three posts ago I posted about promoters using football to coerce teenagers into getting circumcised. They were using bribery as far back as 2011. So what's new to be seen here?

And then he points to the fact that this so-called "study" was actually the lead article in the latest edition of JAMA.

I look again and think "Holy smokes, he's right!" So I decide to take a closer look. (Readers can read the abstract here.)

The "study" is titled:

"Effect of Providing Conditional Economic Compensation on Uptake of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision in Kenya: A Randomized Clinical Trial"

The title tries very little to hide the fact that the article is only extremely remotely related to medicine. The long and the short of it is, they're trying to see if bribing men will get them to go get circumcised. I've already said this, but the only reason this can be is because "circumcision prevents HIV by 60%" simply isn't selling. African men aren't stupid.

"Gee, if I still have to wear condoms, what's the whole point? NO THANKS!"

More from the abstract:

Objective  To determine whether small economic incentives could increase circumcision prevalence by addressing reported economic barriers to VMMC and behavioral factors such as present-biased decision making.

Translation: Let's see how many men we can bribe into getting circumcised.

It should be noted here that the "researchers," if they can even be called that, are not actually interested in any behavioral factors that matter. They're not interested in seeing if the men are diligently using condoms, for example. (Or if they are not, and hope not to following their circumcisions.) They're not interested in how many sexual partners they have on a weekly or monthly basis, or if they are faithful to one partner or their spouse. Maybe the men feel that since they are faithful, and/or use condoms consistently, they don't feel they ought to be circumcised. And, they would be right.

Also not important to the "researchers," and this would actually be relevant from a "how many men can we dupe into getting circumcised" standpoint; what background were the men from? Did they come from Muslim or tribal backgrounds where circumcision is a social norm, if not expectation? How many were from tribes where NOT being circumcised is important? This is a very important factor; it's not "news" if men who would be circumcised at an initiation school anyway agreed to get circumcised for money in a clinical setting. How many men were actually convinced to get circumcised by financial incentive? How many were already going to get circumcised, but joined the program for the cash?

Only one behavioral factor seems to be important here: What will get the men to comply with having part of their penis cut off?

Design, Setting, and Participants  Randomized clinical trial conducted between June 22, 2013, and February 4, 2014, among 1504 uncircumcised men aged 25 to 49 years in Nyanza region, Kenya. VMMC services were provided free of charge and participants were randomized to 1 of 3 intervention groups or a control group.

"Randomized clinical trial" for what, exactly? What drug or form of medical treatment was being tested for efficacy? It seems the only thing "clinical" about this so-called "trial" was the fact that it was conducted by doctors at clinics, and the only thing "random" about it was what group the men would land in. All of them were offered circumcision.

Interventions  Participants in the 3 intervention groups received varying amounts of compensation conditional on undergoing circumcision at 1 of 9 study clinics within 2 months of enrollment. Compensation took the form of food vouchers worth 200 Kenya shillings (≈US $2.50), 700 Kenya shillings (≈US $8.75), or 1200 Kenya shillings (≈US $15.00), which reflected a portion of transportation costs and lost wages associated with getting circumcised. The control group received no compensation.

In short, groups were offered different amounts of money in increasing increments; the control group was there to see how many men could be conned into needless surgery for nothing.

Main Outcomes and Measures  VMMC uptake within 2 months.

That men would submit for circumcision was an expected outcome; the study was not conducted to measure "whether or not" financial incentive worked in convincing men to get circumcised, but "how well."

Results  Analysis of data for 1502 participants with complete data showed that VMMC uptake within 2 months was higher in the US $8.75 group (6.6%; 95% CI, 4.3%-9.5% [25 of 381]) and the US $15.00 group (9.0%; 95% CI, 6.3%-12.4% [34 of 377]) than in the US $2.50 group (1.9%; 95% CI, 0.8%-3.8% [7 of 374]) and the control group (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.6%-3.5% [6 of 370]). In logistic regression analysis, the US $8.75 group had significantly higher VMMC uptake than the control group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 4.3; 95% CI, 1.7-10.7), as did the US $15.00 group (AOR 6.2; 95% CI, 2.6-15.0). Effect sizes for the US $8.75 and US $15.00 groups did not differ significantly (P = .20).

Conclusions and Relevance  Among uncircumcised men in Kenya, compensation in the form of food vouchers worth approximately US $8.75 or US $15.00, compared with lesser or no compensation, resulted in a modest increase in the prevalence of circumcision after 2 months. The effects of more intense promotion or longer implementation require further investigation.

Or, in short, the more money you shell out, the more men are likely to agree to having part of their penis cut off. (Surprise, surprise...)

Conclusion
There are so many things wrong with this "study," I don't even know where to start.

How can this even be called "research" or a "study?" It's not looking to contribute anything of actual value to science or medicine. This "study" is about nothing, on a topic that isn't even remotely related to medicine, yet it gets the lead spot in JAMA. It proves nothing more than that, the more money you offer men, the more likely they'll be to do what you ask them to, in this case, submit to non-therapeutic surgery.

Is it even ethical to conduct this kind of "study" on financial incentive in a setting where food, water and other supplies are scarce? Wouldn't most men say yes to money in situations where it is scarce, regardless of how they feel about HIV prevention and the proper use of condoms? How ethical is it to exploit the financial situations of people who are already in dire poverty, to offer them a dubious form of "protection" from HIV, which is already far superseded by less expensive, less invasive, more effective means?

They call it "VMMC" which stands for "VOLUNTARY Male Medical Circumcision." How is it "voluntary" if you're continuously looking for ways to put men between a rock and a hard place?

As I've told my friend, what more can I say?

This is just one more in a long line of other "studies" that look for the same thing; "Acceptance. Feasibility. Demand creation."

And it will not stop here.

Circumcision "researchers" are desperately looking for every which way they can to get the men to go circumcise themselves on a supposed "voluntary" basis, I will not be surprised to see "studies" on the "effect" of celebrity endorsement. Sex appeal. Sports. Money. Emasculation. Outright insults. Whatever works.

Because "circumcise to prevent HIV" isn't working.

Be on the lookout for an upcoming onslaught of  circumcision "research."

Watch as the message of "prevent HIV" is slowly replaced with "get yourself circumcised."

The way progress in the fight against HIV should be measured is how many cases of HIV/AIDS have been avoided, but this is slowly being replaced by how many men have been circumcised, and it ought to concern those interested in reducing HIV transmission in Africa.

"Most studies on male circumcision, including the Kenya Aids Indicator Survey 2013 (KAIS), have so far concentrated on the quantity of procedures but none has shown it is achieving its primary objective of reducing HIV infections. Started almost seven years ago, on the promise that it could reduce the risk of infection by 60 per cent, the KAIS report showed a spike in prevalence in places like Nyanza where the circumcision programme is most intense."~Standard Digital

There is something wrong when progress on the HIV front is measured, not by how much HIV infection has decreased in time, but by how prolific the practice of circumcision has become. It is simply mistaken to assume that a mostly circumcised population automatically translates to a lowered HIV transmission rate, as real-world data indicates.

The way so-called "researchers" are trying to pass their brainwashing strategies as legitimate "science" and "research" is a complete disgrace.

It is outrageous, despicable and disgraceful that no one at JAMA sees a problem with this.

How was this "study" approved to go on? Who agreed to fund it? Why hasn't there been any kind of public outcry from respected medical communities around the world deploring this horrendous conduct? Who at the IRB approved this unethical "study?" What was the editor of JAMA thinking when he decided to make this the "lead study?" Is the AMA going to voice any complaint?

Lies are being spread. Garbage is being passed off as "research" and being used to shape public health policy. This is not the first "study" of this kind. They have been going on since the WHO endorsed circumcision as "HIV prevention." Why does it seem respected medical organizations are not concerned that this is going on?

Why isn't the WHO concerned that their endorsement of circumcision as "HIV prevention" is resulting in horrendous misconduct on the part of "researchers," circumcision promoters and even amongst African tribes themselves?

It ought to concern respected medical organizations around the world that "research" on what is essentially the financial coercion of men living in poverty to comply with non-therapeutic surgery was published as the leading article in a medical journal of a respected medical organization.

Readers are encouraged to write to representatives at medical organizations in their respective countries, as this is an issue that needs to be addressed. American readers, you are encouraged to write to the AMA and the editors of their JAMA journal. Other medical organizations need to be concerned that this is what passes today as legitimate "research."

I repeat, the WHO must be made aware of this, and respected medical organizations and influential doctors and researchers ought to call for the WHO to withdraw their endorsement of male genital mutilation as HIV prevention.

Human experimentation in Africa must end, and the rights of non-consenting individuals ought to be respected.

How about we give Africans food and water, and not make genital mutilation a condition for not dying of hunger or thirst?

Readers, please express your outrage to the AMA, JAMA and other respected medical organizations about this so-called "research" happening in Africa today. Let them know that this is NOT acceptable conduct for people that call themselves "researchers" and/or medical professionals.

Related Posts:
MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"

AFRICA: When Propaganda Fails, Try Bribery

 CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II