Intactivism Isn't Making Anyone Rich

There is no money in trying to convince people to do nothing.

It'd be nice if I could leave the job I do every day and live off of trying to convince people that cutting children is wrong.

The sad reality is that while circumcision promoters get cuts (pun absolutely intended) in the form of grants, foreign aid, and getting paid for performing circumcision itself, intactivists have to sacrifice a lot of their time and money to get our message across.

Circumcising a child pays; allowing him to go home whole does not.

Yet I have read here and there, on Facebook, on parenting forums etc., accusations to the effect that intactivists are being "funded by millionaires."

I have never heard of a more ignorant straw-man, ad-hominem accusation.

While intactivists take time out of their busy schedule, not to mention precious time they could be spending with their family and loved ones, not to mention time they could be spending for themselves (e.g. going to school, improving their skills, another job, etc.), there are circumcision promoters whose sole source of income is the promotion of circumcision, if not performing circumcision itself.

The ignorant accusation that "intactivists are being funded by millionaires" stems from the fact that at one point, an intactivist organization, Intact America, got a kick-start grant of a million dollars from a single donor.

 Click Here to visit the Intact America website

While this is irrefutable fact, it's a stretch to say that we're being "funded by millionaires."

Intact America is only ONE organization who got paid one million dollars, one time, by one donor, but that was a long time ago, and that money is gone now. No other intactivist organization has gotten a donation anywhere close to that amount. Intact America now survives on donations it can muster from willing intactivists.

But while circumcision advocates point their fingers and accuse intactivists of being involved in a money-making scam, they either seem oblivious to what's happening in their own camp, or they're deliberately trying to draw attention away from it.

Yes, at one point, Intact America got a million dollar grant from a generous donor.

But how much money do circumcision promoters get?

How much money are circumcision "researchers" like Maria Wawer, Ronald Gray, Robert Bailey, Daniel Halperin, etc., etc., getting for their work in the way of grants and scholarships?

How much money is PEPFAR handing over to PrePex and other organizations to circumcise 20 million Africans?

"Funded by millionaires?"

It would sure be nice if we could get someone like Bill Gates to donate to us the amount of money he's paying circumcision promoters in Africa.

It'd sure be nice if we could get money from the World Bank, UNAids, WHO, PEPFAR etc. to promote HIV prevention to those who don't want to get circumcised.

It'd sure be nice if the NIH, Johns Hopkins, etc. would give grants to researchers who want to find ways to prevent HIV WITHOUT circumcision.

It'd be nice if intactivists were given money to ready information packages, fly to Africa and educate the people of Africa on STD prevention, hygiene etc.

It'd be nice if we could pay artists to write songs about intactivism and speak out against male genital mutilation at HIV/AIDS conferences.

But we just don't have that kind of money.

Circumcisers get cash for their work. For many, this is their sole occupation.

It's intactivists who have to scrounge around for cash, when and if time and circumstances allow, and only after their own obligations and commitments.

When you look at just how much money is being pumped into circumcision promotion and facilitation, it's kind of ridiculous, not to mention dishonest and insulting, to hear a circumcision advocate try and discredit us by accusing us of being "funded by millionaires."

Ad lazarum, ad hominem and projection all rolled into one.

Related Posts:

PEPFAR To Blow Millions on PrePex

External Links:

Bill Gates helps fund mass circumcision programme

The 'Circumcision Song' Hits Airwaves Across Africa Thanks to Bill Gates' Funding

MALAWI: Bishops OK Circumcision, Shun Condoms (Surprise Surprise...)

Remember when we said that promoting circumcision as HIV prevention would result in the perception of circumcision as a substitute for condoms?

I reiterated this warning in a recent post.

Ever since the WHO endorsed this madness, we intactivists have been issuing this warning.

Here is yet another example of this in action.

It appears Roman Catholic bishops in Malawi have approved of circumcision as an HIV prevention method, because, according to this article, "As a church we are against the use of condoms."

This is despite the fact that in Malawi, the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 13.2% vs 9.5%, according to a study conducted there:

"In Malawi, circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who were not circumcised (13 % compared with 10%). In Malawi, the majority of men are not circumcised (80%)(...where one would expect HIV to be the most rampant...) (See page 10)


According to Fr. George Buleya, "We have examined theological texts and found no opposition to it."


Here is some of what they would find if they had searched with their heads out of their asses:

 ~Gal. 5:2 "Behold, I Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing!"

 ~Gal. 5:3 "And I testify again to every male who receives circumcision, that he is in debt to keep the whole Law. You who do so have been severed from Christ. . . you have fallen from grace."

 ~Gal. 5:11 "But if I still proclaim circumcision. . . then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished."

 ~Gal. 5:12 "I wish that those who are pushing you to do so would mutilate themselves! 

 ~Gal. 6: 12-16 "Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. . . They desire to have you circumcised so they may boast in your flesh. . .

 ~Phil. 3:2 "Beware of the dogs! Beware of the evil workers! Beware of the mutilation! For WE are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put NO confidence in the flesh!"

 ~Col. 2:8-14 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men...rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form and in Him you have been made whole.. and in Him you were also circumcised, with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, and raised up with Him through faith. And...in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him. . . having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which were hostile to us. And He has taken them out of the way, having nailed them to the cross."

 ~Lev.19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your flesh."

 ~Deut. 23: 1 "No one who...has his male genitalia cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

What does this friar mean with approving circumcision as a way to prevent HIV?

Does he have no faith that faithful Christian men will not do as the scriptures say, and be faithful and abstain from sex until marriage?

Does he expect for Christian men and women to fornicate and engage in adultery?

But that is a secondary detail; the fact of the matter is that now, thanks to the WHO, thanks to these "mass circumcision campaigns," we have religious leaders telling African Christian masses that they approve of circumcision in lieu of condoms.

Condoms prevent HIV transmission and the transmission of other STDs in both men and women by 95%, not to mention unwanted pregnancy.

Even if the "science" were sound (and it is hopelessly full of holes), circumcision would only "reduce the risk of HIV transmission" by 60%. Women are 50% more likely to acquire HIV from a circumcised partner, as they would be 100% exposed to the viral load in semen. Circumcision also fails to prevent unwanted pregnancy. (The Catholic church loves that part...)

Which is why even the authors of all this so-called "research" cannot stress the use of condoms enough.

Way to go, WHO.

Way to go, "researchers."

Way to go, President Obama.

Way to go, Billary.

Way to go, Bill Gates.

Way to go, Bono.

Is this what you wanted?

When the dust clears, the blood of millions of Africans will be on your hands.

Circumcision in Africa: We Keep Warning. Is Anybody Listening?

Ever since the WHO endorsed circumcision as HIV prevention in 2006, we intactivists have been trying our best to warn promoters of circumcision, and organizers of so-called "mass-circumcision" campaigns that this is going to backfire.

We keep warning that the studies are horribly flawed, that empirical data completely contradicts the results in the so-called "research," and that African men are going to see this as nothing other than a green light for unprotected sex, putting millions of men and women in danger of sexually transmitted HIV.

IS ANYBODY LISTENING???
Nope, major charities and organizations such as Bill and Melinda Gates and PEPFAR are in Africa bankrolling so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" full-speed ahead. Whenever any of these organizations puts out any sort of statement, it's always "circumcision, circumcision, circumcision." Abstinence, faithfulness and condoms seem to have been placed on the back burner, and are barely even mentioned, if at all.

How is it possible that we are over-stating an alternative to the most effective mode of protection against sexually transmitted HIV known to us?

In May last year, I wrote a similar post to this one. PANOS Eastern Africa had put out a report that showed that the circumcision/HIV messages meant to reduce the prevalence of the disease were actually facilitating its spread. I also gave instances of others warning that this is precisely what would happen, as well as many cases in point in vivo.

It is now the end of January, starting a new year, and neither PEPFAR nor Bill Gates etc. have changed their message. In fact, these organizations and more have come out stronger than ever in their drive to circumcise the whole of Africa. In December last year, PEPFAR kicked off another year reinforcing the circumcision campaigns in Africa. Very recently, Bill Gates released his 2012 annual letter, and, as expected, he pushed circumcision. Circumcision, claims Gates, reduces AIDS transmission by a whopping 70%. Where IS he getting this number from? Why ISN'T this number manifested in the real world?

More Reports Come In
While you'll hear in the news about how "successful" the "mass circumcision campaigns" have been (not so much in reducing HIV, but in how many men they've managed to dupe), you won't hear about reports warning that men and women are taking home the wrong message.

According to AllAfrica.com, "Nyanza provincial director of public health and sanitation, who is also the task force chairman Jackson Kioko, said there have been reports that those who have been circumcised are taking it as immunity against HIV."

PlusNews reports of a study in Kenya conducted by the University of Illinois' Chicago School of Public Health, which found, among other things, that "most women were happy with the appearance of their partner's penis and enjoyed sex more after circumcision." (Others studies will find that there are men that like the experience of their partner's circumcised vulvas, and that they enjoy sex more, but we'll not ever hear about them.) As sexist and degrading as this "study" is to men, it was supposed to be the study's "plus" side. On the negative, the study found that the women believed that condoms were less necessary than circumcision, that they were more likely to have more than one sexual partner, and to have sex without a condom. One would think that these issues would have been addressed BEFORE rolling out these so-called "circumcision campaigns?"

HELLO??? IS ANYBODY AT THE WHO LISTENING?
Nevermind the ethical dilemma of endorsing genital mutilation in the name of  public health interests, and nevermind the sexist, misandrist marketing practices of trying to sexify circumcision, and stigmatize intact men. And nevermind the fact that plans are already underway to forcibly circumcise newborns and youth.

Is nobody concerned that the promotion of circumcision will deprecate the value of cheaper, more effective, less invasive HIV prevention measures, thereby putting the lives of millions of African men and women in danger???

The Warning Continues...
The promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a catastrophic mistake. Even if the "research" was correct, and it is horrendously flawed, circumcision would fail to deliver the efficacy of HIV prevention methods which far exceed it. In light of condoms and education, which have been conclusively proven to prevent HIV, promoting circumcision is an impertinent disservice in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The promotion of circumcision will result is already resulting in Africans perceiving the most effective HIV prevention known to us as an expendable option. The promotion of circumcision is going to backfire, sending the wrong message, putting the lives of men and women in danger. The promotion of circumcision is going to be a waste of precious funds, where they are desperately needed in other areas (i.e. food, water, access to actually needed healthcare, etc). The promotion of circumcision is an ethical, scientific scandal waiting to explode. The promotion of circumcision is going to be a disaster that is going to haunt any organization and individual that ever endorsed it.

Even if the "research" was accurate, circumcision fails. Circumcision fails, and this is why even the very authors cannot stress the importance of condoms enough. Condoms would prevent, not only the transmission of HIV, but the transmission of other STDs more effectively, and more efficiently. Condoms would prevent STD transmission not only in men, but in their partners as well. Additionally, condoms prevent unwanted pregnancy. Circumcision does not.

It is going to prove a fatal mistake to have ever endorsed a dubious alternative to the only effective method of HIV prevention ever known to us.

AND...
It is endorsing the grossest violation of  the most basic of human rights.

Consider this: There would never be enough "science" or "research" to endorse the promotion of female circumcision to prevent ANYTHING.

It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were made "painless," "bloodless," and it didn't affect a girl's sexuality. It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were performed in the clean environment of the hospital, by a trained professional, using pain killers and the most pristine, and most "advanced" utensils. Why do "researchers" grope for reasons to promote male circumcision?

Genital mutilation, whether wrapped in "science," "research," and feigned interests in public health, is still, in the end, genital mutilation.

The day will come when anyone whoever endorsed this despicable human rights violation will be too embarrassed to ever admit that they did.

May god have mercy on their souls.

New "Studies" Give Ongoing Circumcision Campaigns a "Boost"

So recently the International AIDS Society held their yearly conference in Rome, Italy. As usual, circumcision advocates are out in full force promoting genital mutilation as HIV prevention. The usual suspects usually tout three famous "RCTs" and talk about how "successful" their "mass circumcision campaigns" are becoming, with more and more men getting circumcised, and communities "embracing" circumcision as a method of HIV prevention. This year, though, it's a bit different.

Perhaps fearing that the big "RCTs" have become lackluster, the usual circumcision advocates have decided to give a "boost" to their mass circumcision initiatives by injecting "new studies" into their mix of "evidence." I've already discussed the "boost in sex" that circumcision is supposed to give in my last blog post. In retrospect, I'm not exactly how "new" this "information" is; circumcision advocates have been trying to argue that circumcision is not sexually damaging, even "improving" it for years. But now, "new studies" report, not a "60% decrease in HIV transmission," but get this, a whopping 76%! Wow. Really?

I think it all becomes clear when you look behind who came up with these numbers. The new figure is the result of a "study" headed by none other than, according to a Bloomberg article, Bertran Auvert, the same man who headed one of the first big three African "RCTs." (Incidentally, the British medical journal The Lancet refused to publish Auvert's first big study, they didn't say why.) Auvert has been trying to correlate a lowered risk in HIV transmission with circumcision since at least 2003. He is good friends with Bill Gates, another avid circumcision promoter, and his last big "study" was funded by none other than the American National Institutes of Health. (Where doctors have vested interest in seeing the practice of circumcision, particularly infant circumcision continue.) It must be pointed out that none of the "new studies" presented at the IAS conference have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

What I'd like to know is how Auvert managed to come up with that incredible 76% figure. What did he do differently this time, and does he seriously expect the world to believe this number? Let's take a short look through time at the slow but sure increase of this number. According to Yahoo news article:

"In 2006, trials in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa found foreskin removal more than halved men's risk of infection by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

Longer-term analysis found the benefit to be even greater than thought, with a risk reduction of around 60 percent."

And now that number is at 76%! I'm guessing that by 2016 that figure will be a full 100%?

Numbers sound real good on paper, but what I'd like to know is, if circumcision is so "effective" at "reducing the risk of HIV transmission," why isn't the 60%, and now 76% figure manifesting itself in real world situations where there is already a prevalence of circumcised men? Why arent these figures true outside of these so-called "trials?"

The rest of the Yahoo article is almost a complete verbatim repeat of the iafrica article I critique in my last blog post. Maybe iafrica and Yahoo are affiliates?

The Yahoo article does end with a word of caution by France's 2008 Nobel laureate Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, who in 1983 co-identified HIV as the source of AIDS;

"...over-confidence in circumcision [is] a major anxiety... Nothing provides 100-percent protection, not even a vaccine... Let's stop thinking that one preventative tool is enough. Circumcision has to be part of a combined approach."

She's mistaken though. We need to stop thinking that circumcision can actually be forced into the HIV prevention equation. Presenting circumcision confuses the message that people need to be engaging in safer sex, watching who they sleep with and employing the use of condoms.

It is a mistake to promote a dubious alternative

to the most effective method of HIV prevention known to us.



Back to the Bloomberg article, the same old debunked myths keep getting repeated:

"Circumcision is the surgical removal of a skin that covers the tip of the penis."

Actually, no, it's more than just skin; circumcision is the removal of an entire fold of flesh laden with blood vessels and nerves.

"Studies have shown the pocket between the foreskin and the tip of the penis gives viruses and bacteria a spot to grow, and circumcision eliminates it."

This is a reference to the penile microbiome study, which comes to an irrelevant conclusion; although it does show that there is a change in the penile microbiome after circumcision, it fails to demonstrate how circumcision prevents HIV. The authors present another hypothesis they must prove; that a change in the microbiome of the penis does indeed result in a reduced risk of HIV.

 "The foreskin has been shown to be rich in cells that carry HIV into the body."

The Langerhans cells. Which, contrary to what is stated here, have been shown to be a natural barrier to HIV.

It ends with a very disconcerting note by Centre for HIV and AIDS Prevention Studies program manager Dirk Taljaard:

"It’s really quite simple as an intervention... it’s not something that you’re trying to get somebody to do every day of his life."

It is NOT simple. Circumcision is cutting off part of a person's penis. It is a permanent alteration to normal male anatomy, and a man has to deal with it every day of his life, whether he likes the resulting product or not. And it sounds like Dirk Taljaard intends on circumcising men and just forget about them afterwards.

Wearing a condom; it's something a man has to do every time he has sex with an untested stranger if he wants any real protection from HIV transmission. What an absolutely irresponsible thing for anybody to say.

The Call
I've had enough of all this circumcision study nonsense crap. Using "study" to legitimize mass genital mutilation has reached some ridiculous proportions. 76%? 76! Am I seriously supposed to believe this? How far does Auvert seriously think he can fool people? Who's checking this crap? Who's checking to make sure everything presented has been peer reviewed? Are IAS conferences the ultimate venue to spew unmitigated garbage? Is the AIDS situation that much hopeless in Africa that no idea is too stupid to try?

What would be the reaction of people present at these IAS conferences would that somebody actually presented a "study" that showed a "reduced risk in HIV transmission" in women who have undergone labiaplasties? What would people think if somebody actually presented the madness that we need to remove the labia of as many people as possible? How would Auvert be viewed if he were bragging that his efforts were successful in "increasing the percentage of circumcised women" in a given area? Would he be welcomed or would he be openly shamed? What if he spewed that magical 76% number?

There are some things that are simply always wrong no matter how much "study" you try to veil it with. There has got to be something wrong with "researchers" who seek to necessitate a surgical procedure on healthy individuals. "Studies" that begin with a surgical procedure as a solution a priori have got to be the most logically flawed studies in existence. Where is the voice of reason in all of this? How can people suddenly pretend like circumcision isn't this historically controversial religious ritual that "scientists" have been trying to legitimize with a pseudo-medical alibi for over a century? When does the madness stop?

I think it's about time people concerned with basic human rights demanded an investigation behind all this circumcision "study." Real world data simply does not add up. Circumcision isn't this "simple" procedure. If it were really this "simple snip" then there wouldn't be so much opposition. Circumcision is radical surgery; it is a permanent alteration. It is cutting off part of a person's penis. Instead of focusing on necessitating it, real scientists should be working to render it obsolete. WHY are "researchers" like Auvert allowed to spew their madness? Who is checking his work? Who is double-checking the work of all these circumcision "researchers" to make sure it's all legit? It is disconcerting that this crap actually goes unchallenged.

It's about time we got together and demanded an investigation. Investigate the "researchers." Those at the WHO who endorsed these so-called "studies." Those institutions funding "mass circumcision campaigns." WHO ARE these people? What conflicts of interest are they failing to declare? Is it really people who are interested in the reduction of HIV transmission? Or is it the same old folks trying to vindicate an age-old religious ritual steeped in controversy?

Let's just say for the sake of argument that all of the "study" is true. Who is researching alternatives? By when can we expect circumcision to be phased out? Is there a future in sight where people can protect themselves from HIV transmission without having to cut off part of their penises? Are there any researchers working to this end? Or is everybody interested in finding more uses for circumcision? Who are the researchers responsible for seeking to find alternatives to circumcision? I want to know! I want to know why nobody's talking about NOT circumcising at these so-called AIDS conferences!!!