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: 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

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

PEPFAR To Blow Millions on PrePex

PrePex had been running paid ads on high-end news outlets bidding for the WHO approval that would allow them to cash in on the African HIV/circumcision pie. They had a video on BBC, and ran dedicated articles on the Washington Post and the New York Times, as well as others.

Well, it looks like PrePex entrepreneurs have finally gotten their wish. According to the New York Times, the WHO has finally given their approval for the PrePex device, and PEPFAR leader Eric Goosby has already pledged to buy PrePex devices to circumcise as much as 20 million boys and men in Africa by 2015, under the ostensible pretense of "reducing HIV."

Grinning like a french poodle

In the New York Times, PrePex CEO Tzameret Fuerst said that the estimated price for each PrePex device would be an estimated $15 to $20 range. If PEPFAR pays for 20 million devices, that's a minimum of $300,000,000 a maximum of $400,000,000 American tax dollars that the program would spend on a dubious practice with speculative benefits, a waste of money considering that there are cheaper, less invasive, more effective ways of preventing HIV transmission.

No Demonstrable Scientific Proof Circumcision Prevents HIV
The sound bite that "circumcision reduces HIV 60%" is repeated over and over like a mantra, the WHO has given their blessing, and interested programs and manufacturers are promising to circumcise millions for foreign aid, but there is actually no scientifically demonstrable proof that circumcision does anything to prevent HIV transmission.

Close scrutiny of the so-called "research," however, reveals that there is actually no demonstrable scientific proof that circumcision does anything to prevent, or even "reduce the risk" of HIV at all, let alone by "60%." Circumcision promoters brush past this fact by distracting their listeners with the less-than impressive "60%" figure, and by mentioning how many men are "lining up to get circumcised." They need the money now, now, now.

There have been recent attempts to posit yet another hypothesis that attempts to explain "how circumcision prevents HIV," but they miss the mark, instead arriving at irrelevant conclusions, and not coming anywhere closer to furnishing the causal link for the so-called "effect" the much talked about "studies" were supposed to measure in the first place. Without a causal link, the "studies" are nothing more than statistics embellished with correlation hypothesis, and the efforts to circumcise millions in Africa are myth-based, not evidence-based.

African Men Not Buying into Circumcision for HIV Prevention
Despite the hyped up "mass circumcision" programs in Africa, it's been report after report of programs failing to meet their quota of circumcising boys and men in the past year.

Though they tried and tried, the much hyped Soka Unkobe program failed in Swaziland, where approximately 34,000 out of the expected 200,000 men (about 17%) were circumcised. Rather than abandon the strategy to mutilate the genitals of the men of Swaziland, American organizers are trying to figure out "what went wrong."Apparently, they feel they feel getting men to agree to have part of their penis cut off is simply a matter of "sending the right message." There is something wrong with an HIV prevention program that measures its progress by how many men they've circumcised, and not by how many they've educated about condoms and safe sex.

Three years into the 5 year program, only 80,000 of 1.2 million targeted men (about 6.7%) have been circumcised in Zimbabwe, and here too circumcision promoters are scratching their heads. Why aren't the men biting?

[There is no evidence that circumcising men in Zimbabwe has any effect against HIV.]


Click to enlarge
In Botswana, programs are also failing to convince men to cut off part of their genitals. One program circumcised only 685 out of an intended 10,000. In another program, promoters convinced only 360 out of 2560 men (approx. 14%) to get circumcised. Here too, promoters are dumbfounded and can't find the right people to blame. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they're trying to convince men to undergo permanently altering surgery on their genitals, could it?

In Zambia, circumcision uptake has also been low.

In Kenya, Homabay district, only 11,000 men have been circumcised out of the estimated 42,000 since September 2008 when the program was initiated. Here too, circumcision uptake has been low, so coordinators are targeting children who are neither at risk for HIV, nor putting others at risk, not to mention the ethical dilemma of forcibly cutting off part of the genitals of healthy, non-consenting individuals. (So much for "Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision.")

The WHO may have given their coveted blessing to plunder African HIV funds to PrePex, and PEPFAR leader Eric Goosby may have pledged American money to pay for their devices, but it remains to be seen whether the devices will actually ever be used, or if they'll simply remain sitting in storage compartments unused.

While a failure to implementing PREPEX would be ironically heartening insofar as it shows that African men aren't buying into the circumcision propaganda, it remains disturbing that millions of dollars that could be providing more effective aid and advances in public health are being wasted and squandered by PEPFAR.

Real World Data Fails to Correlate with "Findings"
While the "60% reduction" claim is repeated, it fails to manifest itself in the real world.

It is interesting that PEPFAR is so eager to help circumcise millions of men in Africa, while circumcision has done America no favors in terms of HIV reduction.

80% of America's male population is circumcised from birth, yet AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hotspots in Africa. In some parts of the U.S., they're actually higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. According to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda.

The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C., March 15, 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." (Hader once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe)

According to a recent report:

"HIV/AIDS is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States among people age 15 to 24, and half of young people infected with HIV are not aware of it. An unbelievable 26 percent of all new HIV infections are among those 13 to 24."

According to HIV prevalence data in the CIA Factbook, and circumcision prevalence figures in Wikipedia, the United States, where 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth, has a higher HIV prevalence rate than 53 countries where circumcision is rare (e.g., falls below 20%).

Countries where circumcision falls below 20%, and HIV is less prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence):
 

Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Cambodia, Peru, Nepal, Switzerland, Vietnam, Ecuador, France, Chile, Spain, Moldova, Mexico, Italy, India, Iceland, Costa Rica, Canada, Belarus, Austria, Paraguay, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Bolivia, Bhutan, United Kingdom, Belgium, Nicaragua, Laos, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Mongolia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Sweden

There is a prevalence of European, South American and Asian countries. Countries where one might expect a higher HIV prevalence rate have a surprisingly low prevalence rate. One would expect a higher prevalence of HIV in these countries, but they fare better than the United States, where 80% of the men are circumcised, instead.

Before handing out millions to gold-mining circumcision device manufacturers, PEPFAR ought to address the question of why something that never prevented HIV in this country is suddenly going to start working miracles in Africa.

PrePex CEO Tzameret Fuerst Gloats
In the following video, Tzameret Fuerst can be seen gloating about securing billions from PEPFAR, one can almost see the dollar signs in her eyes, as if she actually cared about HIV prevention. She repeats the same old circumcision/HIV propaganda, touting circumcision as a "one-time intervention with the efficacy of a vaccine." Sharp viewers may note other thinly veiled interests.

It'd be interesting to see her credentials. She holds degrees in urology, surgery and epidemiology, and can explain to us the mechanism whereby circumcision immunizes a man against HIV I'm sure.





But all is not lost; this new device makes the argument that circumcision would be "more painful, more complicated and more traumatic as an adult" a moot point, if in fact, as Tzemeret tells us, her product is "virtually painless and simple to do."


Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION: BBC Runs Paid PrePex Ad

CIRCUMCISION: The Washington Post Folds to the PrePex Ad Campaign

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV 

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

 

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

UPDATE: International AIDS Trade Show 2012

 
Whoa!

What a rush!

So many things going on at once, so much I want to say, so much I want to comment on... I still need to give my final thoughts on this year's Colorado saga, not to mention the recent ruling in Cologne. Who knows if I'll find the time to comment on it all...

For the time being, I'd like to comment on the recent International Circumcision Expo. Uh, no wait, I meant to say International AIDS Trade Show. Oops, did I say that? I meant to say the International AIDS Conference happening in Washington DC this year.

The PEPFAR misinformation saturation drive finally arrived in DC, and Hillary Clinton didn't waste the opportunity to plug circumcision as HIV prevention. According to her speech, the U.S. is fronting $40 million tax dollars "to help South Africa reach its goal of providing voluntary circumcision to half a million boys and men this year." (Interesting how she managed to mash "voluntary" and "boys" in the same sentence... Let's not talk about the Soka Uncobe fiasco.)

Intactivists on the ground are bringing back images of the propaganda being used in DC to promote genital mutilation in the name of HIV transmission.

Some of the pro-cutting literature being given out in washington.

In a brazen act, posters being used in Africa are being passed out. Do you remember this from a blog post earlier?

There are lots of "debates" and "discussions" seem to be going on at the conference, but it seems what's mostly important is plugging circumcision and other pharmaceutical products, and getting people to practice safer sex, and the fact that after 22 years or so, there still isn't a cure or actual vaccine, is pure lip service.

Guess who is in DC plugging their wares?

"Yeah, we haven't actually FOUND anything new, but look at how much money we're spending on products and 'services' that we believe *might* help..."

The "questions" and "debates" are all rigged and geared toward selling something. All of the "evidence" supports what PEPFAR and other big ticket funders are doing and spending on. You will not hear evidence to the contrary; heaven forbid the science actually be discussed. (Because it's just so past "reasonable doubt" that it shouldn't even be discussed, you see?)

There are actually intactivist demonstrators at the conference, and it looks like they are helping get the word out. But what they have to say is strangely absent from the "debate."

Nobody is talking about how "voluntary" it is to circumcise children. Nobody is talking about tribes in Africa using the WHO endorsement to legitimize violence against non-circumcising tribes. Nobody is talking about the deaths and other complications. Nobody is talking about alternatives to circumcision. Are African men being informed? Just how "voluntary" is it if you're making African men afraid to say no? If you are stigmatizing them by attacking their masculinity?

What information do they have for men who have decided circumcision is not for them?

Or is this not an option?

Intactivist David Wilson at the Washington DC AIDS Conference

No doubt that getting people to question "the facts" is an inconvenience for those at the DC conference wanting for it to be "business as usual."

One-sided Arguments

Perhaps the attitude of pro-circumcision bigwigs at the conference can be summarized by the reaction of one young man with UN Dispatch; rather than take the time to discuss the "research" being used to plug male genital mutilation in Africa, Mark Leon Goldberg decided to snap a photo and write about how "wrong" intactivist demonstrators are.

Many have tried to respond to his rant piece with commentary, but it's been a day, and so far all people have been met with is the message that their commentary is "awaiting moderation." It seems this is a one-way conversation, and the other side is not going to be given a chance to defend their position.

But it's not just Mark Leon Goldberg at the UN Dispatch; this mud-slinging attitude can be sensed throughout the entire conference. Intactivists are not even being allowed to engage in the "debates" happening in the conference. While pro-circumcision advocates are being allowed time and space to discuss their "evidence," it seems they they will not engage with others who are able to dismantle it, and provide evidence to the contrary.

It's all one big commercial trade-show where no real debate is allowed; only staff-approved sales pitches.

We will be heard.

Mark Leon Goldberg is mistaken if he thinks he can just deliver cheap shots at intactivists uncontested.

I have collected some of the responses that people have tried to post on his article that are not being allowed and am taking the liberty to post them here.

The man in the picture responds...

I am that guy in the photo. Let me just state this fact. When the first case of HIV/AIDS was diagnosed here in America, Approximately 90+ % of our sexually active males were circumcised. And it, circumcision, didn't prevent, nor slow the spread of HIV in America. Safe sex, condoms, and leaving the prostitutes alone is what slowed the spread of HIV. Matter of fact, the circumcision rate in America has dropped dramatically in the last twenty years. As for your "studies" they are flawed, and I have the proof. There are numerous studies that flat out contradict your claims that circumcision "prevents" HIV. Explain to me why non circumcising countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and basically all your European countries, where circumcision is almost nonexistent, have a much lower HIV rate? Perhaps the single most important fact that you fail to consider or are willing to accept. Is that even though you make the claim that circumcision will provide a 60% less chance of contracting HIV, you continue to tell these victims that in order to fully protected from HIV they should still wear a condom. WTH? So why promote circumcision when a condom is still necessary to be fully protected? The answer is simple. Circumcision is a billion dollar industry, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. I invite you to come spend the day with me and listen to what people have to say about your claims. They laugh and reply just how insane your statements are. Just like how circumcision got started in America back in the 1860's as a way to stop boys from masturbating. Then circumcision became a cure all for club feet, curvature of the spine, tuberculosis, alcoholism, lunacy, hip troubles, diarrhea, bed wetting, to even cure the rapist. The list goes on and on. Only in America have such claims been made. The truth of the matter is simple. Circumcision destroys natural sexual intercourse. The U.S is the largest user of sexual lubricants. Why? It's pretty simple. Come outside and talk to me and let me educate you. Or better yet. I'll come inside your conference and give you an education that you have failed to fully understand nor grasp.

David Wilson
Cocoa Beach, Fl

www.StopInfantCircumcision.org

www.2headedVWbus.com

Another response...

This article is extremely offensive and one sided. You did not attempt to even speak with the group promoting the message that circumcision is not the answer! You don't cite medical fact but instead use mathematics to support your claims. Here's a medical fact for you: 70% of American men are circumcised and yet, America has the highest HIV rates among young men out of any country, both civilized and uncivilized! Citing that information: does circumcision truly prevent HIV and AIDS? Or does it just make the naive nations of the world more susceptible to this deadly disease, because they don't use protection? Does promoting a message in Africa that says circumcision is the cure to AIDS really help anyone or are you promoting a deadly disease by saying "oh you don't need a condom, just mutilate your penis and that will cure you!"? Think before you promote lies!

Rebeca Claar

Response by Intactivist Hugh Young:

Tell that to the 14% of circumcised Zimbabwean men who have HIV, compared to the 12% of non-circumcised. (And don't tell them it's because of what they did after they were circumcised - whether having sex too soon or too carelessly - because the same ratio applied before the circumcision campaign began.)

Similar differences apply in 10 out of 18 countries for which USAID has figures. A study in Uganda started to find that circumcising men INcreases the risk to women - who are already at greater risk - but that was called off for no good reason before that could be confirmed.

The three studies on which you rely (not quite independent, when their authors have all collaborated on papers together) boil down to this:
They circumcised a total of 5,400 paid adult volunteers, including in the consent forms an instruction to refrain from sex for six weeks after the operation or use condoms if they couldn't. (They didn't, of course, tell them they could stop using condoms at the end of six weeks.) The control group had no such instructions.

The studies were neither double blinded nor placebo-controlled, and everyone involved very much wanted circumcision to be efficatious, laying the field wide open to experimenter and experimentee effects.

Less than two years later (the studies were curtailed, which is known to increase false positive results.) 64 of of the circumcised men had HIV, 73 fewer than the non-circumcised control group. Contacts were not traced, so it can't be sure if the men contracted HIV (hetero)sexually, when nosocomial and iatrogenic (hospital and doctor-caused) infections are a large but unmeasured risk in Africa.

327 of the circumcised men dropped out, their HIV status unknown. Finding you had HIV after a painful and marking operation to prevent it would be one good reason for experimental men to drop out. Changing your mind about getting circumcised would be a significant reason available only to the control group.

Those 73 circumcised men are the whole basis of the "60% reduction" claim. (Subsequent studies were not randomised and prove little.)

Your modelling and your projections are all based (wishfully) on that outcome. While no-one advocates replacing condoms with circumcision, many men are doing just that. You don't compare the cost of circumcision with the cost of condoms. It favours condoms.
 

Hugh Young

Shout out to all in DC

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all the intactivist organizations who are on the ground at Washington DC countering this misinformation saturation drive, this insult to American intelligence.

Thanks to Intact America, Saving Our Sons, and countless others for being present on the ground at the DC conference countering all of the propaganda and misinformation. Sooner later the circumcision/HIV hoax is going to come crashing down, and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Interesting little fact:

AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hotspots in Africa. In some parts of the U.S., they're actually higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. It's ironic the conference is taking place in Washington DC; according to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda. 

The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C. in 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." Hader  once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

It's all happened before. And it's all happening again. But this time, it happened in New York.

Yes, it seems, that since the WHO used three dubious "studies" to endorse male genital mutilation as HIV prevention, circumcision advocates, each with their own different interests, have been looking for ways to promote so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" full speed ahead.

PEPFAR and Bill Gates are in Africa bankrolling so-called "mass circumcision campaigns." These have started a race to come up with an efficient gadget that will speed up circumcision. Eager circumcision advocates are trying to use the WHO judgement to get medical organizations around the world to endorse the practice of infant circumcision, and to recuperate public funding which once paid for it. In Australia, circumcision enthusiast Brian Morris can't seem to keep quiet about getting the Royal Australian College of Physicians to endorse "mandatory circumcision" for all boys. In America, Arleen Leibowitz laments the fact that 17 states have stopped Medicaid funding for infant circumcision.

All of this hullabaloo surrounding an eminent "scale-up" of circumcision seems to be focused on one concentrated purpose:

To secure acquiescence to the idea that circumcision actually does anything to prevent HIV transmission.

In recent months, a number of news outlets have run what appears to be an infomercial for a circumcision device, namely the PrePex device, developed by Israeli inventors.

A video version of the PrePex infomercial was published on the BBC, which wasn't even viewable to Britons. Perhaps the BBC knew that if Brits saw this ridiculous excuse for journalism there would be an outcry demanding an explanation. A few days later, a more dumbed down version of the infomercial was published on the Washington Post in news article form. The message and the purpose remained the same; to move the audience past the evidence (or lack thereof), and focus attention on "mass circumcision campaigns," and how the new PrePex device is the answer.


The PrePex Infomercial on the New York Times
The PrePex company has managed to get the New York Times to publish an infomercial for them, masquerading as a news article. This article goes a step further than its predecessors, however, as it is actually now calling circumcision, an amputative procedure, an actual "VACCINE."

I am going to go through the entire article and highlight all the deliberate misinformation that the New York Times tries to pass off as fact.

"AIDS Prevention Inspires Ways to Make Circumcisions Easier," reads the headline.


Already, the author is assuring his readers that yes, circumcision does in fact, prevents AIDS. No actual analysis of the "evidence" is needed, readers should just believe that this is a foregone conclusion.


Reads the caption under the picture of the "new" invention: "‘LIKE A FINGERNAIL’ One new product, PrePex, uses a ring to block blood flow. After a week, the dead foreskin falls off or can be clipped." 

Hardly innovative, the PrePex is nothing more than a glorified tourniquet device. A number of other devices use the exact same principle of cutting off blood circulation to the foreskin, including the TaraKlamp, the Smartklamp, the Ismail Clamp, the Zhenxi Ring and the Shang-ring before it.

"Like a fingernail" is an attempt to trivialize the foreskin. Tie off any part of the body and it will shrivel up and die. Reader, ask yourself; when was the last time you had to cut off circulation in your fingernails before you had to cut them off?

Let's continue with the article:
"The day of the assembly-line circumcision is drawing closer."

This seems more like wishful thinking on the part of the author, and the circumcision advocates he is writing the plug piece for. In actuality, "assembly-line circumcision" has been going on in the US for a few decades now. And actually, as per the CDC, the practice is in decline. This, I believe, is the real cause for concern for advocates of circumcision in the so-called name of disease prevention.

Moving on:
"Now that three studies have shown that circumcising adult heterosexual men is one of the most effective “vaccines” against AIDS — reducing the chances of infection by 60 percent or more — public health experts are struggling to find ways to make the process faster, cheaper and safer."

A deliberate lie, mashed together with a half-truth. "Studies" have shown no such thing.

Let us begin with this half-assed quantification of circumcision as a "vaccine." It needs to be made clear:

A vaccine functions by strengthening the immune system against pathogens that cause disease. When HIV, or any other disease, invades the body, it makes no difference to the immune system whether or not a man is circumcised. Saying that circumcision behaves ANYTHING like a vaccine is a deliberate LIE, it is an unscientific statement and a disservice in the fight against disease, and news outlets have got to stop repeating it.

It may be true that health "experts" (Experts? WHAT experts? Who are they?) are scrambling to find ways to spread circumcision, but there is absolutely no "study" in the world that can demonstrate that circumcision functions anything like a vaccine.

The worn 60% figure is never addressed. 60% of what? What did the supposed "studies" actually show?

The "studies" supposedly involved 10,908 men, 5,411 of which were circumcised, and 5,497 which were left intact as a "control" group. By the end of the studies, 201 men contracted HIV. The famous 60% figure we hear repeated over and over comes from the comparison of 137 intact men  vs. 64 circumcised men who contracted HIV. This figure quickly shrinks to an insignificant 1.37% however, when we factor in the rest of the 10,707 men who didn't get HIV. Circumcision is being heavily promoted using a ridiculously inflated number, but the New York Times etc. are touting it as gospel truth.

No, even if the "research" were correct, circumcision could not hold a candle to condoms.

Additionally, real world empirical evidence fails to correlate with the WHO's select studies.

Let's continue...
"The goal is to circumcise 20 million African men by 2015, but only about 600,000 have had the operation thus far."

Which raises a few questions. The WHO endorsed these "studies" since 2006, and campaigns such as Soka Uncobe have been blasting the message in Africa for at least a year now.  "Those foreskins are flying," assured Robert Bailey in a past article on the very New York Times. If the programs are being so "successful," how is it that there are efforts to "streamline" circumcision? Have organizers thought of the possibility that they may never even reach one or two million men, let alone 20? That despite all of the "science" and "research" thrown at them, the men may not be interested in having part of their penis cut off? Have they thought of plan B? Have they envisioned a future where HIV might be prevented WITHOUT surgery? Why does it seem like organizers in Africa are more concerned about spreading circumcision, than they are about spreading HIV awareness, and education in the use of condoms, which, even according to "research" would far supersede it?

Aren't organizers concerned that promoting circumcision is going to discourage the use of condoms?

Continuing:
"Even a skilled surgeon takes about 15 minutes, most African countries are desperately short of surgeons, and there is no Mohels Without Borders."

And why on earth would you need RELIGIOUS practitioners of circumcision? What is this effort ACTUALLY about? Aren't circumcision advocates even going to try to conceal their ulterior motives anymore?

The questions continue. KNOWING that surgeons and doctors are in short supply, and that healthcare is needed elsewhere, how is it circumcision advocates insist on exhausting this limited supply? How is it they're not looking for less invasive methods of HIV prevention that are as effective, if not even more so than circumcision?

The article continues:

"So donors are pinning their hopes on several devices now being tested to speed things up."

Or, rather, using WHO endorsement of male genital mutilation as HIV prevention, circumcision device manufactures have managed to secure a piece of the circumcision/HIV pie.

Continuing: 
"Dr. Stefano Bertozzi, director of H.I.V. for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said it had its eyes on two, named PrePex and the Shang Ring, and was supporting efforts by the World Health Organization to evaluate them."

Evaluate? Or endorse?

(And look who is doing the evaluating! None other than David R. Tomlinson, the "chief expert on circumcision" at the WHO, who also just happens to be an inventor of various circumcision devices himself, namely the AccuCirc device.)

Are Bill and Melinda Gates really interested in humanity? Or is this merely a PR endeavor?

The clincher:

"Circumcision is believe[d] to protect heterosexual men because the foreskin has many Langerhans cells, which pick up viruses and “present” them to the immune system — which H.I.V. attacks."

Here we see the New York Times, yet again, trying to merge science with quackery.

HIV most definitely attacks the immune system; this is an observable phenomenon that anyone can see and confirm for themselves. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that the Langerhans cells in the foreskin "picks up" viruses and "presents" them to the immune system.

Actually, scientific evidence proves quite the opposite: Not only do the Langerhans cells act as a natural barrier for HIV, they actually secrete Langerin, which destroys HIV on contact.

de Witte, Lot; Alexey Nabatov, Marjorie Pion, Donna Fluitsma, Marein AW P de Jong, Tanja de Gruijl, Vincent Piguet, Yvette van Kooyk, Teunis B H Geijtenbeek (2007-03-04). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" (PDF). Nature Medicine. doi: 10.1038/nm1541. http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf.

The claim that the Langerhans cells facilitate HIV transmission is categorically false.

The New York Times is "picking up" and "presenting" deliberate scientific falsehoods to the American public.

Let it be clear:

The idea that circumcision prevents male heterosexual HIV transmission is a belief; a belief that cannot be scientifically demonstrated. A "decrease" in HIV transmission can be "observed" in three hopelessly flawed, heavily skewed "studies" that fail to correlate with real world empirical evidence. That this "decrease" was indeed caused by circumcision, however, is a far-fetched belief that "researchers" have yet to substantiate. "Researchers" are trying to frame their cherished beliefs and traditions in "research," and that's not science.

The article continues:
"PrePex, invented in 2009 by four Israelis after one of them, a urologist, heard an appeal for doctors to do circumcisions in Africa, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration three weeks ago. The W.H.O. will make a decision on it soon, said Mitchell Warren, an AIDS-prevention expert who closely follows the process."

The inventors of the PrePex device are of Israeli origin which brings into question their true motives. The Jerusalem AIDS Project (JAIP) created Operation Abraham, which is an organization whose sole purpose is to promote circumcision any which way it can. They too have used the WHO's endorsement to travel all over the world to promote circumcision. Are they truly interested in public health? Or are they interested in safeguarding and promoting a religious ritual which is ever under scrutiny? Or is this purely an endeavor to cash in on the opportunity?

The PrePex plug piece continues:
"From the initial safety studies done so far, PrePex is clearly faster, less painful and more bloodless than any of its current rivals. And it relies on the simplest and least-threatening technology — a rubber band.

The band compresses the foreskin against a plastic ring slipped inside it; the foreskin dies within hours for lack of blood and, after a week, falls off or can be clipped off “like a fingernail,” said Tzameret Fuerst, the company’s chief executive officer, who compared the process to the stump of an umbilical cord’s shriveling up and dropping off a few days after it is clamped."

Again, this is hardly innovative; the PrePex is nothing but a glorified tourniquet device. A number of other devices use the exact same principle of cutting off blood circulation to the foreskin, including the TaraKlamp, the Smartklamp, the Ismail Clamp, the Zhenxi Ring and the Shang-ring before it.

"Like a fingernail" is an attempt to trivialize the foreskin. Any part of the body will shrivel up and die if you cut off circulation to it. Unlike the foreskin, or any other part of the body, fingernails are a dead part of the body, and don't need to be tied off to cut off circulation before trimming them. The umbilical cord does not need to be tied off either, as it too is a dead part of the body which will eventually shrivel up and fall off on its own.

Focus on PrePex

I'd like to zero in on this Tzameret Fuerst woman. Who is she? Why is she so enthusiastic about circumcision? Particularly this new "PrePex" device? And why does it seem like she's more excited about getting millions circumcised, than she is about HIV prevention? Why is the fact that, even if "studies" were correct, circumcision is not "100% effective" an afterthought?

If my presumptions are correct, she is the wife of Oren Fuerst, co-inventor of this device. Millions of men circumcised means that millions of PrePex devices will be bought and used. She's cashing in on the HIV gravy train, and that's why she's so enthused.

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

Continues the PrePex ad:
It is done with topical anesthetic cream, and there is usually no bleeding. And PrePex can be put in place and removed by nurses with about three days’ training.

All really irrelevant afterthoughts... If there is no scientific proof that circumcision prevents HIV, and even given the "evidence" condoms still do a far better job, what does the minimalization and the simplicity of the procedure even matter...

The rings come in five sizes, A through E, Ms. Fuerst said, “and you won’t believe how high-tech the rubber band is.”

She's right! I don't!

"Each size must apply just enough pressure to cut off blood flow without being tight enough to cause pain"

Fuerst, does PrePex have an AIDS prevention method that DOESN'T involve cutting off part of my penis, please?

Continuing...
"The W.H.O., Mr. Warren said, is also evaluating the Shang Ring, a plastic two-ring clamp developed in China to treat conditions in which the foreskin becomes so tight that it cuts off urination."

And here we see the injection of a condition which necessitates circumcision, and another device that facilitates it. Are we even going to be given a scientific explanation as to what these "conditions" are? If they actually cut off urination, and they actually need circumcision viz Shang Ring?

What is the name of the condition where the foreskin becomes so tight it cuts off urination? What causes it? Is circumcision the only option? More gratuitous promulgation of non-science.

Moving forward:
"However, it requires cutting off the excess foreskin beyond the clamp, which means the circumciser must inject anesthetics directly into the penis and groin, wait for them to take effect, create a sterile surgical field and be trained in minor surgery."

“The Shang is not as fast, but it’s faster than full-fledged surgery,” Mr. Warren said. “And it hasn’t submitted as much safety data."

"In a safety study presented at an AIDS conference last month, scientists from Rwanda’s health ministry said they had used PrePex to circumcise 590 men. Only two had “moderate” complications; one was fixed with a single suture, and one required a new band in a different spot."

All useless information that draws attention more and more away from whether or not circumcision actually prevents anything... I'm sure with just the right amount of "research" one could invent a device that facilitates the extraction of the labia with only "moderate" complications...

Or better yet, come up with an actual solution that doesn't involve genital mutilation...

Continuing on: 
"According to Dr. Jason Reed, an epidemiologist in the global AIDS division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 of 590, or 0.34 percent, is a tenth the typical complication rate of surgical circumcision."

More statistics to blind the reader with. That's 2 out of 590 in a controlled study. What does that look like for the rest of Africa outside of the scientific environment? And what does this figure look like at 20,000,000 men? One in 295 men will suffer complications. Over 20,000,000 men that these people plan to circumcise, that's about 67,800 men who will suffer complications.

And that's *if* the people writing these "studies" were writing the truth. Remember, they're trying to MARKET their device.

I'm also being kind in assuming that all 20,000,000 African men will have undergone circumcision using the PrePex device; surgery will still be used, and, given the WHO green light, tribes will continue to circumcise youth and men traditionally. The number of complications is going to exceed 70,000, as will the number of iatrogenic HIV transmission. (In Africa, visiting a health center in and of itself is a risk for HIV. Is Daniel McNeil Jr. not aware of this fact?)

All of this, when HIV can already be easily and effectively prevented via education and condoms???

There is another lie that Jason Reed is trying to slip by here; that 0.34 percent is a "tenth" of the typical complication rate of surgical circumcision.

What kind of circumcision could Jason Reed possibly be referring to? Adult circumcision? Child circumcision? What is being counted as a "complication?"

There are reasons to believe that CDC statistics on circumcision in the United States is flawed, namely that they report "zero deaths" when intactivists have a long list of deaths documented. They report an infinitesimally small number of "complications," when we have reports that botched circumcisions have been on the rise for the past few years. Is the CDC telling the truth? Or are they circumcising it?

Instead of investigating, the New York Times takes Reed's presentation of CDC statistics at face value. Let's hear it for American journalism!

Continuing:

"None of the men became infected."

That's great! Does circumcision prevent HIV? Is it even relevant in light of HIV prevention methods which already supersede it?

Continuing:
"On the 10-point pain scale, they reported [a]n average [of] only about 1 when the ring was placed and only 3 when it was removed (about the same level of pain caused by erections during the week they wore it).

By the end of the study, the two-nurse teams could do a procedure in three minutes.

By contrast, Dr. Reed said, the best surgical “assembly lines” — a practice being pioneered in Africa with American taxpayer support — can get down to seven minutes per patient, but only by getting six nurses and a surgeon into a tight harmony."

"Looking busy" is but a distraction from the main points:

Does circumcision prevent HIV? Even if it did, even if the science were correct, is it even worth it in light of less invasive, more effective methods of prevention that already exist? Is it ethical to promote deliberate genital mutilation in the name of "research" and "public health?" Would we ever promote female circumcision if we had the same "research" to support it? What if it could be made "painless" or "bloodless?" What if we could make it so it doesn't decrease a woman's sexuality? Would we consider female circumcision then?

Continuing:
"In theory, he said, breaking that into three two-nurse PrePex teams could mean circumcising around 400 men a day, rather than the 60 to 80 a busy team now does. And the surgeon could go do something more important."

That's assuming 400 men a day would indeed line up to get circumcised. Many programs, such as Soca Uncobe, have completely missed their mark.

Or, instead of spending millions of dollars on needless devices, instead of emburdening surgeons with a time-consuming, needless procedure to mutilate the genitals of millions of men, they could be spending money on condoms and sex education, which, even if the "science" were correct, is worlds more effective. HIV transmission could be decreased WITHOUT genital mutilation, WITHOUT the need for these ridiculous devices. Men could keep their organs, condoms and sex education would prevent HIV in both men and women, and no time, money or energy has to be wasted on a dubious form of "prevention."

Continuing: 
"In fact, Dr. Reed said, American AIDS dollars for circumcisions often go toward an operating room with lights and an instrument sterilizer. Instead of circumcisions, hospitals are more likely to use it for procedures like saving women in obstructed labor"

"Which is understandable — of course that takes precedence,” he said. “But then the circumcisions don’t get done."

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It doesn't make any sense to be spending millions on genital mutilation, when, even if the science is correct, would fail to live up to a condom. It doesn't make sense that there are other, more important issues to address; healthcare in general, mother-to-child HIV transmission, food, water, etc., and "experts" like Reed are more concerned that money isn't wastefully being spent on circumcision, for which there is already cheaper, less invasive, more effective ways to prevent HIV.

What is this all about? Is this about healthcare? HIV prevention?

Or is this purely about circumcision?

Some "experts" need to get their priorities straight.

Continuing:

"Robert C. Bailey, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who helped design Kenya’s circumcision efforts, opposes timesaving devices because training nurses in minor surgery has other benefits, he said. A trained nurse could close a wound or take out an appendix, for example. And the time-consuming parts of the process are counseling and H.I.V. testing, Dr. Bailey said, so 'doing it in five minutes instead of 20 is trivial.'

"But he conceded, 'If PrePex really doesn’t require anesthesia, that’s truly an advance.'"

This part of the article is a bit confusing, and I'm not sure I understand it myself.

First off, am I to understand that nurses are being trained in surgery OTHER than circumcision? But furthermore, am I to understand that circumcision is being used as an "opportunity" for counseling and HIV testing? Couldn't circumcision simply be skipped and men could be given counseling and HIV testing directly? Or are intact men simply incapable of receiving these things?

Imagine, for a moment, a dentist using a total tooth extraction as a pretext to hand people information on oral hygiene and dental care. But his patients still have to use false dentures.

Imagine the converse. What if we started offering circumcision to the women so that doctors can then “take the opportunity” to tell them about better hygiene practices and sex education?

The million dollar question is, since when does a man need surgery to learn how to wash his penis and use a condom properly? Does not being circumcised somehow impede a man’s learning of these concepts? Does not being circumcised somehow nullify the protective effect of condoms?

The article continues:
"Rwanda is training 150 two-nurse teams; it is a small country, but it serves as a bellwether for Africa because its health care system is well organized, government corruption scandals are rare, and it is heavily supported by donor funds."

Rwanda is also a country where HIV has been shown to be more prevalent amongst the CIRCUMCISED. According to a demographic health survey taken in 2005,  the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8% vs 2.1%.

And, incidentally, according to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Rwanda. (In America, 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth.) The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C., March 15, 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." Hader once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.

Somehow, though, something tells me that the New York Times is not going to publish this part of the story.

The PrePex ad continues:

"Other, rival devices are not far along in safety testing or are failing it."

Hint hint... it's the PrePex, everyone!

"The Tara KLamp, manufactured in Malaysia since the 1990s, has created controversy in South Africa. It is a hinged plastic bracket the size of a small drinking cup. A plastic tube goes over the head of the penis, and the foreskin is pulled up it and painfully crushed by the bracket. Then the whole contraption must be worn at least five days. A 2005 clinical trial in South Africa was stopped early after the device caused far more injuries and infections than surgery did."

It is essentially the same exact contraption as the PrePex, and follows the exact same mechanism and principle of cutting off circulation to the foreskin, thereby facilitating its excision. Rest assured, though readers, the PrePex is the better design.

But again, a man needs a PrePex likes a fish needs a bicycle.

Continuing:

 "The national health ministry has banned it in most of South Africa, but it is still used heavily in KwaZulu-Natal Province, which has the country’s highest AIDS rate and where the Zulu king, Goodwill Zwelithini, reversing 200 years of tradition, ordered that all Zulu men circumcised. 

The W.H.O. knows about the stopped trial and is not considering the KLamp, Mr. Warren said."

Oh thank heavens! They don't seem to be too concerned that non-authorized devices and circumcision methods are being used in their name, though.

One must wonder as to the relevance of the Zulu king anecdote; is the author more concerned with HIV prevention, or with "reversing 200 years of tradition?" This really shows you where his heart actually is.

Reed continues:
"Dr. Reed said he had heard that another device, Ali’s Klamp, was being tested in Kenya under protocols that seemed to match W.H.O. requirements. According to Circlist.com, a circumcision information Web site, it is a Turkish device dating to 2007, and works on principles similar to those of the Tara KLamp and another device, the SmartKlamp, approved by the F.D.A. in 2004."

For all intents and purposes, all of these devices are essentially the same. They all function under the exact same principle of cutting circulation off to the foreskin. The PrePex is simply a different design.

Now, I'd like to take the time to correct a horrific error that this article commits, and that is present circlist.com as a mere "cirumcision web site."

What is Circlist? What do they do?
Circlist is a circumfetishist organization. A circumfetishist is someone who has a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, and/or derives sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself. The Circlist organization has a website and discussion group for men who sexually fantasize about performing and receiving circumcisions, often on small children. Circlist members openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision, to the point of being a sado-masochistic fetish. Circlist has been long known to intactivists as a meeting place for circumfetishists, where they discuss the erotic thrill they experience from watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction and non-fictional stories about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions. They are a fetishistic organization comparable to NAMBLA, and yet, here they are, being given credibility on the New York Times.

The fact that Circlist is being used as a reference in this piece, even though it doesn't rely on them for any facts, demonstrates how uninterested the New York Times is in logic and ethics. The site’s inclusion with a direct link to it is absolutely shameful. What a sick, disgusting shame that Daniel McNeil Jr. of the New York Times has decided to quote them as any kind of reliable resource.

SHAME on you, Daniel McNeil Jr. for daring to give publicity to this sick, disgusting group in the New York Times.

On to the end:

"PrePex was cleared by the F.D.A. because it was judged “substantially equivalent” to the SmartKlamp, Ms. Fuerst said. Proving equivalence in safety to an approved device is the fastest way to get approval, she said..."

Which seems to be her actual main concern...

"...although the technology is quite different."

No, the technology is the same, and it's rather old.

And finally:
PrePex’s ultimate cost is still being negotiated with donor agencies and foundations, Ms. Fuerst said, but may end up in the $15-to-$20 range, about the same as a surgical circumcision kit.

Let's see, at 20,000,000 men, that's $300,000,000 at minimum, and $4,000,000,000 at most.

For a useless, extraneous device looking for a purpose, not bad.

Not bad at all.

Closing comments
The "science" behind this massive effort to stuff circumcision down African people's throats is horrendously flawed. Why news outlets simply publish lies without questioning their validity is perplexing. A question that I keep encountering on the blogosphere is "Whatever happened to actual journalism?" But that's a different discussion for another blog post.

Even IF we lent any credibility to the latest twaddle some people dare to call "science," we have got to ask, why is the solution always circumcision?

Contrary to what is published here in the New York Times, there is actually no demonstrable scientific proof that the Langerhans cells "pick up viruses and "present" them to the immune system." But let's just assume just for a moment, that the claims were true. Let's just assume for a moment, that the Langergans cells, as they claim, "presents HIV to the immune system."

Is there any reason why the so-called "researchers" aren't looking for ways to deactivate Langerhans cells, as opposed to cutting them off?

Is there any reason why PrePex is not looking for non-destructive ways to prevent HIV transmission, and instead facilitating male circumcision which just happens to be a cherished tradition in their own country of origin?

Let's ask other questions. Assuming the Langerhans cells behave the way circumcision advocates claim, is there a reason why "researchers," PREPEX etc. aren't looking into FEMALE CIRCUMCISION? It is irrefutable scientific fact that Langerhans cells are found in the genital mucosa in BOTH sexes. If the Langerhans cells "facilitate" HIV transmission for men, then it would also do so for women. Circumcision, would only be offering "benefit" to men; women would still be vulnerable to the viral load in semen.

Which raises the question:

How is it conscionable to be spending millions of dollars on the promotion of an alternative to the most conclusively effective mode of HIV prevention known to us?

Why aren't the WHO, PEPFAR, PrePex etc. worried at all that the promotion of male circumcision is going to result in the grossest of violation of the most basic of human rights?

The Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or "research" is still genital mutilation.

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?

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.