Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

UPDATE: Now with graphical representations (2/24/2013).

I had already published a post titled "Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV." Readers can see to the left, it ranks 5th as one of my most popular posts.

I recently had a conversation with one Juan Pistolas (an online intactivist persona) concerning HIV transmission rates in Mexico. It was touched off by an article I posted on my Facebook wall, titled "Sexually transmitted infection epidemic ravaging the US", to highlight the fact that having a primarily circumcised male population (over 80%, according to Dr. Schoen), most of which are men who are circumcised from birth, has not helped in the US.

It is often touted by circumcision advocates that circumcision reduces the transmission of STDs. The fact is that STD transmission rates are higher here, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare.

Juan wanted to tell me that American intactivists always point to Europe as a prime example, but that we always seem to forget our Mexican brother to the south.

I couldn't understand what he was talking about. I had always assumed that Mexico would be a poor example, with a high HIV transmission rate, being a third world country.

He replied:

"That's the problem with the majority of persons that believes that just because a third world country is cataloged as such, in this case Mexico, then they automatically assume the country lacks of everything. Hollywood movies have created false stereotypes of many cultures and countries in the world that people adopt as truth, when many times is quite the contrary.

In Mexico we may not have a super infrastructure like the US or Europe has, but despite that, we have a much more less rate of HIV. Much less.

Also, in Mexico you can have access to free condoms if any person goes to any government health clinic and request a few. Of course they aren't Trojans or Sico's, but free condoms are given. We also have free access to sex education in these same health clinics. Just go, see schedules or make an appointment."

I couldn't believe what he was saying.

I wanted numbers.

Enter the CIA World Factbook.

The intactivist organization Saving Our Sons had also just recently published an article titled "HIV in the Circumcised U.S. Up to 500% Higher than Intact Nations," which was no surprise to me, as I had already known for the longest time that the US had the highest rate of HIV transmission in the industrialized world, despite its high prevalence of male circumcision. I had already known that knowing the truth was simply a matter of looking at HIV transmission rates around the world, but I had never actually sat down to look through them. I saw in this article, for the first time, where exactly the US stood as compared to other nations in terms of HIV transmission.

So touched off by Juan's comments, and remembering that I had just recently read the Saving Our Son's article referencing the CIA World Factbook, I decided to look through it to see where Mexico stood.

Sure enough, while America hovers at No. 64, Mexico is way below at No. 79.

I couldn't believe it.

Mexico?

Really?

But I started seeing other countries which also fell well below America, countries that I would expect to have terrible HIV transmission rates, and I was floored.

Juan provided his own source IndexMundi.

Juan's source, though, does not list countries by percentage of HIV prevalence, but by actual numbers of people living with AIDS. Doing this shifts the order around quite a bit.

For example, reporting Swaziland's HIV prevalence rate by percentage (25.90%) puts it at No.1 in the CIA Factbook. But looking at the actual number of people living with HIV puts it way below. In fact, many African countries fall below the US when actual numbers of people living with HIV are compared.

I began to make observations that I thought should be posted in this blog.

HIV prevalence rates and circumcision rates in other countries
I started talking to another online intactivist acquaintance to whom I shall refer using his online persona, "dreamer," about what I saw in the CIA factbook. He suggested we look up the rate of circumcision prevalence of these countries, to see what countries with a lower HIV transmission rate than the US have high and/or low circumcision prevalence rates.

He suggested we look at the Wikipedia page on world circumcision prevalence, a suggestion with which I was rather hesitant, because Wikipedia users with a pro-circumcision bias have made circumcision-related pages at Wikipedia unreliable. I went along because I couldn't think of a better source.

Even going with Wikipedia numbers, what we found kept blowing our minds.

Using adult HIV prevalence rates from the CIA Factbook, and circumcision prevalence rates in Wikipedia, dreamer created a spreadsheet that maps out countries by circumcision and HIV prevalence rates.

We were able to see what countries had higher and lower HIV prevalence rates than the US, and which of those had high and low circumcision prevalence rates.

Why the US?
Why should the US be used as any sort of benchmark?

Because America is the driving force behind the resolve to circumcise Africa, and the drive to circumcise boys and men in cultures within its own population that do not practice circumcision. American doctors, "researchers," medical organizations and charity funds are currently placing much time, effort and precious funds in trying to make circumcision prevalence levels as high as ours.

With an adult circumcision prevalence rate of 80% or greater, the United States should serve as a prime example of the "benefits" of circumcision, or lack thereof.

As highlighted on Saving Our Sons, American circumcision "researchers" keep trying to use fear-mongering tactics to shore up support for circumcision, and to get administrators of state Medicaid programs who have stopped paying for routine male infant circumcision to change their minds.

In a recent "study," it was claimed by "researchers" at Johns Hopkins that if circumcision rates drop to the level seen in Europe, that there would be a 12% increase in HIV cases in men.

Comparing HIV/circumcision statistics between the United States and Europe, one must wonder how exactly did the "researchers" arrive at their conclusion.

Researchers claim that that circumcision cuts HIV transmission rates by 55 to 65 percent, based on three African trials. Promoters of circumcision in Swalizand (with funding from PEFPAR and others) seek to circumcise 80% of the male population as a step towards the United Nations goal of zero new HIV infections by 2020. Similarly, the W.H.O. in concert with the U.N., the World Bank, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and several other very well funded and influential N.G.Os (including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), with visible leadership from Hillary Clinton, are funding, supporting and administering a multinational effort to circumcise over 28 million men in Sub Saharan Africa by 2015.

An increased rate of HIV transmission and/or prevalence should be expected in non-circumcising countries, and a decreased rate in circumcising countries, but this is simply not observed.

The following are observations from the CIA World Factbook, and circumcision prevalence rates as found in Wikipedia.


How many countries have a higher HIV prevalence than the US? What are the circumcision rates in these countries?
There are 63 countries with a higher HIV rate than the US. Of these, 26 countries are primarily circumcising countries (e.g., have a circumcision rate over 80%). 26 countries have a low circumcision rate (eg, have a circumcision rate under 20%).

Observation: The number of primarily circumcising countries, and countries with a low circumcision rate, that have a higher HIV prevalence than the US, is about the same. (26 vs. 26)

How many countries have a lower HIV prevalence than the US? What are the circumcision rates in these countries?
There are 102 countries with a lower HIV rate than the US. Of these, 30 countries are primarily circumcising countries (e.g. have a circumcision rate over 80%). 53 countries have a low circumcision rate (have a circumcision rate under 20%).

Observation: The number of countries with a circumcision rate under 20%, and a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US, is greater than the number of circumcising countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US. The number of circumcising countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US, is lesser than the number of intact countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US. (53 vs 30)

HIV prevalence is lower in the US, where 80% of the adult male population is circumcised from birth, than 26 countries where circumcision is rare (circumcision rate is under 20%), but higher than 56 countries where circumcision is rare.

How many other countries in the world have a high circumcision rate? Is HIV prevalence higher, or lower than the US, where circumcision prevalence is high?

56 countries other than the United States have circumcision rates greater than 80%; HIV is more prevalent than the US in 26 of these countries, while less prevalent in 30 of them.

Observation: Of the countries where the circumcision rate exceeds 80%, the number of countries where HIV prevalence is lower than that of the US, is in fact greater than the number of countries  where HIV prevalence is higher than the US.

In other words, there are more circumcising countries with a HIV prevalence rate lower than the US, than there are circumcising countries with a higher HIV prevalence rate. (30 to 26)

The US does better than 26 circumcising countries, but worse than 30.

How many countries in the world have a low circumcision rate? Is HIV prevalence higher, or lower than the US, where circumcision prevalence is high?
79 countries in the world have circumcision rates under 20%. Of these, 26 have a higher HIV prevalence rate than the US, and 56 have a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US.

Observation: Of the countries where the circumcision rate falls below 20%, the number of countries where with a lower prevalence rate than the US is greater than the number of countries with a higher prevalence rate than the US.

The number of countries where the circumcision rate falls below 20% and the HIV prevalence rates are lower than the US, far exceeds the number of countries where the circumcision rate is greater than 80% and HIV prevalence rates are lower than the US. (53 to 30)

In other words, there are more countries where circumcision is rare, and have a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US, than there are circumcising countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US.

Countries where circumcision rates exceed 80%, and HIV is more prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Kenya, Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, The Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Chad, Togo, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia, Angola, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Benin

Observation: These are all African countries.

Countries where circumcision rates exceed 80%, and HIV is less prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Libya, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Israel, Bahrain, Iran, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Quatar, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan

Observation: Many of these countries are countries in the Middle East, where Islam is prevalent and children are circumcised as a matter of religious practice.

Countries where circumcision rates fall below 20%, and HIV is more prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Swaziland, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Namibia, Malawi, Burundi, Rwanda, Belize, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, Estonia, Guyana, Ukraine, Russia, Papua New Guinea, Dominican Republic, Panama, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Latvia, Burma, Portugal

Observation: The majority of countries in the first row are African countries. A good number of these countries lie along the Caribbean Sea. European countries are rare and appear sporadically.

Countries where circumcision fall 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

Observation: 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. Colombia and Costa Rica border Panama, which falls above the US in HIV prevalence, yet, they have a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US. Similarly, Nicaragua borders both Honduras and El Salvador, where HIV prevalence rates are higher than the US.

I expected countries to the south of the United States, have a high prevalence of HIV. I was surprised to find Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, and Bolivia in this number.

Observe how low many of these countries fall along the list as well.

Problems With This Analysis
One of the problems with this analysis is the way circumcision percentages are reported on Wikipedia. They are reported on three major ranges, which are "less than 20%," "between 20 and 80%," and "above 80%." The problem with a range between 20% and 80% is that a country may have a circumcision rate of 21% or 79%. Additionally, percentages could hide relevant numbers.

In Lesotho, for example, 23% of adult men are circumcised, so it falls within that "between 20 and 80%" range. Promoters of circumcision may try to make an example of Lesotho, because it ranks number 3 in the CIA fact book, with an HIV prevalence rate of 23.6%. Closer analysis, however, reveals that, actually, HIV  is more prevalent among the circumcised. (The ratio of circumcised men vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 22.8 vs 15.2, according to the latest demographic health survey.)

Malawi is yet another country circumcision promoters might try to make an example of, with its rank of No. 9 in the CIA fact book (11% HIV prevalence rate), and its circumcision rate below 20%. Here too, HIV is more prevalent amongst the circumcised. (The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 13.2 vs 9.5, according to this demographic health survey.)

Rwanda is further down on the CIA fact book at No. 25, with an HIV prevalence rate of 2.9%. The low circumcision rate (less than 20%) makes Rwanda fodder for circumcision advocates, however here too, HIV  is actually more prevalent among the circumcised. (The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8 vs 2.1, according to this demographic health survey.)

Circumcision advocates are trying to make Swaziland their ultimate example, ranking No. 1 in the CIA fact book, with an HIV prevalence rate of 25.9%, and a circumcision rate that falls below 20%. What they fail to report is the fact that, yet again, HIV was actually found to be more prevalent among the circumcised. (See this demographic health survey.)

Tanzania’s circumcision rate is listed as being “between 20 and 80,” but this hides a circumcision rate of 69%. It ranks No. 12 in the CIA fact book, with an HIV transmission rate of 5.3%. And here again, HIV was more prevalent among the circumcised. (See chart here.)

Malaysia’s circumcision rate is listed as being “between 20 and 80.” However, it is a known fact that approximately 60% of the Malaysian population is Muslim, where close to 100% of the men are circumcised (circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community). According to MalaysianAIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims, which means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.

It would appear that The Philippines is a model country for promoters of circumcision. It ranks No. 147 in the CIA fact book, and a circumcision rate of over 80%. (The majority of the male population is circumcised, as it is seen as an important rite of passage.) In the 2010 GlobalAIDS report released by UNAIDS, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh (another circumcising country, No. 112 in the CIA Factbook) are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.

Conclusion

Researchers in Africa claim that circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV by 60%. They purport to have discovered a lower rate of HIV transmission in the circumcised men in their "studies." These studies were used by the WHO to endorse circumcision as a prevention measure for HIV, and are currently being used to instate "mass circumcision campaigns" in different countries in Africa, where HIV transmission rates are high, but circumcision rates are low.

These include countries where HIV is more prevalent among the circumcised!

Real world data reveals, however, that results from studies do not necessarily correlate with reality.

An analysis of data from the CIA Factbook, and circumcision rates as reported on Wikipedia reveals that a population where the majority of males are circumcised does not necessarily translate to a lowered rate of HIV transmission. A circumcision rate of 80% or greater does not necessarily equate to a lowered rate of HIV transmission, and a low circumcision rate does not necessarily mean that HIV will run rampant.

Further analysis reveals that just because a nation has both a low circumcision, and a high HIV transmission rate, this doesn't necessarily mean more men with foreskins have HIV; the majority of men with HIV may in fact be circumcised.

If circumcision is such a great way to prevent HIV, why isn't it obvious in this country? Why does America have an HIV transmission rate that is far greater than a good number of nations where circumcision prevalence is low? Why is it at the top of a list of 30 countries where circumcision prevalence high? What about all these other countries that are supposed to be "inferior" to us, and have both low circumcision AND an HIV prevalence rates? And why aren't "researchers" interested in what's happening there? Perhaps such countries are doing something that we aren't to keep HIV transmission low, but it seems "researchers" aren't that interested.

It needs to be explained how something that never worked in this country, is going to suddenly start working miracles in Africa. America should start fixing its own HIV problem before pretending like they can go to other countries and try to solve theirs.

My thanks to  Juan Pistolas and dreamer for their great help and inspiration for this blog post.

CIRCUMGATE: UK Circumfetish Czar Finally Caught Red-Handed

Intactivists had known about about Vernon Quaintance and  Gilgal Society for years. Intactivist groups had been trying to warn British authorities about this man and his activity, but it seemed this was a hot potato they wanted nothing of. And now, it looks like our prayers have been answered. According to this source, it looks like Vernon Quaintance has been finally caught in his tracks!

Who is Vernon Quaintance?

Why is this event significant? To all intactivists in the know, Vernon Quaintance is circumcision fetishist extraordinaire. The Gilgal Society is the worldwide NAMBLA of circumcision fetishism, and Vernon Quaintance is/was the head. Aside from heading the Gilgal Society, Vernon Quaintance was also a moderator at Circlist, another social group for circumcision enthusiasts, which has been around since the dawn of the internet, as well as a member of Acorn Society, another group of exactly the same nature. He was also a writer of erotic stories that include graphic descriptions of circumcising young boys while others masturbate.

The following is a piece of poetry written by Vernon Quaintance himself:

Decision
Some people claim that foreskins are fun
And keep the 'muzzle' on the gun.
But many doctors do declare;
'It's healthier with the glans laid bare'
So, mum & dad, we say to you,
You must decide what's best to do,
Your son will benefit throughout his life,
As, incidentally, will his wife;
If you make the choice that's always wise
and do decide to circumcise.

(It must be noted, that the above prose was quoted by none other than Professor Brian J. Morris in the October 2007 issue of HPV Today, pages 12-13, who is also a prominent advocate of circumcision, particularly infant circumcision, a prolific author of circumcision "studies" and "appraisals," and also happens to be a very proud and prominent member of Gilgal Society.)

Correction:
The poetry does NOT appear in the article on HPV Today. However Brian Morris still attributes it to Vernon Quaintance on his website, here. (Last accessed 4/23/2012)

Vernon Quaintance is also the owner of circinfo.com as well as gilgalsociety.org, websites which glorify circumcision and try to sound authoritative on the subject. The following quotes can be found on his website:

"Like the appendix, the foreskin is a remnant from our evolutionary past and now serves no essential purpose. Unlike the appendix, which is buried deep inside the abdomen, the foreskin is easily and safely removed as a preventative measure."

"An additional hazard of having a redundant foreskin is the ease with which it can get caught in a zipper. Many women complain of a lack of stimulation because a long or tight foreskin can stick to the walls of the vagina..." 

It is now irrefutable that he has further interests in circumcision and youth than just public health.

Caught Red-handed

According to this source, police raided Quaintance's home on April 11 of last year, after receiving a tip-off. Movies seized included graphic footage of child abuse, which ranked at the second-highest level of severity. Of the five tapes seized, three were found to contain indecent images. They comprise a total of seven to nine hours. The children were estimated to be between 11 and 16 years old.

According to the report, Quaintance claims to have been celibate his whole life, and that he gained no sexual gratification of any kind from the videotapes, something the judge has a hard time believing, considering the fact that he had kept the videotapes found in his possession up until today.

Intactivists have known of this man's antics for years, and are relieved to hear he has finally been caught in his tracks. We can already guess what was on those videotapes.

What is Gilgal Society?

There are those on the Internet who have a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, and/or derive sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself. Some call them circumfetishists. They gather in groups to discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap erotic fiction and trade videotapes of actual circumcisions, and justify circumcision and their enthusiasm for it by wrapping it in pseudo-scientific jargon. Gilgal Society is one such group, based in the UK.

Other circumfetish groups exist, such as Circlist, Acorn Society, and the Cutting Club, and they openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masochistic fetish. These groups advertise that doctors are among their members. Furthermore, there are anecdotal accounts of doctors becoming sexually aroused when circumcising boys. Circumcision certainly provides an opportunity not only to handle boys' penises without the condemnation that a sexual assault (in the sense that phrase is normally used) would attract, but also the opportunity to exercise power over another human being, to alter the penis and to control it and the boy's future sexual life.

(The paragraph above is an excerpt from "In Male and Female Circumcision, Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice," Denniston GC, Hodges FM and Milos MF eds., Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999, New York; 425-454)

Gilgal Erotica

A piece of erotica published by Gilgal Society can be read here.

Readers who have the stomach to read to the very end will find:

"-- Acknowledgements to VQ"

These initials belong to Vernon Quaintance.

The Plot Thickens

Vernon Quaintance is only the beginning. It ought to concern people that many prominent "circumcision experts" are members of, or closely associated with Gilgal Society, and/or other circumfetish groups. It ought to concern people that, groups such as Gilgal Society and Circlist are being referred to as respectable authorities on circumcision. Very recently, the New York Times actually dared to cite Circlist as an actual resource on circumcision.

Some circumcision "experts" would like their audience to believe that they are "objective," "impartial," and/or "dispassionate" authorities on the matter of circumcision, when, in fact, they are passionate circumcision enthusiasts, quite a few who are members of circumfetish groups, such as mentioned above.

Brian Morris

Brian Morris of the University of Sydney, Australia, is one of these individuals. Brian Morris is the most vocal circumcision promoter in Australia. Brian Morris is no expert on circumcision (though he likes to market himself as one, and the Australian media has swallowed the act, hook, line and sinker), but merely an enthusiastic circumcision fanatic of long standing. He neither holds degrees (nor genuine interests) in surgery, urology, pediatrics, nor epidemiology, and his field of study is only remotely related to medicine (he is a molecular biologist and professor of molecular medical sciences). He is in no way an authority on circumcision, much less male genitalia, child care, nor disease prevention.

And yet, Morris is constantly producing publications for parents compelling them to circumcise their children, and the Australian media is constantly giving him the spotlight, oftentimes uncontested by any real authority on the matter. Furthermore, he is a prolific publisher of "studies" and "appraisals" of circumcision, which are basically Brian Morris quoting himself, and repeating inconclusive or flawed circumcision "research," and calling for the RACP to instate "mandatory circumcision" for all males in Australia.

Morris is also an outspoken member of Gilgal Society, and his name can be found in pamphlets, alongside the Gilgal Society logo. Two such publications can be seen here, and here. In one paper he wrote regarding circumcision devices, which was published in Biomedical Engineering, he actually collaborates with Circlist (methinks he invited them on-board his project), as if they were any sort of reliable authority on circumcision. I wonder if the University of Sydney is aware that their name is being used by Brian Morris to give himself, and the groups he associates with, an air of authority in the literature he writes.

Brian Morris also runs a website which he uses to promote circumcision. He does his best to market the website as a legitimate circumcision resource, but upon closer inspection, is really no different than Circlist's website. His website was at one point hosted on University of Sydney servers, but he was recently asked to move it elsewhere, as the University of Sydney found content on it that was inappropriate. We believe that the inappropriate content was a picture of a naked child, with a folding cellphone clamped onto his foreskin, dangling from the end of his penis, on the humor section of his website. (Be warned, it is rather tasteless, if not off-putting.) Clearly, an adult put the cell phone there and took the picture. The picture seems to still be there. (Accessed 4/22/2012) Brian Morris links to Gilgal Society, as well as eight other "recommended" circumfetish websites and he also includes a list of places to get circumcision devices. (For an in depth analysis of Brian Morris' website, go here.)

Circumcision Tourism

Morris has gone as far as Africa to satisfy his morbid obsession.

Brian Morris Watching Masai Boys During Circumcision Ritual in Kenya, 1989

I have some wonderful photographs of a group of Masai boys in their early teens that I met in Kenya in 1989 dressed in their dark circumcision robes, with white feathers as headwear, and white painted facial decoration that stood out against their very black skin. Each wore a pendant that was the razor blade used for their own circumcision. The ceremony that they had gone through is a special part of their tribal culture and was very important to these boys, who were proud to show that they were now ‘men’. In other cultures it is associated with preparation for marriage and as a sign of entry into manhood.

What's interesting is that on many occasions Brian Morris has accused intactivists of having a fetish for the foreskin. One of Morris' most prominent traits is his incorrigible projection. The trash he talks of human rights activists against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is true of himself!!!

Jake Waskett

Robin to Brian Morris' Batman, intactivists have been keeping an eye on Jake Waskett for a few years now, and we know him to be a circumfetishist who got himself circumcised in adulthood to fulfill a childhood fantasy. We have him on record confessing this to none other than Vernon Quaintance himself:

FROM: Jake H. Waskett 

TO: Vernon Quaintance 

SUBJECT: Circed at last

Hi Vernon
Thank you!
Yes, I recall our correspondence. I find it difficult to believe that I would regret something that I've regretted *not* having done since age 5!
...
 --Yahoo Circlist. Message #26333, 2003 July 30th

Waskett has since latched onto the idea that circumcision of healthy individuals, both infant and adult, can be justified by citing enough scientific "research."

Intactivists have saved records of him exchanging on Circlist. He is also known to lurk on parenting forums and news commentary threads, trying to convince parents to circumcise their children (examples here and here), citing all the usual "research," when we know for a fact that his true interests lie elsewhere.

Despite what is publicly known about him, Jake likes to portray himself as being "objective," "unbiased," and "dispassionate." His actions, however, speak louder than his words.

Why Wikipedia is an Unreliable Resource on Circumcision

Jake Waskett is a computer engineer who has been around since Wikipedia's inception. He is a favorite among the Wikipedia crowd, and he has used his clout at Wikipedia to make himself the sole gatekeeper on any and every article that has anything even remotely related to circumcision. He spends a considerable amount of time editing articles in Wikipedia to reflect a pro-circumcision bias (though he claims he's only making them "neutral"). As of early 2011, Waskett has made almost 14,000 edits on Wikipedia, more than 1,275 edits to the Circumcision article alone. Waskett's first edit to the article was on the 18th of October 2004, and his last edit was today. (You can monitor Jake Waskett's activity, here.) Waskett now averages about one edit every 1 days, 20 hours, 29 minutes and 21 seconds, for the Circumcision article. If Wikipedia appears to have a pro-circumcision bias, it is due entirely to this man.

Jake Waskett has full control of any and every page related to circumcision, to the extent that he allows or disallows whatever edits he desires. He likes to use the rules at Wikipedia to allow or disallow whatever sources he deems to be "acceptable." If the rules don't agree with his whim, he will actually bid to change them so that they do. He only allows sources that put circumcision in a positive light, however flawed and/or refuted they may be, but disallows sources that are devastating to circumcision. He does not allow others to post authoritative sources regarding the foreskin, or the flaws in circumcision "research," not even if they have been published in peer-reviewed journals. He will always find some sort of rule or reason why a paper or study that he doesn't like should not be allowed. Only his resources, or resources that support circumcision are "valid"; resources or studies that run contrary to his views are not. Jake Waskett quotes his own website, circs.org, as a resource on circumcision on Wikipedia.

Other intactivists have observed his activity on Wikipedia, and it continues, though it is seemingly against the rules on Wikipedia. He has been observed in shady behavior, such as getting people that can argue successfully against him permanently banned along with their IP, and getting clear rebuttals against him that reveal his ineptness stricken from the history record at Wikipedia.

All articles at Wikipedia related to circumcision are under Jake Waskett's complete control, and he only allows edits that suit his pro-circumcision bias.

For readers that would like to observe Jake's behavior first-hand, his Wikipedia profile can be found here. His latest edits can be observed here.

Jake also maintains his own pro-circumcision website, circs.org.

Are these the actions of someone who is "unbiased" and "dispassionate?"

Laymen Should Be Dismissed... Except For This One.

Jake Waskett is not a doctor nor medical professional of any kind. He is a computer software engineer in his mid-30s, located in Radcliffe Manchester England. He is neither a surgeon, nor a urologist, nor a pediatrician, nor an epidemiologist. He is no medical authority of any kind, and yet, his name is beginning to appear on scientific papers, as if he were any kind of authority. His name appears in scientific journals any time Brian Morris' does. (This can be observed here, here, and here, though there may be other papers I don't list in this blog post.)

I speculate that, despite not being any actual authority, Brian admires Jake Waskett's pro-circumcision work on Wikipedia and on his own website. He is enamored by Jake's ability to clothe his circumcision bias in scientific jargon, that including his name on Brian's work is his way of paying tribute to one of his favorite circumcision advocates (which in turn feeds Jake's ego). As another example of Brian Morris' projection, he himself has accused intactivists of being nothing but lay people with no scientific authority.

There's more, lot's more...

It's relieving to hear that a known circumfetishist has finally been exposed for the pervert that he really is. But this barely scratches the surface; there's more, lot's more. The floodgates to the greatest medical hoax of all time are but beginning to collapse.

Look at the pamphlets put out by Brian Morris viz Gilgal Society (Two such publications can be seen here, and here.); you'll find the names of many prominent circumcision "researchers" and people who claim to be "experts" on circumcision.

Bertran Auvert, Robert Bailey, and Daniel Halperin appear as authors. These are some of the prominent men who are flooding the medical literature with "studies" that say circumcision "reduces HIV transmission," as well as other diseases.

Thomas Wiswell, author of debunked circumcision/UTI "research" that has been long dismissed by authorities such as the AAP, appears as an author on one of the Morris/Gilgal pamphlets.

So does Edgar Schoen. (Incidentally, Schoen has also written circumcision poetry.)

So does Jake Waskett.

Daniel Halperin has corresponded with Circlist, and apparently so has Edgar Schoen. Daniel Halperin has actually recommended Circlist as well as Brian Morris' website as authorities on circumcision.

Very recently, Brian Morris published another pro-circumcision paper where Jake H Waskett, Robert Bailey, Daniel Halperin, and Thomas Wiswell all appear simultaneously. An earlier such paper can be seen here, and although Robert Bailey does not appear in this one, it mentions "Jake H. Waskett is with the Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service, Manchester, England." This "service," also known as "CIRCS" is nothing more than the acronym to Jake's pro-circumcision website.

These are the people responsible for all the recent circumcision "research." These are the people shaping the WHO's opinion. These are the people to whom media outlets look to as "experts." These are the people to whom others look to as "authorities" on the subject. These are the people helping shape policy in California and Colorado.

Can they be trusted to provide "impartial," "dispassionate," and "unbiased" information?

Is this about "public health?"

Or is "public health" and "research" a front for something darker and more sinister?

How far does this rabbit hole go?

The world is about to find out.

Calling All Intactivist Wiki Editors
For the time being, Wikipedia is a lost cause. The truth will never be known as long as Jake Waskett is hijacking Wikipedia for his own agenda. As a direct result of Jake's activity, important and factual information is currently being omitted from Wikipedia regarding human genital anatomy, and so concerned individuals have felt the need to create a resource where this omitted information can be found.

In response to the situation at Wikipedia, a number of concerned individuals have come together to create "Intactipedia" as an alternative wiki resource on the foreskin and circumcision. The objective is to archive all the information that Jake won't allow on Wikipedia, so that perhaps in the future, when he too is exposed, it would be easy to move information over to Wikipedia with the ease of Wiki markup language.

Please visit Intactipedia and help contribute, if not help shape its direction.

Disclaimer:
Some may argue that I am engaging in ad hominem. However, pointing out conflicts of interest is not ad hominem. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on ad hominem (4/22/2012):


Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.