Is anybody listening???



http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Unmasking_the_lie_Circumcision_sex_and_HIV_Aids_95843.shtml

Opinions | December 12, 2009
Unmasking the lie: Circumcision, sex and HIV/Aids
Gawaya Tegulle

A few days ago I found it necessary to restate my position, calmly and quietly, that my sons – two so far – should under no circumstances be circumcised. Two very simple and I am persuaded, logical reasons.

First, while I respect the standpoint of those who argue for circumcision, I personally do not believe in it. Circumcision is such a personal affair; nobody has the right to decide for anybody else whether or not they should undergo it. And since kids are too young to appreciate the merits (probably lack of them) of a matter as personal and important as losing their foreskin, I argue that it is improper for somebody else (parent though they be) to make that decision for them, unless it is a medical emergency that has implications on their immediate survival or potency.
If as adults they decide to submit to the knife, that is their responsibility.

The other reason is that the advocates of circumcision in Uganda today are advancing very lame, wrong and wholly incompetent reasons for it. Their message is two-fold: that circumcision will help protect men from contracting HIV – the virus that causes Aids.

Secondly we are told that circumcision promotes hygiene among men.
As we speak, billions of shillings have been sank into programmes about circumcision, telling every Ugandan that this is the new miraculous discovery that will keep them safe. This lie needs to be unmasked and exposed, because we are playing with fire.

Who in their right mind would believe that a man can have unprotected sexual intercourse with an infected woman and come out intact just because he is circumcised?

Any argument about how hardened a circumcised male organ is and how it is able to withstand whatever period of sexual intercourse and emerge without scratches and therefore without possibility of infection is purely academic…and deadly.

The truth behind circumcision is that it is just a new excuse invented by unscrupulous and incompetent scientists, plus bureaucrats in the United Nations, African governments and civil society to eat free money. They have not told us who did the research, what methodology they employed or which experimentation humans they used.

In the end therefore the current campaign for circumcision has nothing to do with your health and safety. It is all about people making money.

Our young men will now believe that you can sleep with whoever it is and you’ll be safe just because you are circumcised. And they will die. Our girls will be told “I am circumcised” and they will presume they are safe. And they will die. Strange enough, the protagonists of circumcision argue that it affords only a 60 per cent chance at best of avoiding the virus and that circumcision should be used “in combination” with other safety measures such as condom use.

I think the ABC strategy that Uganda had adopted is good enough to help us fight Aids. Abstain from sex, or Be faithful to your (one) partner or if push comes to shove, use a condom. For hygiene I will encourage my sons to take a bath regularly. I will also take them through another course on how a man ought to keep himself clean.

For now I find it important to put the country on notice: we are being duped and as your kids bleed all the way from hospital, a small clique is laughing all the way to the bank.

Mr Tegulle is a social and political commentator

gtegulle@gmail.com
www.tegulle.com/blog

I've recently written to people at the CDC and AAP.

The CDC and AAP are considering recommending circumcision, especially the circumcision of minors "to prevent HIV," (because children are at risk?) based on bogus studies in Africa.

I encourage those of you concerned to write to them, I already have. Their contact info is available at:

http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/the-aap-project.html

I sent the following letter:

Subject: Recommending Circumcision as HIV Prevention

Dear Sirs,

I write to you concerning the CDC and AAP's consideration of recommending circumcision as any kind of HIV prevention.

It is alarming that the CDC and AAP are even considering recommending male circumcision as an HIV prevention measure, even the circumcision of non-consenting children.

Would the CDC or AAP, under any circumstance advocate female circumcision if it "reduced the risk of HIV" by 60%? How about 70 or 80%? Yes? No? Dr. Kilmarx can be quoted saying that we need to take "every step" in preventing HIV. If female circumcision irrefutably prevented HIV by 100%, would the CDC or AAP be willing to take that "extra step?"

I'm appalled that there's even a "Circumcision Taskforce." Is there a female circumcision taskforce? A taskforce to weigh the "medical merits" of say, foot-binding? Neck-stretching?

The ethical implications aside, the CDC and AAP are considering recommending circumcision as an HIV preventative based on flawed and biased studies, and it is disconcerting to me that the flaws in these studies haven't given anyone at the CDC or AAP a pause.

There are quite a few flaws in the latest African studies, but the ones I note here should immediately make them suspect, not material on which to base the recommendations of radical medical procedure.

#1 - The purpose of the so-called studies reveals a glaringly obvious bias: "To find the effects of circumcision on HIV." The title of the study begs the question from the beginning, because that circumcision prevents HIV is already assumed to be true. There aren't too many studies whose sole purpose is to vilify a perfectly normal, healthy body part. Why weren't there any studies on "the effect of female circumcision on HIV?"

#2 - The premise behind the studies, that HIV is transmitted via the Langerhans Cells was just a "hunch." A hunch that was never proven, and that has actually been completely DIS-proven. Are people at the CDC and AAP aware of the following studies?

According to deWitte, the Langerhans cells actually FIGHT the HIV virus.
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/fi...Witte_2007.pdf

A recent study at Northwestern University shows that there is no difference in HIV transmission between inner mucosa and outer foreskin. This throws the theory that the hard, keratinized skin of the circumcised penis acts as a "barrier" to HIV out the window.
http://retroconference.org/2009/PDFs/502.pdf

The studies are based on complete bunk.

#3 - The circumcised men in the study were given unfair advantage, not to mention, the studies were ended early. They were told to abstain from sexual activity for 6 weeks following their operation. Furthermore, they were instructed in the use of condoms. The credit of "HIV reduction" was given, not to the education and condoms the circumcised men received, but their circumcisions. How can this even be called a "study?"

Links to the studies can be found here:

"Inclusion criteria:
...
Consenting to avoid sexual contact (except with condom protection) during the 6 weeks following the medicalized circumcision"
http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00122525

"When you are circumcised you will be asked to have no sexual contact in the 6 weeks after surgery. To have sexual contact before your skin of your penis is completely healed, could lead to infection if your partner is infected with a sexually transmitted disease. It could also be painful and lead to bleeding. If you desire to have sexual contact in the 6 weeks after surgery, despite our recommendation, it is absolutely essential that your (sic) use a condom."
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/arc...0298.st003.pdf

This alone should have caused the WHO to throw these studies out. Have any of these details come to the attention of anybody at the CDC or AAP?

#4 Data from countries where HIV was prevalent among circumcised men was deliberately dismissed and omitted. Those countries are: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania. Just what is it called when people pick and choose data to achieve an intended outcome?

#5 The conductors of these "studies" have conflicts of interest; Robert Bailey is a known long-standing circumcision advocate, and Daniel Halperin is Jewish, where infant circumcision is central to his cultural and ethnic identity, and he has openly stated he wants to continue his grandfather's legacy. The authors of these studies have compelling reasons to skew the information in favor of circumcision, and it is evident that they have.

#6 The "studies" fail to correlate with reality. Can anyone at the at the CDC or AAP explain why even though the US already boasts a high circumcision rate (80% of the male population, according to Edgar Schoen), we still manage to have an HIV transmission rate higher than quite a few countries that do not circumcise? The UK, Denmark, Japan and Germany, for example?

When the AIDS epidemic hit in the early 1980s, close to 90% of all American males were already circumcised. Is there a reason the infection spread anyway?

Israel, of all places, has a growing AIDS problem, despite the overall circumcised male population. Can the AAP or CDC explain why this is so?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996706.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/998873.html

FACT: The majority of HIV victims in the US have been males circumcised at birth.

#7 Even if these "studies" were accurate (which they can't be), protection would not be guaranteed. Men would still be at a 40% risk, and women who had sex with said men would be 100% exposed to the HIV virus in their semen. Condoms are already cheaper, less invasive and more effective (90% vs 60%) for BOTH partners.

Given these flaws, one must ask, how exactly can anyone find these "studies" to hold any credibility? These aren't the only studies on circumcision and HIV. There have been quite a few studies, most of them inconclusive as to the effectiveness of circumcision as an HIV preventative.
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/mc...-of-doubt.html

Is there a reason the CDC and AAP have chosen to focus on the latest African study, while discounting or dismissing the results of its predecessors? I think it's noteworthy that when the Thai vaccine trials came out, doctors immediately advised to treat the study and the results with caution. On the contrary, with the African studies, no time was wasted in using them to promote mass-circumcision campaigns.

But one must ask, how is it any professional can even consider using any "study" to endorse a practice that violates the basic human rights of the individual?

The men in the studies made a conscious decision to participate. These men were given a choice. How is it the CDC and AAP are making the leap to endorse the circumcision of newborns, when babies do not have sex, and are therefore at absolute zero risk of any STD?

The CDC or AAP would NEVER under ANY circumstance use "studies" to recommend the genital mutilation of girls to prevent ANYTHING. WHY is it even considering this with newborn boys? Does it not matter to the CDC or AAP that circumcising a healthy, non-consenting individual is a violation of basic human rights? To "study" and "consider" ways to endorse male, but not female circumcision, is this not a blatantly sexist act?

Furthermore, endorsing circumcision is already proving to be a disastrous policy in Africa, as men are using circumcision as an excuse to forgo condoms. Is anybody at the CDC or AAP aware of this? Please read the following stories.

"...linking mass male circumcision to the Aids fight without proper information perpetuates the fallacy that it offers total protection. The growing reckless sexual behaviour and even flippancy about the exercise shows there is a lapse that could put into further peril communities already hard-hit by the scourge.

Male circumcision to prevent Aids is pushing other healthcare programmes, including other HIV and Aids interventions to the back-burner..."
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion...52/-/5ojrlt/-/

"He [my husband] was circumcised and felt he didn't have to wear a condom. When we found we had HIV after testing, he blamed me. He said, 'You brought HIV into this house.' It was because I tested first, when I was pregnant with my second child..."
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=79557

The recent Wawer study shows that African women were 50% more likely to get HIV from their circumcised partners. Are the CDC and AAP aware of this study?
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/20...cised-men.html

Even if the studies were correct, circumcision does NOT prevent HIV. Men would still be at a 40% risk, and it would not protect them from other forms of infection, e.g, needle-sharing. It is a deliberate lie to market it as a "vaccine," it is a waste of resources and it will result in the loss of millions of lives, nevermind it is a gross violation of basic human rights in healthy, non-consenting individuals who are not even engaging in risky sexual behavior.

There is now no way that authorities at the CDC and AAP can claim that they "do not know" about the flaws of the latest "studies" being used to recommend circumcision; that they don't know that the studies they're are reviewing are glaringly flawed, that they don't know that recommending circumcision to prevent HIV is disastrous HIV policy, and that they don't know about the ethical implications of mutilating the organs of a healthy, non-consenting individuals.

By sending this letter out, and by openly publishing it, they have been made aware.

I am forwarding this letter to others as well. This letter will be posted on blogs, Facebook, MySpace and on website forums. More people are being made aware of the flaws and dangers of the circumcision/HIV hoax. The CDC and AAP can no longer pretend to be ignorant. Men who acquire HIV, and men who resent their circumcision as an unwanted mutilation on their healthy organs will have good reason to indict the CDC and AAP. Are the CDC and AAP prepared to give men a money-back guarantee? Will these men be guaranteed the drugs needed to live an HIV+ life? Something to think about when considering the "cost-effectiveness" of circumcision.

The CDC and AAP would NEVER consider "studies" that advocated for the genital mutilation of females, let alone go as far using them to "recommend" it. Those "studies" would be thrown out as unethical. That the CDC and AAP are even considering these "studies" is a complete disgrace.

The CDC and AAP have a duty to deliver accurate and truthful information. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent HIV transmission. The only proven method to avoid transmission is the proper use of condoms. The AAP, especially, has the duty to do what's in the best interests of children. Infant circumcision is a violation of basic individual human rights. It is needless non-medical body modification, especially in newborns who are at zero risk for STDs, and who would be put at risk for infection and needless ablation of their organs, not to mention their deaths.

I pray that the CDC and AAP have the integrity to do the right thing.

Very Truly Yours,

The entire premise behind the late African "trials" being used to push the Circumcision/HIV hoax is the unproven assumption, hunch, "gut feeling," of the authors, that the culprit behind HIV transmission is in the Langerhans Cells.

These are found, according to the authors, on the inner mucosal part of the foreskin, and circumcision "reduces HIV transmission," because circumcision ablates most of this (along with 20,000 specialized nerve endings, the mucosa which keeps the glans warm, moist and supple, protection from the constant abrasion of clothing, etc...), keratinizing the glans, making the skin "tougher," and thus hard to for the HIV virus to penetrate. (Except when the HIV virus travels into a vagina via semen, or into the mouth of a child via mother's milk, or into the bloodstream via needle-sharing.)

Since the release of these "studies" major organizations have been using them to urge "mass circumcision campaigns" on Africans. "These studies PROVE that circumcision reduces the risk..." people claim mindlessly. (Would they ever push FGM on the same premise?)

1. The premise behind these studies was never actually proven; this was just a "hunch" the authors (which by the way, happen to be pro-circumcision advocates) had.

2. The results of these "studies" don't correlate with the realities of Israel and America, where there are HIV/AIDS crises despite the overall circumcised male population. (In America, 80% of the male population is already circumcised; the HIV transmission rate is higher there than in other industrialized countries where circumcision isn't a custom.)

There have been countless other studies that show no such correlation between circumcision and HIV transmission. They can all be found here:

Furthermore, recent studies reveal that the entire premise behind these "studies" are complete bunk; the Langerhans Cells have actually been found to FIGHT the HIV virus. The deWitte study can be found here:

What's more, in a recent study, results show that there is no difference in HIV transmission between the inner mucosa and the outer shaft skin of the penis.

The WHO, UNAIDS, UNICEF, CDC and AAP all seem intent on pushing the circumcision agenda on masses at all costs.

This data should put into question the supposed "studies" in Africa. Governments in Africa should be urged to halt their "mass circumcision" campaigns. Men in Africa need to be told that circumcision is worthless.

WHY ISN'T THIS HAPPENING???

A quote from a recent news article:

"...linking mass male circumcision to the Aids fight without proper information perpetuates the fallacy that it offers total protection. The growing reckless sexual behaviour and even flippancy about the exercise shows there is a lapse that could put into further peril communities already hard-hit by the scourge."

http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/818352/-/5ojrlt/-/


The ethic repugnancy of endorsing a practice that violates the basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals goes without saying; this is horrific news in the fight against HIV. This blatant lie is going to cost millions of African men, women and children their lives.

Something must be done to stop this madness and put the focus of the HIV fight where it belongs; preventing HIV, not promoting "mass circumcision" campaigns.

The WHO, UNAIDS, UNICEF, CDC and AAP all need to be contacted and written to. Providers of funds for these organizations must be contacted and warned about the implications of promoting this hoax.

The following link leads to information on contacting the CDC and AAP.

There 2Care AAP and CDC petitions that can be signed:

Write to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

If anyone knows of other organizations that can be contacted, please feel free to post them here.

For what it's worth:

Intact America is sponsoring two 2Care petitions, one for the AAP and the other for the CDC.

If you can, sign them.

I don't know what that will do, but we gotta do SOMETHING...

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/119095364

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/760537185

They must've REALLY wanted circumcision to prevent HIV. What a disgrace that this passes for "science."