Comments on: Facing the Knife No Longer Egoistic, Male Circumcision Fights HIV/Aids in Africa

By: monty

monty — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:50:37 +0000

Circumcision is a primitive, barbarous and gender-based atrocity.
And the USA leads the superstitious parade, as usual.

By: tinky

tinky — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:44:24 +0000

All these studies in Africa are propaganda. Circumcision is just a cure searchnig for a disease.

Why do they make these studies in Africa ? Why not in Europe or US ?

By: andycut

andycut — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:38:38 +0000

Circumcision removes a major part of sexual pleasure, leaving only the most sensitive part, open. The results in sexual immediacy, followed in later life, with sexual disfunction due to; desensitivity of the once sensitive glans, removal of the sensitive inner part of the foreskin which provides a semi mucous membrane protecting and lubricating the head. The foreskin has nerve ridges inside the skin which enjoys to be stretched and pulled. This is essential sexual function. Please, this is human to have their sexual function willfully diminished. Why? My mother told me it stopped me playing with myself and i kept getting infections. Perhaps she should have taught me how to keep it clean.

By: wambui

wambui — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:08:56 +0000

GOOD FIGHT WHAT OF WIFE INHERITANCE THAT ALSO LEADS TO THE MYSTERY LIKE INTHE UNCIRCUMISSED HERE AT HOME ALSO INHERIT WIVES.

By: spyder

spyder — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:10:15 +0000

all new world order really wants is to kill off all the blacks in africa. circumcision is a damn joke. how many guys who beat their wives were circumcised?

By: john doe

john doe — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:44:19 +0000

circumcision has done nothing to prevent HIV in the United States. This is junk science, those African studies compared circumcised Muslim men to intact truck drivers who visited HIV infected prostitutes. Stop rationalizing male genital mutilation, stop it now.

By: Hugh7

Hugh7 — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:55:27 +0000

They love quoting those huge percentages of (relative) HIV risk reduction – “53%”, “48%” and “up to 70%” – but what actually happened was that they circumcised 1,391 men in Kenya and 2,474 in Uganda and left similar numbers (control groups) alone.

After less than two years, 22 circumcised men in Kenya and 22 in Uganda had HIV, compared to 47 and 45 of the control groups. That’s an absolute difference of 1.8% and 0.9%. More important it’s 30 circumcisions in Kenya and 55 in Uganda to delay (not prevent) each HIV transmission.

Meanwhile 87 of the circumcised men in Kenya and 140 in Uganda were “lost from study”, their HIV status unknown. It wouldn’t take many of those being HIV+ to completely overthrow the “protection”.

By: Frank OHara

Frank OHara — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:44:31 +0000

If circumcision is such a wonderful intervention against HIV/AIDS, just why is there no difference in the HIV acquistion rate in the US between circumcised and uncircumcised men? A recent study found that there is absolutely no difference. Separate studies in Australia and New Zealand found the same results, no difference! How can that be?

With an 85% circumcision rate among sexually mature men in The US, HIV would not have a chance if it did have the protective factor claimed. A similar intervention, the polio vaccine, virtually wiped out polio in just a few short years. Consider that the polio virus can be transmitted casually and exists in the natural environment. The polio vaccine is only 70% effective yet it wiped the virus from the population. To the contrary, the HIV virus does not exist in the natural environment and quickly dies outside the body of it’s host. If circumcision provides a 60% protective factor as claimed, why does The US have the highest infection rate among the industrialized countries?

The two just don’t jive. Circumcision in the battle against HIV is a dud. Further, it could give men a sense of false security leading them to take ill considered risks and that could actually drive the HIV infection rate up.

By: Mark Lyndon

Mark Lyndon — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:54:36 +0000

Rwanda has almost double the rate of HIV in circed men than intact men, yet they’ve just started a nationwide circumcision campaign. Other countries where circumcised men are *more* likely to be HIV+ are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, and Tanzania. That’s six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised. Something is very wrong here. These people aren’t interested in fighting HIV, but in promoting circumcision (or sometimes anything-but-condoms), and their actions will cost lives.

Circumcised male virgins are more likely to be HIV+ than intact male virgins, as the operation sometimes infects men, especially if the same knife is used for several men. The latest news is that circumcised HIV+ men appear more likely to transmit the virus to women than intact HIV+ men (even after the healing period is over). Eight additional women appear to have been infected during that study, solely because their husbands were circumcised.

Female circumcision seems to protect against HIV too btw, but we wouldn’t investigate cutting off women’s labia, and then start promoting that.

For a good summary of the case against promoting circumcision in Africa, see this link:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html