Saturday, July 9, 2011

What it's always been about...

I've never been convinced.

Ever since "researchers" came out with the "studies" that circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV," I saw it for what it was. This isn't about "HIV," this isn't about "public health care." This is all about ultimately legitimizing what "doctors" and "scientists" have been trying to legitimize for years; the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting infants. They've been trying to do this for over a century, the "disease" that circumcision is supposed to prevent changing every time real science manages to debunk the claims.

Since the first "studies" came out in 2006, "doctors" and "scientists" were already thinking about how they could use the latest "studies" to legitimize, not the circumcision of sexually active adults who are at risk for sexually transmitted HIV, no; the "doctors" and "researchers" were already thinking about how the "science" could be used to push the circumcision of INFANTS. INFANTS, who do not yet have sex and are at absolute zero risk for sexually transmitted HIV. And not infants in Africa, no; people were eager to get circumcision for HIV transmission endorsed here at home for American children.

Well, that hasn't happened just yet, but it looks like pro-circumcision advocates have finally achieved in legitimizing the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants under the guise of HIV transmission all the way in Africa. How absolutely disgusting.

What trial? What "studies" were conducted in healthy, non-consenting infants? If I remember correctly, all of the "studies" conducted in Africa were conducted on adult men consenting to undergo the procedure of circumcision. What on EARTH are we doing pushing circumcision on healthy, non-consenting infants? WHY are we doing this? What if we conducted "studies" on consenting women who wanted to part with their labia and clitoral hoods? If "studies" showed a "reduction in HIV transmission" for the women, would we proceed to recommend it in CHILDREN? WHY is our government doing this??? Is it because they've been unsuccessful in getting our AAP to endorse this here at home? Do they somehow think if they could achieve it in Africa, that this would somehow translate back home? According to the CDC, the neonatal circumcision rate in the US has fallen to approx. 33%. Is it their intention to shore that up here at home at the expense of children in Africa?

According to the Swazi Observer, "HARDLY a month after the neonatal circumcision campaign was launched; there have been over 400 circumcised." WHY is there even a neonatal circumcision campaign?
Are children having sex? Are they at any risk for sexually transmitted HIV? WHY are they being denied a choice?

"We have held the press conference on the 30th of June because it is the last day of the children’s month. Therefore, we felt it proper to look back and reflect on what we have done this month towards improving the lives and health of Swazi children during a time when societies are greatly affected by the deaths caused by HIV/AIDS," said Public Services International (PSI) HIV Services Director Jessica Greene.


"The USAID Director and PEPFAR officer Jennifer Albertini said she was very grateful for the accelerated approach to circumcision in the country and said she was confident that in the long run the benefits of the mass circumcision campaign would be massive in terms of reducing the spread of HIV in the country."

Yes, Albertini. Because children are contributing the most to the HIV transmission rate. It's not the circumcised men, where HIV tranmission was found to be MORE PREVALENT.

"The target is to circumcise 152 000 males after a year and bearing in mind we have already, one is optimistic that we will be able to meet the target," said Albertini.

That's what it's all about isn't it, Albertini, meeting a target...

"Neonatal male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin that covers the tip of the newborn’s penis."

The foreskin IS the tip of the newborn's penis. What a gross representation of basic human anatomy.
"NEONATAL circumcision is advantageous because it reduces the risk of negative complications."
NO, ANY surgery where it is not needed is an INCREASE in the risk of negative complications.
"Early circumcision maximises the benefits of circumcision and becomes very easy to perform. Therefore, providing the most apparent reason why we recommend all parents should take their children for circumcision when while they are still young," said Reid.

What "benefits" is a healthy child in need of? The most apparent reason that Reid recommends parents take their children in for circumcision "while they are still young" is because they would not be so willing to undergo the operation as adults. In other words, Reid is legitimizing deliberate child abuse. Absolutely despicable.

Meanwhile, Mohammed Mahdi from the Elizabeth Glazer Pediatric AIDS Foundation said it was very important that circumcision was included on both prior and post counseling of the mothers. "We are currently panning to introduce circumcision in the counseling offered to mothers before birth so that they are taught about the benefits before they even before they give birth," said Mahdi.

Hrm... what if the children are born with HIV? Shouldn't they be talking to them about preventing mother-to-child transmission FIRST??? Why is THIS priority? Are male children simply already sick in utero? Mohammed Mahdi... sounds like this person may have a personal bias... he would "advise mothers" about the "benefits" of circumcision anyway...

"FOLLOWING some cases on the effects of circumcision, the World Heath Organisation has issued guidelines on how the process should be conducted by all doctors.

This was announced by Dr Dennis Buwembo from JHPIEGO who said some fatal cases and after effects of some fatal cases and operations that had gown wrong had become a cause for concern.
Hence, the main reason the WHO issued the guidelines which stipulate clearly that the process can only be conducted by professionals through local anesthesia."

Are they **** serious. First off, HAS the WHO actually gone ahead and endorsed circumcision as HIV transmission prevention in CHILDREN? And if children are dying, shouldn't they be RECONSIDERING??? This is absolutely infuriating.

The article continues with dispensing of the same old misinformation.

"Advantages of Neonatal Male Circumcision"
Question one; WHY should it be performed in the first place? Aren't we going to hear about the advantages of NOT circumcising? Or is there only one option?

"Faster healing"
WHY is there need for a deliberate wound, PERIOD???

"Less complications if performed by trained health care workers"
This is not always guaranteed. Why should a healthy, non-consenting child be put at risk for ANY complications???

"Lower costs"
There are NO costs in leaving the child alone.

"Neonatal MC maximizes the benefits of circumcision by providing the procedure before the male becomes sexually active"
"Benefits" which are dubious at best. Even if these "benefits" were 100% concrete, how does a child, who is not sexually active benefit? Shouldn't it be up to the child to decide whether he wants this "benefit?" WHY are they circumcising healthy, non-consenting, sexually inactive INFANTS???

"Easy to perform"
"Sunat" is easy to perform too.
"Risks of Neonatal Male Circumcision
Pain after the procedure

Reaction to the anaesthesia
Swelling of the wound"

Partial or full ablation??? DEATH??? It is mentioned in this very article. Yet, it's not part of this **** list.


It is a complete outrage that our country is taking advantage of 3rd world countries this way to push infant genital mutilation. It's enough that doctors take advantage of parental naivete and the defenselessness of children to reap profit from completely unnecessary surgery. Now we're going as far as Africa to push it there as well? This is absolutely despicable. It's morally repugnant. I am outraged that this. THIS is what my tax dollars are being used for. Forget about quackery that doesn't work; we're outright endorsing deliberate child abuse and genital mutilation. Sooner or later this nation is going to pay for raping Africa in the name of "humanitarian aid." Something has got to be done about this.


  1. What are we gonna do? Protest? Petition? We need some sort of coordinated attack...

    And you're right, of course - even doctors have been saying for years that circumcision is a solution with no problem. Each time new 'evidence' comes out for its health benefits, even medics admit that it is simply an attempt to justify something that is unjustifiable but still makes them money.

  2. I don't know what else I could possibly add. I guess I could say what I've always said about the African circumcision studies. The only thing those studies prove is that having unprotected sex with a prostitute is a bad idea, especially in Uganda and South Africa.

  3. The "researchers" have not proven ANYTHING. They've taken carefully selected and polished data and attributed the "reduced HIV transmission" to circumcision. They have yet to demonstrate that circumcision does indeed reduce the risk of HIV. Entire "mass circumcision" campaigns, deliberate child abuse is being endorsed using "studies" that that lack a working hypothesis, nevermind they fail to correlate with reality.

    Even assuming that the "studies" were correct.

    Nothing EVER justifies child abuse.


    Not in girls, not in boys.

    No medical organization in the world would EVER consider "studies" that showed female circumcision showed any "benefit," let alone endorse "mass circumcision" campaigns for women. Medical institutions would NEVER fund "studies" where 1,000 women were circumcised to see if they got HIV "less" than a control group of another 1,000. No, such "studies" would be condemned as "unethical."

    There are somethings that are simply always wrong, no matter what.

    This is one of them.

    The time will come when anybody who ever got behind this will be made to eat crow.

    May the rape of children in the name of medicine and humanitarian aid be avenged.

  4. Well, whaddya know. There was something to add. Couldn't agree more, Joseph.