BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

There is a blackout in America concerning the human male reproductive system; Americans aren't getting the whole picture when it comes to the human penis. Much of what Americans do know about the human penis is either incomplete, half-correct, if not factually incorrect. This is because most textbooks, sex guides, books on pregnancy, medical websites etc., are all geared towards normalizing the circumcised penis.

In American medical schools, doctors don't learn about the development of males with anatomically correct genitals. Most doctors are taught that all males are circumcised as a matter of course. They are taught to treat, diagnose and care only for circumcised males. The only thing they ever learn about the foreskin is that it must be cut off as soon as possible, because it does nothing but cause problems and disease.

American doctors are taught to treat males with anatomically correct genitals as patients suffering a medical condition, for which the only cure can be circumcision. Before diagnosing or treating any other problem with the human penis, it must, first of all, be circumcised above all else. Only then can a male patient be diagnosed and treated for other problems, nevermind the problems that circumcisions could itself cause.

Actually, American doctors are taught that having a foreskin causes problems, and that circumcision can do nothing else but cure or prevent them. If a male is suffering any sort of ailment, he must be checked to make sure he is circumcised first. It's almost as if American doctors' brains were circumcised along with their penises, for they seem to lack the part of the brain holding information about how the human penis in its natural, intact state, works.

These doctors, in turn, go on to teach the same lack of information, if not misinformation considering the male reproductive organ to other doctors in training, nurses, male patients, parents etc.

This ignorance of anatomically correct human anatomy is reflected in American literature concerning the subject.

The anatomically correct male organ is often, if not always, depicted as circumcised. The foreskin is often, if not always, missing from diagrams depicting male anatomy. It is often described as "that piece of skin that is removed from the penis during circumcision," if it's even mentioned at all.

Pregnancy books talk about having male children circumcised as a given, and parents are "warned" about the risks, perils and hazards of letting male children keep their foreskins. There is no question about "if" a child will be circumcised, but "when." Not having children circumcised is treated as tantamount to not having them vaccinated.

Doctors, nurses, books, etc., rarely, if ever, mention the fact that 70% of the world's men aren't circumcised, that in pretty much of the rest of the industrialized world, the majority of men have anatomically correct genitals, and that they rarely, if ever, suffer the problems that circumcision was supposed to prevent. They rarely mention the fact that despite 80% of the male population being circumcised from birth, we have higher STD prevalent rates than numerous countries in the world where circumcision is rare if not practiced.

Circumcision is supposed to magically reduce the rates of HIV transmission, but somehow the US manages to have a higher HIV prevalence rate than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced, according to the CIA World Factbook. We have more HIV than Mexico.

When American textbooks begin to talk about anatomically correct male anatomy, they treat it as a medical liability. The most typical description of the male foreskin in American literature goes like this:

"The foreskin is a loose flap the skin covering the head of the penis, which is removed during circumcision at birth. Not removing the foreskin increases a male's chances of contracting STDs and developing penile cancer. To prevent these problems, it is better to circumcise a child from birth, as adult male circumcision is traumatic and painful."

(Note: All surgery is traumatic and painful; it is not, however, always medically necessary. In addition, touched off by the race to circumcise the entire African continent, companies vying for a a piece of the HIV/WHO pie are coming up with innovative devices that are making adult circumcision simpler, easier, less painful and/or less traumatic. As a result, the claim that "adult circumcision is much more painful and traumatic" is increasingly becoming outdated.)

Imagine, if you will, if I described female breasts as "those mounds of flesh that are removed from a woman's chest during a mastectomy."

"But that's not a fair comparison," I can already hear some readers muttering to themselves. "Female breasts have function. The foreskin is an appendage and it may even be the cause of diseases such as penile cancer." To which I would reply by saying that, actually, the foreskin also has function, and breasts can also be the cause of breast cancer.


When we describe any other part of the body, we begin by describing its appearance, shape and function. When we begin talking about female mammary glands, we begin by talking about their development, the fact that they produce milk to feed young, that they me be sexually arousing for men. We do not begin by talking about the fact that they can develop breast cancer, and that they may have to be removed

Why then, do we begin talking about the male foreskin by describing its removal? All the potential problems and diseases it could be a part of? Why don't we begin by describing it as an intrinsic part of the penis? Its mechanics? Its function? The role it plays in sex? Masturbation?

The peculiar thing about this phenomenon is that it seems to be unique to America. People in the rest of the industrialized English-speaking world get a different story.

In contrast, doctors in other parts of the world learn about male human anatomy in its entirety. They learn about penises with foreskins by default. And why not? This is what all human males have from birth.

Doctors in the UK, Denmark, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. all learn to treat the foreskin as an intrinsic part of male anatomy, like the labia in female anatomy.

They learn to treat the penis with its foreskin as an entire organ, and to turn to surgery only as a very last resort.

Doctors who learn this way learn to treat penile problems differently; they treat the foreskin as an important part of the penis that must be saved if at all possible.

They teach other doctors, nurses, parents, etc. how to care for children with intact organs.

What Americans learn about male human anatomy is starkly different than what their counterparts in other parts of the world learns.

This is a problem.

Browsing my Facebook news feed, I came across a very clear example of this difference in information dissemination.

Below is a side-by-side comparison of what the same website, BabyCenter (BabyCentre in the UK last accessed 7/12/2016) tells parents concerning circumcision and male human anatomy in newborns.

I want to let readers check and see for themselves.

Why this stark difference in information?

Human anatomy is the same wherever you go.

So why is different information being dispensed for the same body part?

Why this chasm of difference in information?

Isn't denying information to parents actually a disservice?

Is the goal BabyCenter/BabyCentre to disseminate factual information to parents to be?

Or to offer corroboration, comfort and validation?

The fact is no respected medical organization in the world recommends the routine circumcision of infants. The AAP tried very hard to do so in their last policy statement on circumcision in 2012, but couldn't commit to a recommendation in the end, because, in their own words on the policy statement, "the health benefits aren't great enough." This statement got rejected by pretty much the rest of the world, because it takes an unfounded position against the best medical authorities in the West.

Pediatric medical associations in every other developed country take clear stances against amputating functional, healthy body parts from non-consenting minors.

These are just a few:

It is my opinion that one of the reasons that forced male circumcision continues in this country is the information blackout that exists concerning basic human anatomy. It is my belief that if doctors taught factually correct information, information recognized by medical organizations in the rest of the world, concerning anatomically correct male anatomy, to other doctors, nurses, parents etc., the forced male circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors would decrease dramatically.

As it stands, doctors teach little to no information, if not misinformation concerning male anatomy. When it comes to intact male genitals, America is living in the dark ages, myths, lies and half-truths abound, and websites like BabyCenter/BabyCentre help perpetuate them.

It is my opinion that part of our work as intactivists is to close this gap concerning information. We need to work raise awareness of this issue, help bring down the firewall that exists between the United States and the rest of the world, and bring American medical literature and academia up to date. The deliberate keeping of Americans in the dark must be exposed and dealt with directly.

Related Links:
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

"I Did My Research" - The Quest for Scientific Vindication

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

 

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

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

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.

CIRCUMCISION: The Washington Post Folds to the PrePex Ad Campaign

On my last post, I talked about how the BBC basically ran a paid ad for the PrePex circumcision device using claims based on dubious studies, as well as unfounded myth, and the conflict of interest of the CEO of the company who markets PrePex. Upon further inspection, one can see that the video was not only a paid ad by PrePex, it is a clip of the show "The Health Show," which is sponsored by none other than Bill Gates. (One can see this in the caption under the video.)

The plot thickens.

On my last post, other readers have commented that they are unable to see the video hosted by the BBC. According to my comments, Brits get a message that the video is not visible in their area, this despite the fact that they are IN the UK, and they all pay a license fee. It sounds like PrePex and Bill Gates had a target audience in mind, and they're using technicalities to keep Brits from seeing the content. Could it be that they know Brits, who are for the most part intact, would call bullshit and protest?

Now, it seems, PrePex and Circumcision Inc. are trying to expand their business, and are having news outlets run paid ads that masquerade as "news" for them. A few days ago, the Washington Post ran an article that's basically another paid ad for circumcision and the PrePex device. This time, instead of being pushed by the PrePex CEO, the ad came in the form of an article by Agnes Binagwaho, the Minister of Health of the Republic of Rwanda, who appeared on the BBC video promoting circumcision. Apparently she's a recipient of an honorary PhD in sciences from Dartmouth University" for her "lifetime achievement in treating and preventing AIDS." (Which means she isn't even a real PhD.)

Agnes Binagwaho ought to be ashamed of herself. On the "The Health Show" clip hosted by the BBC, she spouts off how "circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60%" as if it were matter of fact. How does she know this? Who exactly is she to be making this value judgment? An "honorary PhD?" Is Dartmouth University CRAZY? Did she get this because she's so interested in preventing AIDS? Or did she get this because she agreed to push circumcision?

Here she is on Washington Post, and earlier on the BBC seeking acquiescence to the dubious claim that circumcision "reduces the risk of HIV by 60%," by peddling a device that is supposed to make circumcision "easier and faster." You'd think this were a paid informercial.

Actually, I think this is precisely what this is.

On the BBC, Binagwaho is accompanied by Tzameret Fuerst, CEO of the company that sells the PrePex device (who also happens to be the wife of the inventor of the device). Conflict of interest much? It doesn't help much that video on the BBC is a clip from "The Health Show," who also just happens to be funded by Bill Gates, circumcision promoter extraordinaire.

There is not a doubt in my mind that if we look behind who's behind this paid ad we'll find the same people. I'd bet that if we were to check out this woman's paychecks, they'd all be signed by Med CircTech, Bill Gates, PEPFAR etc.

I don't trust this woman further than I can throw her. She is a paid puppet and she has absolutely no idea what she's talking about. Is this woman not aware that, 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. in her own country? 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.) It is disconcerting that the Health Minister is either not aware of the facts, or she is deliberately ignoring them.

If circumcision is so effective at preventing HIV, why isn't this effect evident in other countries that circumcise? According to USAID, HIV transmission was higher among circumcised men in 10 out of 18 countries. Why are HIV transmission rates higher in America, where 80% of the men are circumcised from birth, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare?

This is nothing but a paid advertisement for Med CircTech, who is trying to ride the circumcision/HIV gravy train. This woman is no real authority on epidemiology, surgery, urology or even pediatrics. The Washington Post should be ashamed for agreeing to publish this disgusting rubbish infomercial that isn't even fit for television. SHAME on you Agnes Binagwaho, you are a sellout to your own country. SHAME on you, Washington Post, you are a sellout to decent journalism.

CIRCUMCISION: BBC Runs Paid PrePex Ad

It was something I would expect to find only on one of those cheesy infomercial channels, but there it was on the BBC website.

In the heading underneath the video, you can see it, as if it were irrefutable fact:

"Male circumcision reduces the chances of men in heterosexual relationships becoming infected with HIV."
This should have been my first clue.

This would more accurately read "horrendously flawed and heavily manipulated "research" suggests that male circumcision *might* be responsible for reducing the chances of sexually promiscuous men in Sub-Saharan Africa with multiple partnerships, who don't wear condoms, from becoming infected with HIV."

I was expecting more from a British, non-American news outlet.

At first glance, you would think that the people portrayed might be genuinely interested in HIV prevention in Africa, but upon closer inspection, you find that it's simply more circumcision propaganda, particularly the promotion of the PrePex circumcision device.

How does circumcision prevent HIV?

It's disconcerting enough to hear a woman mindlessly chant the well-worn line that "circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission in men by 60%." (What does this actually mean, anyway? 60% of what?)

Note: The woman that appears is the Health Minister of Rwanda. 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. (See p. 10) 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.) It is disconcerting that the Health Minister is either not aware of the facts, or she is deliberately ignoring them. I suspect she may be receiving a bribe from Bill and Melinda Gates, PEPFAR or whatnot to boldly ignore the situation in her own country.


What is truly disturbing is to see a video on BBC, where a man touts that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV by making the head of the penis tough and callused like the sole of the foot, acting like a "barrier," as if it were matter of fact.

"A person living without shoes, they have very hard skin. They are walking on stone every day, without any wounds. So it's the same thing with the penis."

"Researchers" may claim that circumcision "reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60%," there is not a single doctor, scientist or "researcher" that can say with certainty that the callused penis acts as a "barrier" against HIV. To be certain, there is absolutely no scientific basis for this claim.

In actuality, this, the theory that the keratinized surface of the penis in circumcised male resists infection, while the tender mucosa of the glans and inner of the intact male are ports of entry, is perhaps the oldest hypothesis on the mechanism whereby circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV.

It has also long been debunked.

One study found that there is "no difference between the keratinization of the inner and outer aspects of the adult male foreskin," and that "keratin layers alone were unlikely to explain why uncircumcised men are at higher risk for HIV infection." Another study found that "no difference can be clearly visualized between the inner and outer foreskin." 

To be sure, while "researchers" insist with skewed statistics that there is a "correlation" between circumcision and a reduction in HIV transmission, there is not a one that can demonstrate precisely how this happens.

Few people know this, but the famous big three "studies" from Africa lack a working hypothesis. The claim that circumcision "reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60%" is pure speculation; there is not a single doctor, scientist or researcher who can provide a demonstrable causal link between the foreskin and HIV transmission.

And yet, here we have it, a man on a video on BBC, pretending to tell us exactly how circumcision works.

Why the BBC allows such drivel on their website is mind-boggling.

Conflicts of interest
In the video, a particular woman stands out. Her eyes are wide and glowing, and she tells us, grinning like a french poodle, the wonders of circumcision, and how this new device does away with "that unwanted foreskin." "Unwanted" by whom? 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?

The enthusiastic woman in the video is Tzameret Fuerst, CEO of Circ MedTech, the company marketing the PrePex device. 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 smiling.

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

But this would not be the only conflict of interest this woman has. PrePex was invented by Israeli researchers Oren Fuerst, Ido Kilemnick, and Shaul Shohat.

Why do I mention this fact?

I find it increasingly disturbing, the idea that there are Israelis, and Jewish people intent on evangelizing circumcision to other parts of the world. Shusterman Foundation paid Neil Pollock, a professional mohel and child circumcisor by trade, to promote infant circumcision in Rwanda. 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've gone as far as Africa, Mexico, and even America to do just this.

A disproportionate number of "researchers" and outspoken members of medical organizations just "happen" to be Jewish. Aaron J. Fink, the very inventor of the idea that circumcision might prevent AIDS was Jewish. Stephen Lewis, former head of UNAIDS, is Jewish; he founded AIDS-Free World in 2007, and he uses this organization to gather funding for male circumcision programs. Daniel Halperin, a lead circumcision "researcher" is Jewish (his grandfather was a mohel). On May 28th 2010, at the UNC School of Medicine, Halperin lectured on "Moyels without Borders?: Barriers to Scale-up of Circumcision."

The list goes on.

So in the end, what's this all about?

Is it really about HIV prevention?

Is it about cashing in on the opportunity? Striking while the iron's hot?

Or do people's intentions on spreading circumcision run deeper than that?

Is this really about HIV prevention? Or is it about popularizing and safeguarding a religious and cultural tradition that has come ever under scrutiny? (Cases, in point, the San Francisco Ban, efforts by the Dutch to discourage circumcision etc.)

All I've gotta say is, there's something fishy going on around here.

This video on the BBC website is nothing more than a paid advertisement for the PrePex device. It's rubbish "as-seen-on-TV" telemarketing that isn't even fit to be on infomercial channel, and the BBC ought to be ashamed for publishing it.

Disclaimer:
The words in this blog belong strictly to Joseph4GI, and do not necessarily reflect the views of other intactivists. Please do not conflate my pointing out of conflicts of interest with anti-Semitism. It is simply matter-of-fact that circumcision is an important and indispensable religious custom to Jews, one that they have historically fought to defend for centuries. Being both Jewish and a circumcision "researcher" presents a conflict of interest, because it places one in the awkward position of reporting accurate findings, and questioning the propriety of what, for Jews, has been a historically controversial and ethically problematic religious practice.

Other posts of interest:
Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes