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

AFRICA: When Propaganda Fails, Try Bribery

In earlier posts, I point out how "mass circumcision campaign" efforts have been unsuccessful in coercing men into circumcision in some parts of Africa. So desperate are some circumcision promoters in getting their programs off the ground that they've tried turning to various propaganda approaches, without much success.

In Swaziland, for example, the Soka Uncobe ("Circumcise and Conquer" in Swazi) campaign had been so unsuccessful in convincing the men to undergo the knife since its launch*, that they've tried hiring an entire sports team to endorse the project. As if that weren't enough, organizers "re-launched" the program in July, with the endorsement of the Swazi King, which, by the way, keeps many wives and isn't even circumcised himself. To top it off, they've even tried hiring an artist to try and beautify the genital surgery, thinly veiling it in artistic expression. Millions of dollars in trying to convince men to cut off part of their penises, this despite the fact that HIV transmission was found to be more prevalent among the CIRCUMCISED in their own country. I can think of no better expression to describe the situation, than officials pissing in the mouths of Africans and calling it rain.

As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent). (p. 256)

*Numbers vary by source: According to the Swazi Observer, Xaba reported that 28,000 out of 152,000 men had been circumcised as a result of the campaign, while Times Live reported only 3,000

In Botswana, only 14,000 of 467,000 targeted men (12%) have stepped forward since the program began last year, according to a Mmegi report in July. In the words of Principal public relations officer at the ministry of health, Temba Sibanda, that a large portion of the targeted group was not coming forth for circumcision is a "mystery." Here too, officials decided to go with the football team approach.

According to The Standard, officials in Turkana County, Kenya, are facing the same challenge in meeting their quota; since their program began in March this year, only 3,000 out of 175,000 men have come forth for the operation. Numbers were high at first, but they've since dwindled. Their approach? Bribe men sh100 ($1.07) to get circumcised. Through their paid referral program, men also get paid for each man they bring in for the operation.

Quoth Program Director Dr. Nicholas Muraguri:

"We really want this programme to succeed. That is why we are giving locals, who visit health facilities for the cut, incentives."

In other words, HIV prevention isn't good enough.

"This approach will help us to achieve our targets. The more you bring clients to the health facility for the cut, the more money you get... We are educating the community the health benefit of male cut in the prevention of HIV to encourage men to get circumcised."

...that is, if by "educating," he means "brainwashing," and by "encourage," he means "bribe."

I've asked before, and I'll ask again; have "mass circumcision campaign" organizers ever considered the possibility that some men may never agree to get circumcised? That some men treasure their bodies and would prefer an alternative? What alternatives do circumcision campaign organizers have ready for such men? Or was preferring to stay intact simply not supposed to be an option?

Much "support" is offered to men who go in for circumcisions. But is that same "support" offered to the men who would rather learn proper hygiene and the proper usage of condoms?

These are questions that these program organizers must answer. What if despite all the efforts, the men would prefer an alternative to circumcision? Do they have that scenario in mind? Do they have education packages as part of these "mass circumcision campaigns" for men who do not want to be circumcised in place? Or are they simply not going to offer these men that option?

So much for education and informed consent...

Related Link:

KENYA: Men bribed to be circumcised

When All Else Fails, Hire a Sports Team

It must be a tough job being a circumcision promoter... You're paid to convince a quota of men to have part of their penises cut off "for their own good," and for whatever "mysterious" reason, only a small fraction of the men you're expected to convince trickle in. You've tried music, you've tried, movies, you've tried coercion, you've tried harassment, you've tried taunting their masculinity, and nothing seems to work! You've got a quota that a paycheck from PEPFAR or Bill Gates depends on, the year is almost over and you've barely got a tenth of your goal. What to do? Hire a football team!

Nothing is more effective in brainwashing people, er, I mean properly educating them about HIV transmission and the full range of their options than celebrity endorsement. The celebrity isn't even required to be an actual user of the product advertised, just as long as their name and face is on it is enough. PEPFAR and Bill Gates say they'll flip the bill so it's all covered. The men should be jumping in line to have part of their penises cut off! If they don't, if all else fails, you can always re-launch your campaign and get the king to endorse it. After all, what's more influential than a king nobody really listens to?

Yes, it looks like the ministry of health in Botswana has taken the lead of Swaziland's ministry of health and they have finally gotten their own football team to endorse their very own campaign. It was very recently reported that men in Botswana were "mysteriously" not taking the circumcision bait, and that they were 88% behind in their quota. If this fails, Botswana's ministry of health's next move would be to hire a local king. (If they can find one that is influential and leads by example; the Swazi king has many wives and is not even circumcised himself!)

What I'd like to know is how many of the athletes that are endorsing this campaign actually went through with their circumcisions. It's very easy to to lie for money. Celebrities endorse products they never use all the time. The Swazi king has endorsed circumcision, but he has yet to announce his own. The story in Mmegi's latest article almost sounds believable, except for the part about the operation taking 5 minutes. Is this story even true? Or was his athlete paid to lie? It would be interesting to ask for these men to drop their pants to see if they're lying or not. There's not a doubt in my mind that some of the very organizers of these so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" would never put their money where their penises are.

Sooner or later the circumcision/HIV hoax will blow over. These so-called "studies" are going to explode into the scientific scandal of the century, and the WHO, UNAIDS, PEPFAR, Bill Gates etc., will all have to bear responsibility for bankrolling miseducation campaigns, and the genital mutilation of thousands of men and children across Africa in the name of "humanitarian aid."

Swazi King: "Better You Than Me"

So in my last post, I suspected that Soka Uncobe organizers were growing desperate. There had been reports that in spite of all the hype, the campaign wasn't having the desired impact. Laws are on the table to make circumcision compulsory, organizers have resorted to using the influence of celebrity endorsement, and recently the Soka Uncobe project was supposed to be "re-launched" with the Swazi king's endorsement.

So according to Times Live, the king himself has indeed endorsed circumcision, likening HIV to a "terrorist."

At first I was very concerned that the country's monarch endorsing circumcision might actually make an impact, but then I read this and I almost died laughing!

Apparently it's not the first time the king has made some outrageous remarks; a decade ago he posited that HIV-positive people should all be "branded and sterilised". (Could you imagine a campaign for THAT!)

And, apparently circumcision used to be widespread in Swaziland, but the practice was abandoned in the 19th century. The king likens the return of the practice to other traditions he has revived as a response to the rampant HIV epidemic; in 2001 he required young girls to wear tassels to display their virginity and banning men from having sex with girls under 18. (When he broke his own ban by taking a 17-year-old wife, he fined himself a cow.)

While the article repeats Ambassador Irving's statement of reaching a goal of zero infections by 2020, it also points to the reality that Swaziland has a long way to go; 4 out of 10 pregnant women test HIV-positive at clinics, according to Health Minister Benedict Xaba. (Remember him?) Circumcision will not prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission, and it will not cure an HIV+ child. But nevermind that, let's spend millions on circumcising the men, discouraging the use of condoms and increasing the infection of women!

Here's the strange part. While in the Swazi Observer Xaba reports that 28,000 men have been circumcised due to the campaign, the Times Live says that only 3,000 men have undergone circumcision since the massive Soka Uncobe campaign began. OK, so how many men have fallen for Soka Uncobe REALLY? With illusive numbers like these we may never know for sure.

And, it's just as I've thought. Soka Uncobe is such a failure that the organizers were hoping that the king could, in the words of Times Live, "breathe life into the campaign."

A ray of hope lies yet for those of us against this deliberate rape of Africa:

"The king still commands enormous respect, but in the rural areas near Mankayane dissatisfaction is bubbling to the surface as his subjects feel the pinch of a deepening economic crisis.

'The king has a lot of money in the bank but he can't help us. He has many women and a luxurious life. His children get an overseas education. He doesn't care about Swazis,' local Boxer Vilakazi told AFP."

'I love the king but 90 percent of youth are not working. Only those close to the king get jobs,' said 21-year-old Mthobisi Dlahla, who said he planned to go for the surgery for his own safety -- not because Mswati said so. (6 months into the campaign and he's still "planning" on it? Hrm...)

The polygamous monarch has been criticised for failing to lead by example in his kingdom, where multiple partnerships are seen as the major catalyst of the AIDS crisis.

Mswati did not say Friday whether he intended to get circumcised himself."

So not only is Soka Uncobe proving to be a big flop, but now it looks as though the organizers are so desperate that they'll even stoop as low as trying to use the endorsement of a monarch whose influence and authority is dwindling, and who can't even lead by example!

And how can we be sure that Soka Uncobe organizers are putting their money where their penises are? It would be interesting to ask them to strip for us to make sure they're leading by example. What would we find? Not even the KING is circumcised yet!

At this point I must ask, WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING ON HERE? What's REALLY going on in Africa? Are the numbers we see in the news even real? Let's strip down Callie's footballers. Were they REALLY circumcised, or were they payed PEPFAR money to give their endorsement?

WHEN ARE WE GONNA STOP DICKIN' AROUND WITH CIRCUMCISION AND STICK TO WHAT WE KNOW PREVENTS HIV TRANSMISSION FOR SURE?

Circumcision DOES NOT PREVENT HIV, and spending millions promoting as HIV prevention is not only a waste of money, because African men AREN'T BUYING IT, it's actually COSTING LIVES.

Americans
If you think the promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a waste of our tax dollars, get a hold of PEPFAR and let them know.

Africans
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.

I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.

Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:

You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"

Soka Uncobe "Official Launch" - Come Again?

Right. So Swazi circumcision/HIV enthusiasts keep babbling on about Soka Uncobe, the American government's vicarious efforts to circumcise an entire nation thus creating a miniature version of America itself (in terms of 80% circumcision prevalence). The pretext for mutilating 80% of Swaziland's males is, of course, the so-called prevention of HIV, even though Swaziland was one of the African nations where HIV was more prevalent among the circumcised population.

As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent). (p. 256)

Not to mention the fact that having a 90% prevalence of circumcised males never prevented HIV transmission in America. Not to mention that circumcision never prevented HIV anywhere else. Not to mention recent reports that the circumcision/HIV message is actually confusing the people of Africa, agravating the situation.

Despite all of the Swazi government's efforts to blow the Soka Uncobe campaign out of proportion, judging by recent reports, it seems the campaign is not having the intended effect of getting all the men to line up to be mutilated, and officials don't seem to know what else to do. So unsuccessful are efforts to circumcised everybody that even laws are being discussed to make circumcision compulsory. In a recent report by the Swazi Observer (Why don't they allow any comments by the way? Maybe they've been ordered to silence the voice of criticizm?), it looks like Soka Uncobe officials have recruited an entire football team to get circumcised and endorse the Soka Uncobe campaign. I'm wondering how much PEPFAR money was used to convince these men to submit to the cut, and how many men will need more money to pay for anti-retrovirals when they get HIV.

And now, according to the Swazi Observer, the Soka Uncobe campaign is going to undergo its "official launch." (Because it wasn't "officially launched" before?)

Here's my critique of the report:

"THE Soka Uncobe national male circumcision campaign could prevent 90 000 new HIV infections in the next decade, and save the country over E4 billion.

This was revealed by American Ambassador to Swaziland, Earl Irving during a Ministry of Health Soka Uncobe press briefing at the Mbabane Government Hospital yesterday. It was attended by Minister of Health Benedict Xaba, PS Steven Shongwe and health officials along with US Embassy staff."

Irving isn't "revealing" anything new. Circumcision/HIV enthusiasts have been touting circumcision as a "cost-effective" HIV prevention method since last decade. The 90,000  figure is based on the dubious premise that circumcision actually prevents HIV transmission 60% as per the three famous African trials. Real world data demonstrates, however, that circumcision fails to prevent HIV in the real world, not to mention the very US.

"The campaign launch by His Majesty King Mswati III will be held at Mankayane, while the roll out began in February."
 
Roll out first. Campaign launch AFTERwards. That should always be the order of things I'm sure.
 
It looks to me like just another publicity stunt. The first attempts didn't work, and it doesn't sound like they have too much faith in the football team. Perhaps getting royal endorsement might cause Swazi men to relinquish their bodies for mutilation?
 
"Ambassador Irving said if Swaziland would be able to meet the circumcision goals, it would take a giant step towards meeting the United Nations declaration of zero new HIV infections by 2020."
 
Ambassador Irving is speaking on behalf a nation who has been on a quest to legitimize the forced genital cutting of children for at least a century. There is no doubt in my mind that Irving is himself circumcised and more than happy to tout a party line that legitimizes his own circumcision status, and if he is married with children, the circumcision status of his own sons. Ambassador Irving, and the nation he represents, all have a glaringly obvious conflict of interest; the competing interests are HIV prevention, and the justification of male circumcision, especially male infant circumcision back home.
 
"'Since 2006, with funding from PEPFAR and others, Swaziland has been scaling up male circumcision as part of the National Strategic Framework on HIV/AIDS. The goal is to reach 80% of 15-49 year-old males with voluntary medical male circumcision...'"
 
If compulsory circumcision is made law, circumcision will be anything but voluntary. And the forced circumcision of minors is NOT voluntary, and a violation of basic human rights. As an American citizen, I am absolutely disgusted that the abuse of children, and the coersion of African men into having their bodies mutilated under the pretext of HIV prevention is what my tax dollars are being used for.
 
"'... As we prepare to have His Majesty the King officially launch the Soka Uncobe male circumcision campaign, we know that it could not come at a more opportune time."'
 
Officially launch? More like, officially ENDORSE. The campaign has been "launched" since February. Was this "launch" in the campaign's schedule? Or was it thrown in at the last minute because the campaign is not having its intended effect?
 
"...Soka Uncobe is an innovative, Cabinet- approved programme to achieve one of the major goals of the National Strategic framework on HIV/AIDS."
 
Circumcision, if we are to believe circumcision enthusiasts, has been around for at least two millenia, and, in the United States, for just over a century. It is anything but "innovative," and judging from real world data, nowhere near effective at preventing HIV/AIDS.

"'...From a national perspective investing in male circumcision could avert 90 000 new HIV infections. This fact alone could save over E4 billion in the next decade,' said Irving."
 
Notice the half-concealed qualification.

From a national perspective, HIV was found to be more prevalent among the circumcised. (See 2nd paragraph above). From a national perspective, circumcision is a waste of money and a disservice to the people, as it is sending conflicting messages.
 
"He said the American government supported the initiative because Swazis including the King had shown great interest in improving the local health system."

The American government "supports" the initiative because they have an interest in seeing as many men and children circumcised as possible. Circumcision is a dying trend, and it is ever being challenged at home. More than ever, the American medical industry needs to secure acquiescence of circumcision as a "prophilactic measure" against something. They've been trying to do this for over a century. This whole publicity stunt is about vindicating circumcision, particularly infant circumcision. It has ALWAYS been about that. It has absolutely nothing to do with HIV prevention. It is a shame and a disgrace that our country is pushing on Africans a "prevention measure" that never worked in our own country.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Swazis, including the king, have been told that the price for "humanitarian aid" is their endorsement of circumcision. The American circumcision lobby has hijacked PEPFAR and other humanitarian organizations, and has made it so that anybody that wants aid must agree to endorse "mass circumcision campaigns." Hence PEPFAR beneficiaries sing the praises of circumcision. Hence they show "interest." Hence "circumcision is so successful that African goverments are taking it up as a tool." Hence, circumcision has "benefits," hence doctors can keep reaping profit from performing it on non-consenting children at home. THIS is what it has always been about. The pseudo-scientific vindication of forced male genital mutilation at the expense of the poor people of Africa.
"Minister Xaba urged the public to attend the launch since it would be graced by His Majesty the King, apart from being a good initiative worth supporting."

I find it almost laughable how "being a good initiative worth supporting" is an afterthought. It is clear Xaba hopes that the king's endorsement will finally get the Soka Uncobe campaign to perk.

"'In light of the current financial challenges faced by the country, we are optimistic that the country will save millions through investing on male circumcision, hence we would urge the public to support the ministry of health by attending the launch,” said Xaba."

Translation; if men don't start lining up to be circumcised, we could lose PEPFAR aid, losing the country millions. We want the public to attend the launch so that they are ordered directly by the king to submit and be conquered by Soka Uncobe, since the campaign is such a failure.

I feel so sorry for the men of Swaziland. To be coerced on the street by strangers. To have their masculinity challenged. To be threatened with making circumcision legally compulsory. To have their sports interests exploited. And now, to be ordered by their own king.

Has anybody stopped to think, maybe perhaps the men of Swaziland DON'T WANT to be circumcised?

Has anybody stopped to think Swazi men think this idea of mass coerced circumcision is crazy?

Has anybody stopped to think the people of Swaziland want an ALTERNATIVE?

Circumcision is NOTHING like a vaccine. A vaccine strengthens the immune system against microbes that cause disease. Circumcision is cutting part of a person's penis off. It is an intentional and deliberate wound. When HIV invades the body, it does not matter whether a person is circumcised or not.

WHY are circumcision enthusiasts hell-bent on stuffing circumcision down these people's throats?

Look up "circumcision" on PubMed. Scientists are no longer looking into how exactly circumcision prevents HIV anymore. That doesn't matter. The bulk of recent circumcision "study" focuses on, get this, how they can effectively get people to accept circumcision. What's the most effective way to brainwash people. What's the most effective way to get people to submit themselves and their children to circumcision.

Did you know that no scientist can tell you how exactly circumcision prevents HIV? Did you know that outside of the famed trials, the "reduced risk of HIV transmission by 60%" fails to manifest itself? Did you know that circumcision has failed to prevent HIV in the US, of all places?

Of all the research that people could be working on, WHY is so much money being poured into circumcision???

Progress is defined by the replacement of the old with the new and better. Science is always seeking to replace itself; to make itself obsolete. Instead of seeking for alternatives to circumcision, instead of seeking ways to avoid surgical intervention, WHY are "studies" focusing on preserving, even necessitating a blood ritual that has been around for at least two millenia? "Researching" ways to necessitate surgery, and then "researching" ways on how to impose it on the most people as possible, even going as far as imposing it on healthy, non-consenting children, has got to be the most ass-backwards logic I've ever heard of.

The article continues...

"'More than 28 000 have already been circumcised since inception of the campaign which are signs that we will be able to meet the 152 000 target set for the year 2011,' said Xaba."

This sounds like 1984 newspeak.

Here's what I've managed to prevent from being tossed down the memory hole:

"The ambitious, US-funded campaign hopes to reach one in eight Swazi men, but has had disappointing results so far.

The clinic performing Mfanzile’s procedure is geared to see 80 patients a day. At best 15 trickle in - fewer than even before the campaign began in February.

Adverts urging men to “circumcise and conquer” are everywhere but organisers now admit they may not reach their targets as quickly as hoped."

"Most of the time in Swaziland, men are the decision makers. Men must be in the forefront of this battle,” said Health Minister Benedict Xaba. “It takes time for a Swazi person to accept something new; to accept change."

Let's see, it is already the middle of July, and 28,000 men have been circumcised. The goal is 152,000, and they're not even past their half-way point. But suddenly these are signs that the target will be met? I'm guessing Xaba is counting on the king's endorsement to drive the men to the circumcision clinics in throngs.

I'm wondering if PEPFAR and Swazi officials have thought about this possibility.

What if their Soka Uncobe campaign fails to circumcise 152,000 men?

What if in the end, the men of Swaziland stand up and tell their king they will not submit themselves or their children to infant genital mutilation?

What if the men told Swazi officials "we WILL not go through with this?"

What then?

What's plan B?

Well they start thinking about HIV campaigns WITHOUT circumcision THEN?

In America, circumcision is a dying trend. More and more parents are leaving their children intact, despite all of the purported "medical benefits." According to the CDC, the rate of infant circumcision is down to 33% or so, with differing rates across the country. In California, the rate is as low as 22%. This means that, circumcision is clearly being abandoned in favor of other less invasive, more effective means of disease prevention.

So what if the people of Swaziland make it clear to their government that they will not take up circumcision?

What will PEPFAR etc. do then?

Think it possible.

African people might actually get smart enough to figure it all out.

Message to the Men of Africa
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.

I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.

Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:

You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"

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.

Improving the lives and health of Swazi children? Once again, ARE CHILDREN DYING OF HIV/AIDS??? AREN'T THEY MORE AT RISK FOR MOTHER-TO-CHILD TRANSMISSION??? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!!!

"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
Bleeding
Infection
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.

WHY???

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.

Lisa Russel and USAID DoubleThink

So USAID has found a new champion in Lisa Russel, a supposedly "independent filmmaker" with a "background in humanitarian and international development work." She has recently completed a circumcision/HIV propaganda video which USAID is pushing through one of their groups, AIDSTAR-One.

"In It To Save Lives," her video is called. But is she really?

In a comment to a blog post by Virgin's Richard Branson who is pushing her video, she toots her own horn:

"I can assure you that in the research I have done in preparing for the film and in the personal situations I encountered during making the film, I am 100% behind the efforts in getting the procedure out to as many people as possible. Simply stated, male circumcision can reduce the number of people living with HIV."

How can she "assure" us? Has she seriously done the research? Is she simply not aware that circumcision hasn't prevented HIV anywhere else? Who is this woman, and how can she spew these claims in a way that is so matter-of-fact?

"For those who have bore witness to the devastation that AIDS has had, particularly on the African continent, you might agree with me that if a procedure came along that can decrease the number of people dying from this horrible disease, it should be available for those who request it."

This statement is based on a dubious premise; that circumcision is actually effective at "reducing the risk" of HIV. Real world data shows us that this simply isn't the case. I wonder what this woman's stance would be if this procedure were a variation of female genital cutting. You know? One that removed only those parts of the vulva which are "extra" and whose absence would not affect sexual satisfaction. Something like sunat. Would she back this up if it "came along?" Would she agree that it needs to be made available "for those who request it," or would she have a different take?

 "If you lived in a country like Swaziland, where 1 in 4 people are infected with the virus, wouldn't you fight for a procedure that has scientifically been proven to decrease men's risk by 60%?"

More matter-of-fact pontification. Swaziland may indeed be a country where 1 in 4 people are infected with HIV. It is also a country where HIV transmission is more prevalent among the CIRCUMCISED population. Did she somehow overlook this little detail in her "research?"

Me, personally, if I lived in Swaziland, and somebody told me it's get circumcised or use a condom, and they told me that circumcision "reduces the risk of HIV by 60%, condoms by over 95%, but you'd still have wear a condom if you chose circumcision," I'd choose to screw circumcision and wear a condom. What kind of a stupid question is that? This makes me wonder, if men are "choosing" circumcision in Africa, what are they actually being TOLD?

As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent). (p. 256) (PDF available here.)

Russel continues:
"I have met and filmed numerous men, women and children who were dying or lost family members to AIDS - in countries where condoms were widely available and prevention efforts were top notch but HIV rates were still high - and I ask, if people in these countries are voluntarily willing to go through this medical procedure to better protect themselves and their families from AIDS, who are we to tell them they can't?"

Lisa tries to be emotionally emphatic, but she is either misguided, or deliberately begging the question. She attempts to secure acquiescence for what is actually yet to be proven. DOES circumcision prevent AIDS? And if so, how does this happen? The answers to these questions are always foregone conclusion, but the fact of the matter is that not even the very authors of the circumcision "studies" know that circumcision actually prevents AIDS. The best they can do is present a range of carefully selected statistical data and then give the post-hoc/ad-hoc explanation that it was indeed circumcision that prevented HIV. Few people are aware of the fact that the three big African trials all lack a working hypothesis, and that nobody actually knows how circumcision prevents HIV, if at all. It is just assumed it does a priori.

Bigger questions need to be asked. The United States is also a country where condoms are widely available and prevention efforts are top notch. It is also a country where 80% of the male population is already circumcised, and yet HIV rates are still high. If circumcision is so effective at "reducing the rate of HIV," why then, are HIV rates in fact higher in America, where the majority of the male population is already circumcised, than in Europe, where the majority of the male population is not?

UNAIDS, World Health Organization.

Global HIV/AIDS and STD Surveillance Project: Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic 1998.

 
If circumcision is so effective at "reducing the rate of HIV," why are countries where circumcision is already wide-spread suffering increased HIV transmission rates? Countries like Malaysia, the Philippines, and Israel? (Haaretz reports on Israel's AIDS crisis here, here, here, and here.)

If circumcision is so effective at "reducing the rate of HIV," then why was HIV found to be more prevalent among the circumcised in 6 different African countries?

In Cameroon, where 91% of the male population is circumcised, the ratio of circumcised men vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 4.1 vs. 1.1. (See p. 17) In Ghana "...the vast majority of Ghanaian men (95 percent) are circumcised... There is little difference in the HIV prevalence by circumcision status..." (1.6 vs 1.4 See p. 13) In Lesotho, 23% of the men are circumcised, and the ratio circumcised men vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 22.8 vs 15.2. (p. 13) In Malawi, 20% of the male population is circumcised. The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 13.2 vs 9.5. (p. 10) According to a demographic health survey taken in Rwanda in 2005, the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8 vs 2.1. (See p. 10)  And for Swaziland, in a recent demographic health survey (2006-2007), the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was found to be 22 vs. 20.(p. 256)

Just what "research" has Russel actually done? Is she aware of the following studies that contradict the "reduces the risk by 60%" party line? Is she aware that even though USAID is pushing circumcision as HIV prevention, according to none other than USAID, "there appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher?"

Other studies:
"Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence data. The results are important in considering the development of circumcision-focused interventions within AIDS prevention programs."

Results: ...No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries.

One study which aimed at measuring male to female HIV transmission was ended early, because the results were not looking favorable. The Wawer study showed a 54% higher rate of male-to-female transmission in the group where the men had been circumcised. The figures were too small to show statistical significance, but there will be no larger scale study to find out if circumcising men increases the risk to women. Somehow that's considered unethical, yet it's considered ethical to promote male circumcision while not knowing if the risk to women is increased (by 54%?, 25%?, 80%? - who knows?).

The latest study in Kenya finds no association between male circumcision and lowered HIV rates:
'Using a population-based survey we examined the behaviors, beliefs, and HIV/HSV-2 serostatus of men and women in the traditionally non-circumcising community of Kisumu, Kenya prior to establishment of voluntary medical male circumcision services. A total of 749 men and 906 women participated. Circumcision status was not associated with HIV/HSV-2 infection nor increased high risk sexual behaviors. In males, preference for being or becoming circumcised was associated with inconsistent condom use and increased lifetime number of sexual partners. Preference for circumcision was increased with understanding that circumcised men are less likely to become infected with HIV.'

So who is this Lisa Russel person? Does she actually care about humanity and public health? Some of us have tried to reach out to her, only to get back the exact same remarks that I show above verbatim. She simply cut and paste. Is Lisa really "in it to save lives?" Or is she in it to make a few bucks? Is she actually a concerned world citizen, or is she merely an attention whore who finally found somebody to sponsor her? Is this really her opinion? Or is she being paid by USAID to toe the party line?

"It's hard to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends on his not understanding."
~Upton Sinclair

I'm not sure about everyone else, but I see a resemblance...

The latest "studies" in Africa are a scientific scandal waiting to explode. Circumcision does not prevent HIV. Never has, never will. The promotion of circumcision in Africa is already proving to be disastrous, and when the world finally realizes that the WHO, UNAIDS and American organizations effectively bankrolled the spread of AIDS, not to mention needless genital modification in boys and men, people like Russel will be embarrassed to ever mention the fact that they were directly involved in helping spread these lies.

EDIT (added July 2nd):
I almost forgot to mention, Russel and others keep talking about so-called "VMMC" or "voluntary male medical circumcision." (Does "VMFC" or "voluntary medical female circumcision" exist?) As if stigmatizing "mass circumcision campaigns" like Soka Uncobe weren't enough,  it looks like a law has been proposed in Swaziland to make circumcision compulsory for men. And, it looks like once all the men are circumcised, PEPFAR and UNICEF want the Swazi government to start circumcising children as well. I'm not sure how this can be considered "voluntary" at all.

It is devastating to me that my tax dollars are being used for the deliberate deception of African people, and for the blatant violation of basic human rights. Additionally, I'd never imagine that UNICEF promote and bankroll the genital mutilation of children. Yes, UNICEF too has jumped on the bandwagon, and they are using the latest rubbish "studies" to promote the deliberate abuse of children. This is absolutely despicable. "For those who request it" indeed.

Related article:
Lisa Russel: Attention Whore Confirmed

SWAZILAND: Compulsory Circumcision Law Proposed

So while intactivists are fighting in San Francisco to ban the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants, officials in Swaziland are trying to make it legally compulsory for all men, under the mistaken belief that circumcision does anything in the fight against HIV.

According to the Swazi Observer, there is a group of women advocating this law, and demanding chiefs cooperate in making sure the law was followed. Men who refused to be circumcised would be fined.

Discussions and lectures were organized by the Swazi Ministry of Health. Apparently Swaziland has a "National Male Circumcision Director." I can't even believe this!

Apparently the women believe that "having all men circumcised would not only help [the men], but the nation at large in that the risks of their wives contracting sexually transmitted diseases would decrease."

What in the WORLD are they feeding these women? Is the Swazi goverment on crack? Don't they know that the studies conflict with reality, and that even if they were 100% accurate, circumcision would not offer women any benefits?

I sense American influence behind this. Perhaps PEPFAR and Bill Gates are frustrated that the much hyped Soka Uncobe campaign is failing to help reach the proposed 80% quota, that now they are twisting Swazi officials arms to get a move on with the mass mutilation campaign?

And they want to do this even though HIV was shown to be more prevalent in circumcised men in this country?

"As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent)".

Studies show that circumcision is next to worthless in the fight against HIV. Actually, it's proving to be less than worthless, as it's leading men to believe that they don't have to wear condoms, making the situation worse. The Soka Uncobe campaign was the biggest blunder for the Swazi Ministry of Health because it sent the message that "Circumcise and Conquer" meant once you were circumcised you "conquered" HIV, and you could "conquer" all the women you want.

Circumcision gives men an excuse to be complacent with condoms, which, even if "studies" were correct, outperforms circumcision. And now they want to make circumcision for all the men compulsory?

Precisely what crock have Americans been feeding the men of Swaziland? Or are they simply that gullible?

The day is coming when this drive to mutilate the whole of Africa under the guise of HIV prevention will be seen for the despicable human rights atrocity that it is. Sooner or later America is going to have to be responsible.

How much longer before the world wakes up to this mass genocide being conducted in Africa?

EDIT (added 6-27-2011):
Just imagine. How would this story be reported in the news if it were the opposite? What if officials were pushing for a law that made female circumcision mandatory? What if there were men who wanted their women circumcised? How would that play out?

What if "studies showed" that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV" in women? Would American institutions of higher education pay to conduct "studies" to find this out? Would they fly to Africa, circumcise 1000 women and then follow them around to see who got AIDS first? And then use the results to say that "circumcision prevented HIV" in the women who didn't get it? Would they then use these "studies" to pressure the WHO to endorse female circumcision as HIV prevention policy? Would they pressure governments to enact "mass-circumcision campaigns" and compulsory laws?

Why, why, why is this acceptable to do with male circumcision?

Incidentally, "studies show" female circumcision could help "reduce the risk" of HIV here, here, and here. Not to mention that "studies" ALSO show that women who have been circumcised still experience sexual pleasure here and here.

So what are we waiting for! I don't see the WHO, UNAIDS, USAID, PEPFAR etc. getting behind this... Why, they're completely ignoring another "tool" in the fight against AIDS!

(Sorry for the sarcasm...)

Swazi Men Not As Dumb As American Circumcision Advocates Had Hoped

I've already posted on how American money is being spent to promote male circumcision as HIV prevention in Africa via PEPFAR:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/soka-uncobe-our-us-tax-dollars-at-work.html

And I've already posted on how the promotion of circumcision is sending conflicting messages, making the situation worse:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html

Of particular interest is the Soka Uncobe, or "circumcise and conquer" campaign, which aims to circumcise over 80% of the male population in Swaziland. I also posted an article on how the campaign was already turning out to be disaster, as it was percieved to send the message that circumcision made you a "conqueror" of women, and that once you were circumcised you "conquered" HIV.
http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=24311

The campaign to circumcise 80% of Swazi men was launched in spite of the fact that earlier studies had shown HIV to be prevalent among CIRCUMCISED men:

"As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent)".
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf

However, it looks as though Swazi men aren't as gullible as people behind PEPFAR had hoped.

"The ambitious, US-funded campaign hopes to reach one in eight Swazi men, but has had disappointing results so far.

The clinic performing Mfanzile’s procedure is geared to see 80 patients a day. At best 15 trickle in - fewer than even before the campaign began in February.

Adverts urging men to “circumcise and conquer” are everywhere but organisers now admit they may not reach their targets as quickly as hoped."
http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/news/africa-at-forefront-of-aids-war-1.1075615

Do American circumcision advocates really think African men are simply that stupid?

The article continues:
"Most of the time in Swaziland, men are the decision makers. Men must be in the forefront of this battle,” said Health Minister Benedict Xaba. “It takes time for a Swazi person to accept something new; to accept change."

Or perhaps the men of Swaziland are not as dumb as they look.

The so-called "studies" have numerous flaws that bring their credibility into question, not to mention that their conclusions don't correlate with real world empirical data:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

But assuming the studies were 100% accurate, circumcision would still fail as an HIV prevention method. Circumcision is so ineffective at preventing HIV transmission that even the very authors of these studies cannot stress the use of condoms enough.

Conductors of these "mass circumcision campaigns" have the double burden of trying to convince men to undergo circumcision, AND, to make sure that they know that once they're circumcised, they'd still have to wear condoms.

But once a man has learened that all he has to do is wear a condom, why would he EVER choose to become circumcised? If he chooses circumcision, isn't that a sign that he DOESN'T really understand?

Some men have chosen to undergo circumcision. But what were they actually told? What did they understand circumcision would to for them? Were they told the truth? Or were they told whatever circumcision promoters needed to tell them in order to secure more numbers for their 80% quota?

Whatever they're telling them, it looks like not all of them are buying it. It's heartening to know that in spite of all the money, lies and deception being hurled at these African men, most have the good sense to know better.

I only feel sorry for those who were ensnared by the American mutilation machine. What must go through the minds of those who go to a clinic and find out they were infected with HIV anyway, despite having gone through radical genital surgery?

What's next for them? Expensive ARTs for the rest of their lives? And the lives of their partners?

Is this what "researchers" mean by "cost-effective?"
 
These "mass circumcision" campaigns are an insult to the people of Africa, and the American taxpayer. What harrassment and abject humiliation to be reeled in by nifty slogans, music and other propaganda to be told you have to both be circumcised AND have to wear condoms.

I hope this serves as a lesson to PEPFAR and others funding these abominable campaigns:
Money and propaganda can only take you so far; not everyone is as dumb as you think.

Most anybody with a brain should be able to figure out that you don't need circumcision if you wear a condom. If men are choosing to get circumcised then there is a problem; they're either not fully understanding, or circumcision promoters are deliberately LYING to them.

This IS going to come back and haunt us in the future.