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

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

It's been a while... There's so much I want to write about... There is so much I want to say... I've just been busy with life... work... family... I've been just so overwhelmed...

But I thought this warranted a post.

Often, when circumcision is promoted in this country, the so-called "benefits" of his non-therapeutic surgery are terribly exaggerated, while the risks are completely downplayed, if mentioned at all.

The only ones most parents in this country will hear about, if physicians even bother mentioning them are "pain and discomfort." Few will mention that circumcision could result in MRSA infection, a botched circumcision requiring future correction, partial or full ablation, and even death.

Yes, death is a risk or "complication" of circumcision, but it is rarely mentioned, if at all.

This is what is known and recognized by medical organizations in this country as "informed consent."

An estimated 117 deaths occur every year in the United States due to circumcision. This is a rough estimate, and more conservative than its predecessors (in the past, estimates have been as high as 200 or more deaths per year).

It is hard to get an accurate estimate on the number of deaths in the United States, because deaths due to circumcision are rarely reported as such, if reported at all. At 1.3 million circumcisions a year, circumcision is a money-maker for American medicine, and doctors have an investment to protect. Reporting adverse circumcision effects puts the yearly stipend in jeopardy, not to mention the disrepute it would bring to American medicine. 

Doctors have reputations to uphold, and pocketbooks to line and protect from lawsuits. With so much to lose, there is incentive to hide the evidence. And, parents who would like to maintain their illusion of circumcision being "harmless," and perish the thought that they were actively involved in any way in the death of their son, often agree to keep the death "secret," or report it as the doctor says.

Deaths due to circumcision are often reported as caused by something else, such as "cardiac arrest," or "septic shock." Reporting secondary causes of death hides the fact that they were caused by the circumcision that preceded them. Additionally, hospitals are not required to report deaths caused by circumcision.

Reporting deaths from circumcision would open the floodgates to lawsuits by angry parents and angry men. Reporting deaths from circumcision means loss of revenue. Reporting deaths from circumcision means the "benefits" have to be reconsidered. Reporting deaths from circumcision means that American medical organizations are being irresponsible. Reporting deaths from circumcision means "culture and tradition" is put in danger.

For these reasons, we will never know for sure how many children die as a result of their circumcisions. Reputations to protect, culture and tradition to safeguard, and floodgates to keep sealed.

Meanwhile, boys continue to die.


Connor James was born on Thanksgiving Weekend, Friday, November 25th in Pittsburgh, PA. On Saturday, November 26th, Baby Connor bled to death following his circumcision. Circumcision claims yet another life.

Last year, Joshua Haskins suffered a similar death. After struggling to survive in a NICU with a congenital heart problem, doctors thought it gracious to pressure his mother to have him circumcised "now that he's strong and healthy." Doctors, and even Josh's mother herself insist that Joshua died because of his heart problem (which wasn't aggravated by his circumcision?), although her blog records, which were saved before they were taken down, relate clearly that Joshua had been bleeding uncontrollably, and that it wasn't until 7 hours that doctors caught the nicked vein and decided to stitch it up. By then it was too late.

Would Joshua Haskins still be alive today, had they found the vein in the nick of time?

Who knows.

One thing is for sure though; Joshua was healthy and strong before his circumcision, which unquestionably did cause the complication. Joshua Haskins didn't have to die.

Neither did Connor James.

Neither did countless others before him that we will most likely never know about. 

Circumcision KILLS, people.

Death is one of the "risks" of this procedure.

Considering that there is no medical or clinical necessity to circumcise a perfectly healthy child, is it really worth it?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing risky surgery on a healthy, non-consenting individual, let alone elicit any kind of a "decision" from parents? 

A week from today, Bay Area Intactivists, an intactivist group in San Francisco, will hold a candlelight vigil in remembrance of all male, female and intersex children who have lost their lives due to unnecessary genital surgery.

Rest in peace, Joshua Haskins.

Rest in peace, Connor James.

Rest in peace, Amitai Moshe.

Rest in peace, all of you who died before your time due to this human tragedy.

May one day infant genital mutilation be a thing of the past.

CALIFORNIA: Triple-think?

I wonder just what is Governor Brown on.

On the one hand, he signs AB768, making it illegal to ban circumcision, protecting "religious freedom" and "parental choice." Parents can circumcise their sons all the way up until they turn 18, and they have no capacity to refuse.

And yet, he also signs AB499, which "allows" children 12 and above to "choose" to get Gardasil, a shot that is supposed to prevent HPV, without parental consent.

So while AB768 is supposed to "protect" so-called "parental-choice," AB499 basically takes it away.

To confuse things even further, he also passes a law that prohibits the use of tanning beds for children under 18.

Limiting circumcision to medically necessary procedures and to consenting adults 18 and above is precisely what intactivists were seeking to do in San Francisco, but for whatever reason this was a no-go.

Am I missing something?

Muncie Circumcision Case: HIGHWAY ROBBERY

So apparently, a doctor can just simply get away with doing what he wants with your son. He could just cut off part of his penis, with or without your consent, and you're supposed to just live with it.

"Oops, I'm sorry" is somehow supposed to cover permanent damage.

One doctor Michael R. Burt was recently indicted in a lawsuit for circumcising a boy against his parents' express wishes.

What is sad is that the boy comes from a family where circumcision is not practiced, the parents believe circumcision is genital mutilation and they were making it a point to make sure this didn't happen to their children. Now, the boy will have to live being different than his family members.

Well, it looks like the jury has decided this doctor should get off the hook without paying any damages.

Burt's attorneys acknowledged their client had made an honest mistake, but insisted "no evidence was presented to indicate being circumcised would prevent the youth from having a happy and productive life."

As if resilience from abuse were even relevant.

With the proper counseling, victims of rape and child abuse grow up to have happy and fulfilling lives, but this does not excuse the actions of the perpetrator.

No amount of counseling is going to give this child his normal intact organs back.

He's going to have to live with permanently marred organs for the rest of his life, and his parents are going to have to live with the fact that a doctor abused them and their child, and there is legally nothing that they could do about it.

For whatever reason, one witness thought it gracious to downplay the sensitivity of the penis by stating that "a penis could not be used to read books published in Braille for the sight-impared."

For that matter, a clitoris can't be used for the same purpose either.

On the commentary pages for the articles linked to above, many defend this doctor for being "wonderful, caring and gracious," and that the child will be "just fine."

NOBODY KNOWS THIS FOR SURE.

Nobody knows that the child would indeed not resent the fact that he was forcibly without his consent, even against his parents' express wishes.

Dr. Burt may be wonderful, caring and gracious, but the court is pardoning him for being completely irresponsible.

Whether or not this boy will be OK or not is secondary. The fact of the matter is, the doctor went strictly against the parents' express wishes. Any way you slice it, circumcision is a permanent removal of part of a person's body.

A sad day in America it is when doctors simply aren't expected to be responsible for their actions.

This doctor is being completely irresponsible, and the courts are a disgusting shame for absolving him.

EDIT (same day): An afterthought I had:

Said one of the doctor's lawyers, "Let's pay (the boy) $15 a day until he dies? That's nonsense! [That would] open the courthouse door to every kid who's been circumcised."

Well, at least the children whose circumcisions were performed against the express wishes of the parents.

In other words folks, practicing justice is unfathomable because it would set an inconvenient precedent.

Heaven forbid doctors be held liable for reaping profit from non-therapeutic surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals...

Pro-Circumcision Jewish LGBTs - The Height of Hypocrisy?

I think it's bad enough that there are gays and lesbians who advocate for child circumcision.

Gay friends that I have in the intactivist movement tell me that in America, a good majority of US gay guys say they absolutely prefer the circumcised penis and are in favor of infant circumcision. Some will go as far as to refuse a partner if he is not circumcised.

This boggles the mind.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that up until relatively recently, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness that parents could seek to "cure" in their children. It's almost as if they've forgotten that they've been fighting for "tolerance," "acceptance" and the freedom to be who they are, as they are.

The gay motto seems to be "I'm not going to fit myself into a little box just for you."

They've recently lauded the collapse of the infamous "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Oh but that foreskin? Ew gross! Put it away or cut it off!

But Jewish gays and lesbians defending circumcision as a "religious freedom" have GOT to be at the height of hypocrisy.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to the Torah, homosexuality is an abomination to god. It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to their own religion, homosexuals are cut off from their own people.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 18

In response to Governor Brown's signing of AB768, the law that sanctions male infant genital mutilation in the so-called name of "religious freedom" by mandating its medical validity, openly gay politicians who identify as being Jewish have taken the opportunity to come out and try and impress potential religious voters.

As always, it seems obligatory to draw attention away from religious conviction by feigning an interest in medicine. According to State Senator Mark Leno, Brown's signature ended "any confusion or ambiguity [concerning] state control over medical procedures conducted by licensed health care professionals." District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener added that the governor's signature placed "California firmly on record as supporting religious minorities and supporting the right of the doctors to perform medical procedures without interference by government."  One must wonder, how surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals is "medical."

But openly gay San Francisco mayoral candidate Bevan Dufty's comment was the boldest:

"As a Jew, I believe that our religious traditions should be removed from the balloting process."

Yes, it's a good thing we've elected politicians who make religious traditions, such as gay-bashing, illegal.

I've got to ask, if these Jewish LGBTs are so much in favor of "religious freedom" and "parental rights," do they support a parent's right to send their gay son to get electro-shock therapy?

Do they support a parent's right to send their lesbian daughter to straight camp? And if they fail to "straighten up," do they support a parent's right to put their gay son out on the street?

But most of all, do they support parents teaching their children that gays and lesbians are going to burn in hell, as they do in the Westboro Baptist Church?

Shame on Jewish LGBTs for supporting the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting children.

 

Do they forget? The circumcision of girls is a "religious custom" as well. The federal ban against all genital cutting infringes on "religious freedom" and parental choice as well. Are they concerned about that?

I just don't understand.

You would think that two of the most oppressed minorities in the world would instantly "get it."

EDIT(Added approx 10 mins. later): I just thought of this; "researchers" have been trying for the longest time to pathologize normal intact male genitals as the source of all disease. They're currently in Africa trying to stigmatize the act of being a whole male. But remember when HIV was the "gay disease?" I'm telling you, something is wrong with this so-called "research..."

CALIFORNIA: Charlatanism Officially Protected

It's official.

Governor Brown has signed AB768, which decrees that the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is "medically beneficial."

I could be mistaken, but this could very well be the first law in all of the United States that dictates the medical validity of a surgical procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals, without evidentiary hearings of any kind.

I'm at a loss for words.

The law basically defies the whole of Western medicine, and absolves doctors from reaping profit from non-medical procedures performed on healthy non-consenting individuals.

By California law, males 17 years and below have no capacity to refuse a permanent disfigurement on their genitals, and doctors and other individuals responsible are absolved.

What a sad day in the fight for equal rights.

No, children's rights.

No, basic human rights.

They day will come when this law will be overturned, and all who signed it will be ashamed of themselves.

Federal Level
The law proposed on the federal level is a bit more brazen, outright calling on our federal government to protect circumcision in the name of "religious freedom" and "parental choice." Not only does it defy all of Western medicine, it also flies in the face of the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Readers, if you are opposed to the "Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act" (H. R. 2400) and would like to take action to stop it, I strongly suggest you use POPVOX to contact your Representative. It is also a good idea to contact other Representatives, particularly those on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is considering the Bill. When you write, be sure to include a clause which specifically says "I oppose H. R. 2400."

I personally have used POPVOX and I got a form reply from my representative Sam Farr, so I know it works. POPVOX makes it easy for you to contact your Representative about this and other issues. I highly recommend readers register with POPVOX and contact their Representative concerning this bill.

Click here to go directly to the H. R. 2400 bill on POPVOX.

Let your voice be heard!

It could make all the difference.

Visit the following links for another set of analyses regarding the the circumcision protection laws:

Califronia Law

Federal Law