And what is her response? "Oh I'm so insulted. I can't even get through the hate."
How in the world she feels entitled to the victim card is beyond me. How are men supposed to feel for having our bodies insulted and treating them like a disposable piece of trash? But somehow SHE is the victim? Aw, poor baby...
So I thought she was just gonna blow this off, as most circumcision advocates do. What does she really care? I was expecting for this post to simply be another long and boring post in my long list of worthless ramblings. She ignores me, I forget that such a woman called “Lisa Russel” ever existed, and we both go about our business.
Well, word has gotten 'round to me that she actually DID read it, and has decided to, instead of address real and direct questions I pose, play the victim:
"Lisa Russell
My film is causing such a heated debate that I am now getting personal hate press. This one is my fav. "So who is this Lisa Russel person? Does she actually care about humanity and public health? Is she
actually a concerned world citizen, or is she merely an attention whore who finally found somebody to sponsor her?" Wow. Too bad I can't even get to this dude's argument bc I can barely get through the hate."
She means to say she can't even touch my arguments, so she chose to focus on my anger. I'm not going to deny it; the promotion of male genital mutilation, even if it's under the guise of pseudo-medicine makes me angry. This video that disrespects and desecrates males in the name of humanity pisses me off.
When she made this video, she should have known she was going to hear it from guys like me. She should have known that there are men who would not stand by silently while she uses pseudo-science to insult us and slander our bodies.
She needs to stop acting surprised and answer the questions posed to her. She's an adult; she needs to be responsible for her work.
Others who are more restrained and more respectful than I ever could, posted polite but firm comments on her Facebook wall, only to have them deleted. Here are some of the comments she is allowing to remain, however...
"Toni Blackman They say you know you've said something when others have something to say about what you said. #KeepTalkin This Lisa Russell is makin moves and impact"
Yes, that's right Toni. And judging by the fact that somebody, especially Lisa, and you, and others, are saying something about what I've said, I am "makin' moves and impact" too.
"Lisa Russell Thx Toni. You gotta check out the photo he posted of metoo. Side by side with the joker with the caption, "I'm not sure abouteveryone else, but I see a resemblance..." Am thinking of making it myprofile pic. lol."
I guess she's not familiar with trollface? :-) :-) :-)
Aw, I'm sorry Lisa, but I just couldn't resist. I just don't know what to think about somebody who thinks it's gracious and humanitarian to promote male genital mutilation in the name of HIV prevention. The next Foreskin Man comic should be about you. You cannot have my respect if you call yourself a "humanitarian" but yet you're promoting THIS bullshit.
"Kamau Ngigi keep on lisa, dont let them stop you..."
...from riding the circumcision/HIV gravy train, that is. There's money and fame to be made at the expense of others here, Lisa, don't you let somebody holding you to moral standards stop you!
"Brigitte Britt Russell Lisa - making heads turn. His hate makes you noticed by others. Which once they check you out, will only turn into something great!"
And HER hate makes others notice me in turn! You see how that works? Once they check ME out, people can see how absolutely full of shit this Lisa person really is. It looks like this IS turning into something great!
"Amber Peterman If you are not making waves, you are not making change..."
Yes Amber, this is so true. Just look at how far Lisa has taken it! Moving it from what it's supposed to be about (AIDS PREVENTION, HELLO???) to a melodramatic pity party to get everyone's sympathy validation. (cue the violins)
"Amber Peterman cont'... There will always always be haters. If anything, you have encouraged discussion."
So true. I mean look at Lisa! But you know, for as much as I think she is just an attention whore in it for fortune and fame, you are right. She has encouraged discussion. Hopefully there will be actual discussion, and not just one-sided argument.
"Amber Peterman cont'... And remember, for every study, scientific finding, you will find another study or scientist who disagrees!"
Yes, and you must only pay attention to those "studies" and "scientists" that suit you. After all, that is what science is all about, right? Paying attention only to the evidence that supports your cause, as flawed and as biased as it may be, while ignoring and dismissing concrete irrefutable evidence that is devastating to it? Right?
"Russell @amber - that is so true. i had a back and forth with someone who kept referencing scientific study that i then found a study to contradict its findings. i'm basing my beliefs on the research yes but also on my gut and the things i witnessed first hand. thanks for that and everyone else for the love..."
Aw... can't you just feel the love? This is no longer about research and science, it's based on "gut feelings." Real world data shows that circumcision never prevented HIV. But screw this, she’s got “gut feelings.” Look, Lisa, you can present all the "studies" you want. If they fail to correlate with reality, then I'm afraid those studies are suspect.
Tell us Lisa, why did you decide to delete your back-and-forth? Is it because the links to information made you uncomfortable? Is it because you can’t admit that maybe, just maybe there are others that know more than you do? Is it that you don’t want to be made to eat crow for creating a genital mutilation propaganda video based on flawed and biased "research?"
How does circumcision prevent HIV?
Tell us Lisa, since you’re such an expert and you have done all the research, how does circumcision prevent HIV? Have you witnessed the foreskin facilitating HIV transmission first hand? Has it been demonstrably proven that the foreskin actually facilitates HIV transmission, and that removing it “reduces the risk?” Or is this just merely another one of your “gut feelings?”
The answer to this question is, you don't know. Nobody knows. Not even the very authors of the latest circumcision/HIV studies can demonstrate that circumcision prevents HIV transmission. The best they have done is present carefully cherry-picked data from select countries of their liking (leaving out data that didn't conform to their pre-determined conclusion of course), and insist that a lower rate observed in the data they present is attributed to circumcision. The mechanism whereby this happens, however, is always a “gut feeling,” that needs never be fully and concretely explained. Entire mass-circumcision campaigns are being carried out using “studies” that lack a working hypothesis!
Circumcision “studies,” all circumcision “studies,” are based on hypotheses that have never been proven, or that have been completely dis-proven. Their biggest flaw is that they beg the question; circumcision is assumed to prevent disease a priori. For whatever reason, circumcision "researchers" aren't expected to actually prove circumcision prevents anything; it’s perfectly acceptable to conduct statistical analysis based on “gut feelings” that something is true. Correlation, however skewed and farfetched it may be, does equal causation, after all.
Let’s analyze some of the “gut feelings” that have been scientifically blown out of the water:
Toughened Skin Theory
In the early 1980s, long before there were any "studies" in Africa concerning circumcision and HIV, Aaron J. Fink invented the idea that circumcision prevented HIV transmission out of thin air. He presented the first hypothesis for this presenting his “gut feeling” that HIV is sexually transmitted through the moist and supple mucosa of the inside of the foreskin, which, according to him, tears easily. Circumcision was supposed to prevent HIV transmission because it was unable to penetrate the skin of the remaining mucosa and the glans, toughened by keratin layers. This theory has been completely destroyed (see references below).
Dinh, MH; McRaven MD, Kelley Z, Penugonda S, Hope TJ (2010-03-27). "Keratinization of the adult male foreskin and implications for male circumcision.". AIDS 24 (6): 899-906. PMID 20098294. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098294. Retrieved 2011-06-28. "We found no difference between the keratinization of the inner and outer aspects of the adult male foreskin. Keratin layers alone are unlikely to explain why uncircumcised men are at higher risk for HIV infection.".
Dinh, Minh H; Sheila M Barry, Meegan R Anderson, Scott G McCoombe, Shetha A Shukair, Michael D McRaven, Thomas J Hope (2009-12-06), "HIV-1 Interactions and Infection in Adult Male Foreskin Explant Cultures" (PDF), 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Montreal, Canada, http://retroconference.org/2009/PDFs/502.pdf, retrieved 2011-06-28, "No difference can be clearly visualized between the inner and outer foreskin."
Langerhans Cells Theory
Once the keratin theory was destroyed, “researchers” moved to indict the Langerhans cells, saying that they are the “prime port of entry” for the HIV virus. deWitte has demonstrated that, contrary to circumcision researchers’ “gut feelings,” the Langerhans cells actually help FIGHT the HIV virus, because they release Langherin, a secretion that destroys HIV on contact.
de Witte, Lot; Alexey Nabatov, Marjorie Pion, Donna Fluitsma, Marein AW P de Jong, Tanja de Gruijl, Vincent Piguet, Yvette van Kooyk, Teunis B H Geijtenbeek (2007-03-04). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" (PDF). Nature Medicine. doi: 10.1038/nm1541. http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
The quip that “circumcision reduces HIV by 60%” has become pop-science mantra, but scientists and circumcision “researchers” have yet to demonstrably prove that circumcision prevents HIV. Millions are being spent on “mass circumcision campaigns,” and boys and men are being circumcised in Africa, some by force, all using “studies” that are based completely on “gut feelings.”
The Prophecies are Already Coming True
Promoting circumcision in Africa is already proving to be disastrous. Men are already saying that they don’t have to wear condoms, that they are completely immune to HIV, and HIV transmission rates are shown to be rising. Funds for HIV prevention and treatment are already scarce, and humanitarians struggle to keep donors from bailing out on them. Condoms and sex education are cheaper, less invasive, have been conclusively proven to prevent HIV transmission. Oh but let’s continue to trust our “gut feelings” and waste millions on dollars on a dubious mode of "prevention" while we forget about TB and malaria.
The Questions Avoided
In my last post, I ask important questions, but Russel has chosen to ignore them. I repost some of them here for reader reference, and just for good measure:
If circumcision is so effective at preventing HIV, why do the results of the latest “studies” fail to manifest themselves in the real world?
The United States is 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.
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)
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.
These are real numbers from real countries. They’re not arguing anything one way or another; they are hard, solid fact. On what “gut feeling” did WHO, UNAIDS, USAID etc. officials decide it would be a good idea to promote circumcision anyway? On what premise have American organizations decided to promote a mode of “prevention” that never worked in our own country?
Would Russel ever promote female genital cutting in the fight against AIDS?
Circumcision advocates always like to frame their advocacy with humanitarianism. Stressing the severity of the HIV/AIDS situation in Africa, they insist circumcision should be promoted because it's "one more tool in the fight against AIDS." It sounds real noble and all, but how far are people actually interested in finding "every tool available out there?" Or does this reasoning stop at male circumcision?
In my last post, I ask what Russel what her stance would be if "studies showed" that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV by 60%," but she has decided talking about my "hate" was more important.
I'm going to elaborate on my question here a little bit more, because somebody always has to get dramatic about "how much worse" female circumcision is than male circumcision: The WHO recognizes that there are at least four different levels of severity for female genital cutting. Yes, we all know that infibulation is so much worse than male circumcision, but what if HIV transmission could be reduced by performing surgery that isn’t "as bad?"
What if "scientists and researchers" found a way to remove all that "extra skin," while leaving behind the clitoris and a woman’s ability to orgasm? Would Russel support it then?
People might not be familiar, but what we might consider to be "female genital mutilation" is already practiced in doctors clinics in the West. Some women find that their labia aesthetically displeasing and ask to have them removed in a procedure known as a "labiaplasty." Some women go even further and have the hood of their clitoris removed to permanently expose it in a procedure called "unroofing." This "unroofing" would be precisely what happens in South-East Asian "sunat." So what if "labiaplasties" and "unroofing" were proven to "reduce the risk of HIV by 60%"? Would Russel dare promote it as "another tool in the fight against HIV?"
Believe it or not, there are actually a handful of studies that suggest that female circumcision might "reduce the risk of HIV." See them for yourself here, here and here. Additionally, other studies show that even women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still able to orgasm. You can see studies here and here. A recent article in Africa came out addressing this same point here. There is at least one study that claims that labiaplasties increase sexual satisfaction in both women and their partners.
Russel might say that "there aren’t enough studies to promote female circumcision," and she might have a point. To which I would ask, would there ever BE enough “studies” that would convince her to promote female circumcision? Would she support "studies" to look further into the matter? What would she think of "studies" where scientists performed labiaplasties on 1,000 women, kept a control group of 1,000 unlabiaplastied women and then followed these groups around to see who got AIDS faster? And then, if scientists saw a "significant reduction in HIV transmission in the labiaplastied women," what would she think if they performed labiaplasties on the remaining 1,000 women on the grounds that "not doing so would be unethical?" Would she fully agree, or would she decry as unethical the fact that somebody thought conducting these “studies” would be acceptable in the first place?
If "studies showed" that labiaplasties provided a "significant reduction in HIV transmission," would Russel get behind them? Would she fully support the WHO for endorsing labiaplasties as HIV prevention policy? Would she fully back "mass labiaplasties" for women?
Is there a number of studies that would ever convince Russel to create a propaganda film that encouraged women to go get their labia and clitoral hood removed? What "reduction rate" would ever convince her to create a film promoting labiaplasties as "another tool in the fight against HIV for those women who request it?" 60%? 70%? 100%? Yes? No? Maybe so?
Russel might say that, even if these "studies" were correct, that promoting them would be a mistake because they would be misused to perpetuate the forced genital mutilation of non-consenting women. That while the studies might only endorse “voluntary female medical circumcision” or “VFMC,” as it might be called, tribal leaders would use WHO endorsement to perform traditional variations of circumcision, which may include infibulation. And she would be correct. But why isn’t this a concern regarding the forced genital mutilation of non-consenting men?
Why don’t "researchers" seem to be concerned that their "studies" will be endorsing brutal circumcision rituals? That tribal leaders will use their studies to perpetuate the forced genital mutilation of boys and men? Why don’t they seem to care that frauds that aren’t even real tribal shamans are taking advantage of the WHO endorsement to cash in on circumcision rituals? That scores of boys and men die in South Africa every year due to tribal initiations involving circumcisions? That countless more lose their penises to gangrene? Why isn’t THIS a concern?
Are boys and men simply that worthless and disposable?
I know that in my last post I made some cutting remarks, but I think they were warranted. Do I "hate" Lisa Russel? Only with the "hate" a Greenpeace activist might have for somebody writing a pseudo-scientific documentary on the benefits and virtues of whaling. Lisa Russel is choosing to ride the circumcision/HIV gravy train for USAID brownie points and promote what is essentially male genital mutilation in the name of humanitarian aid. She needs to know that such endorsement of human rights violation, even if thinly veiled as "medicine" is not going to be taken lightly. She is gravely mistaken if she thinks she can create something like this and not hear back from actual human rights activists.
In spite of my anger, I think I've asked legitimate questions, but Russel has chosen to make this about hurt feelings instead (her own). This demonstrates to me what she really cares about; not about humanity, not about HIV prevention at all. It's all about "me, me, me," and she has just confirmed it. All she cares about is attention and validation for her and her films.
When men in Africa realize that circumcision failed to protect them from HIV, will Russel be there to film their faces of betrayal? When the circumcision/HIV hoax blows over, will she have the courage to film herself admitting that she helped spread lies in the name of disease prevention and humanity? Will she own her words and be responsible? When pressed once again for answers, would she admit she wasn't fully infromed? Or would she once again put on the victim act?
