I wasn't holding my breath. I knew that some way or another, the effort to ban circumcision in San Francisco would not succeed... but I wasn't expecting it to end like this...
It appears a judge has expressed intention to strike down the measure to ban circumcision that activists worked so hard to get on the ballot.
Quoth Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi: "It serves no legitimate purpose to allow a measure whose invalidity can be determined as a matter of law to remain on the ballot."
According to Giorgi, California law makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities. However, her ruling is based on a dubious premise; that both ritual and routine circumcision are medical procedures. She also demonstrates a real or feigned ignorance; the proposed law makes an exemption for necessary medical procedures.
What's not being mentioned is the fact that the law Giorgi cites was enstated to allow vets to declaw cats. Animal rights activists were making headway passing laws that would keep vets from reaping profit from this, another medically unnecessary procedure.
Aren't kids special? They're about as important as your pet.
I'm not fooling myself. I know that this law didn't have a chance. As a matter of fact, in an earlier post, I expressed that I didn't think the ban would, nor SHOULD pass, because America is not ready for a ban on circumcision. Still, it would have been nice to see the measure given due democratic process, and put before the people for them to vote on. The people would have voted and the ban would have not passed by a majority vote. That's usually the way democracy is supposed to work, right?
Remember Proposition 8? Proposition 8 was deemed unconstitutional. It was deemed unconstitutional. And yet when this is challenged, when human rights activists ask judges to repeal the law, religious right-wing groups get technical and talk about "the voice of the people." Judges should not repeal, they said, what the people have voted on. Well, where are advocates for "the voice of the people" now? What would have been the reaction if gay rights activists had struck down the measure before it even got to the ballot? I could only imagine the outcry. The outrage. "BLASPHEMY!" They would cry. "THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE!!!"
Circumcision advocates are mistaken though, if they think that it ends here. Oh no. This is far from over. Consider this; religious groups blocking the democratic process didn't stop New York from legalizing gay marriage. It's a matter of time, and the conservative right-wingers are going to fight tooth and nail to protect their right to mutilate boys (but not girls?) in the so-called name of "religion" and "parental rights." But as cases such as the one in New York demonstrate, legally blocking democracy proves nothing. Today, African Americans are free, women can vote, and, at least in a few states, gays can marry.
As intactivists, we have made strides, and we've come a long way; things are much, much different than when we first began in the 70s. As we persevere, we move closer to our goal. The forced genital mutilation of boys has its advocates, and they will fight tooth and nail for their cause. But past injustices also their advocates who fought with much effort for their cause. In the end, justice prevailed and their efforts did not prosper. Perhaps not today, perhaps not in San Francisco, but one of these days, justice WILL prevail, and boys WILL get the same constitutional protection as girls.
I conclude with my usual bottom line:
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.
Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less giving their parents any kind of "choice."
May one day boys in this country enjoy the same protection under the law as girls.
There are plenty of pro-circumcision "information resources." In this blog, I present what they leave out.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
The Ghost of Mogen
Advocates of circumcision always minimize circumcision to "just a little snip with little to no risks." They always say "there are no risks, and if there are, they're worth it." When you present them examples of circumcisions gone wrong, they will always say "Oh, well that's just a once in a million case. Circumcision mishaps don't ever happen when a professional does it." Well, in this blog post I'm going to talk about a very real risk that circumcision advocates may not tell you about. The following circumcision mishap is one that is so common that there have already been numerous court cases; glans amputation.
In a very recent case, a judge approved a $4.6 million settlement on a behalf of a boy who lost the head of his penis in a botched circumcision attempt. The doctor who performed the circumcision used a Mogen clamp, a device notorious for glans amputations, even when used by professionals. So notorious is the Mogen clamp for glans amputations that the company that makes this device went out of business last year, because it couldn't afford the $11 million dollar lawsuit filed against it, after a mohel severed the end of another baby's glans using one of their clamps. A year after Mogen goes out of business, we are still hearing of the damage their clamp is causing.
The peculiar thing about Mogen is that until the very end, they claimed that injury was impossible with the use of their clamp, even after other glans amputations were reported. The injury behind a prior lawsuit at Fulton County Superior Court had already put Mogen on notice about the danger of the device. In a different case, at South Fulton Medical Center, another law suit was won in 2009. In that case, a child lost a third of his glans, and the plaintiffs were awarded 2.3 million dollars.
I'm afraid that this may not be the last we hear of Mogen glans amputations yet. Despite going out of business in America, and despite its notoriety for glans amputations, Mogen clamps are being used in a pilot project to have male children circumcised at birth under the pretext of HIV prevention in Kenya. They are currently being used in Rwanda to circumcise newborns under the pretext of "HIV prevention." In light of the fact that newborn children aren't at risk for sexually transmitted HIV, and in light of the fact that there are already better, more effective, less invasive modes of prevention, how is taking this risk conscionable?
Until the next apparition of Mogen's ghost... *sigh*
UPDATE (added 7/28/2011):
It utterly infuriates me that the WHO has been effectively pissing in our mouths and calling it rain... "Circumcision would only be offered to consenting adults," they promised. Well why in the hell have they approved circumcision devices for infant male circumcision? Given what I presnt above, why have they approved MOGEN of all torture devices? What in the world are these people THINKING??? GEEZ. Pisses me off.
In a very recent case, a judge approved a $4.6 million settlement on a behalf of a boy who lost the head of his penis in a botched circumcision attempt. The doctor who performed the circumcision used a Mogen clamp, a device notorious for glans amputations, even when used by professionals. So notorious is the Mogen clamp for glans amputations that the company that makes this device went out of business last year, because it couldn't afford the $11 million dollar lawsuit filed against it, after a mohel severed the end of another baby's glans using one of their clamps. A year after Mogen goes out of business, we are still hearing of the damage their clamp is causing.
The peculiar thing about Mogen is that until the very end, they claimed that injury was impossible with the use of their clamp, even after other glans amputations were reported. The injury behind a prior lawsuit at Fulton County Superior Court had already put Mogen on notice about the danger of the device. In a different case, at South Fulton Medical Center, another law suit was won in 2009. In that case, a child lost a third of his glans, and the plaintiffs were awarded 2.3 million dollars.
I'm afraid that this may not be the last we hear of Mogen glans amputations yet. Despite going out of business in America, and despite its notoriety for glans amputations, Mogen clamps are being used in a pilot project to have male children circumcised at birth under the pretext of HIV prevention in Kenya. They are currently being used in Rwanda to circumcise newborns under the pretext of "HIV prevention." In light of the fact that newborn children aren't at risk for sexually transmitted HIV, and in light of the fact that there are already better, more effective, less invasive modes of prevention, how is taking this risk conscionable?
Until the next apparition of Mogen's ghost... *sigh*
UPDATE (added 7/28/2011):
It utterly infuriates me that the WHO has been effectively pissing in our mouths and calling it rain... "Circumcision would only be offered to consenting adults," they promised. Well why in the hell have they approved circumcision devices for infant male circumcision? Given what I presnt above, why have they approved MOGEN of all torture devices? What in the world are these people THINKING??? GEEZ. Pisses me off.
SWAZILAND: American Government Sinks to New Low
It seems our American goverment is going to stop at nothing to try and normalize circumcision in Swaziland. As if the Soka Uncobe "mass circumcision" campaign weren't enough, they've turned to celebrity endorsement by employing a football team and even a less than influential king to try and "breathe life" into the campaign. (The Soka Uncobe campaign is turning out to be a big flop, and the Swaziland ministry of health and American officials don't know why the men aren't rushing to have their organs mutilated.)
And now, it seems, the American government is turning to art to try and "inspire" the men of Swaziland to get circumcised. According to the Swazi Observer, an artist has chosen "Male Circumcision and Life!" Wow. Really? A foreskin is a life-threatening medical condition? I'm going to go through and disect the disgusting article.
"One of the hallmarks of expression in society is art."
The author is already trying to sound lofty and "artistic." Yes, one of the hallmarks of expression in society is art, but this isn't saying much; cavemen were engaging in artistic expression long before civilization as we know it existed. One can still find said pieces of art in caves.
"Stories put a human face on the important work that we do- making it come to life, appealing to emotion while showcasing talent and expressing passion about our work."
An artistic blurb that I'm not even sure is supposed to mean anything. But let's move on...
"In life and art, sculptor Raymond ‘Pondai’ Mishi focuses on the positive. A spirit of hope and sense of purpose give meaning to his life and find expression in his art."
More meaningless twaddle I think the author hoped would sound elloquent and "artistic" to his or her readers. What does any of this have to do with artistic expression? I think most people find some sort of meaning to their lives. Otherwise they lose hope and commit suicide. There has got to be some underlying message in all of this. Wait for it... here it comes...
"efforts
Consider the sculpture he created for a special art exhibit, IndzabaYetfu, hosted by the United States government to commemorate HIV prevention efforts in the Kingdom of Swaziland."
Yes! Let's consider it! What "efforts" could the United States government POSSIBLY be "commemorating..."
"Raymond shared his skills, talent and expertise in designing a 200 centimetres tall sculpture made entirely from recycled medical instruments- between 2 000 and 3 000 sterilised forceps that had been used to perform medical male circumcision, an HIV prevention intervention that is underway in Swaziland."
Bingo. Oh how "artistic."
"It took him just one week to do it. The theme for the art is 2011 60% Safer Avenue symbolic of male and female genitalia but with a symbol of practising safe sex even after one is circumcised."
Because "safe sex" is simply impossible when one isn't circumcised?
"elongated
The elongated upper torso is the penis with foreskin and the red light should be the one exposed after a man is circumcised."
More artistic use of the English language? This author is truly gifted. I'm guessing there are two penises depicted? One circumcised and one not?
"The curly middle part signifies the public area of the art work and the two legs embrace the sculpture and could be both the male’s legs wearing blue socks and also the woman’s hands embracing his partner and encouraging him to circumcise and heal the family."
What's wrong? Is the family sick? How does a father having normal genitals make his family "sick?" What if the man doesn't want to get circumcised but instead practice monogamy and faithfulness? Should a woman not encourage this? How absolutely insane.
"When asked how he feels about his artwork, Raymond was quick to say he was excited to have learnt something new and innovative."
An artistic answer to an artistic question. How is Raymond SUPPOSED to feel about his artwork? Absolutely ashamed I'm sure. He is asked about how he feels about his artwork, and he responds by telling of something "new" and "innovative" he just learned. His artwork seems to be a secondary thought. Let's see what comes first...
"I knew I wanted to do a sculpture without affecting the environment negatively using welding tools,” says Raymond, a native of Zimbabwe who lived and worked in Mozambique before settling in Swaziland."
Hrm. A non-Swazi... peculiar...
"Welding can sometimes cause more harm and instead, I used a solution queue bond which attaches metal pieces together and it sticks in two seconds… My design was born! I am proud to introduce a new art form. Take it up! Every single pair (of surgical scissors) has been in contact with the flesh, the artifacts have been in contact with life itself”. His life affirming message to young men is abstinence, the most important key to a safe and healthy life."
This is something new. It reads like cheese and chalk; you can see both this sculptor and author are working hard together to force two unrelated things to mix. The author is interested in "not causing harm"; so he employs materials that were used to destroy normal, healthy human tissue. What this has to do with "affirming life" is beyond me. If abstinence is the most important key to a safe and healthy life, where do circumcision tools come into the picture?
"It is good to be circumcised; it’s hygienic and if you decide on having sex make sure you protect yourself using a condom correctly and consistently. Sex is part of life and culture but we shouldn’t perish” he says."
What a strange, sad conglomeration of the English language. What a grotesque verbal sculpture. It's possible to practice safe sex without the use of a condom? Sex is a part of life and culture, but it is not necessary to be circumcised to practice good hygiene and safe sex. Not one thing has to do with the other. What a horrible attempt to mix two completely unrelated things.
"prone
Scientific evidence confirms that male circumcision reduces the risk of the acquisition of HIV by men by sixty percent (60%)."
Scientific evidence does no such thing. The "researchers" asserting this 60% figure have yet to furnish the evidence that circumcision indeed reduces the risk of HIV transmission. The best they can do is present statistics that don't correlate anyhere else in the world, not even in Africa.
"In addition, a circumcised penis is also easy to clean and is less prone to some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and cancer of the penis."
More irrelevant and unproven claims. The Americans and the Swazi ministry of health are trying to reduce the spread of HIV, not promote better hygiene or reduce cancer of the penis in Africa. It is not necessary to be circumcised to clean the penis, and a circumcision does not prevent the transmission of STIs. Circumcision fails at preventing STIs so much that the authors of these so-called "studies" and the promoters of circumcision themselves cannot stress the use of condoms enough. Circumcision is worthless.
"Now it is my turn. I am ready to circumcise! I have made a personal choice to do so”.
I wonder whom he is going to circumcise? And I wonder if the person he is circumcising has made that personal choice himself? I can only guess that this person is talking about himself. If he wants to become circumcised, more power to him. I only wonder if he is actually going for the cut, and not just merely saying so because the American Government paid him money to say these words for this promotional article. Who knows? The man isn't even Swazi and already is circumcised and is pretending he is not for this propaganda piece.
I question any person in these pro-circumcision articles; how many have actually undergone the cut? How many are speaking because they got PEPFAR money to be part of a promotional ad? How many were already circumcised prior in their own culture?
"Raymond first learnt about medical male circumcision when he met the Soka Uncobe team from Jhpiego, a global health non-profit organisation and affiliate of John Hopkins University that is working in more than 50 countries to prevent the needless deaths of women and their families."
Preventing the needless deaths of women and their families? Or promoting the needless genital mutilation of men and their children? By now it should be obvious what this article is; a promotional advertisment for a mass genital mutilation campaign that is failing to produce the desired results. Raymond is but another celebrity that has been hired to promote circumcision; who knows if the man already belongs to a circumcising culture, if he is not and he'll actually go for the cut or, like the Swazi king, paying lipservice to a benefactor of so-called "humanitarian aid."
"In Swaziland Jhpiego is part of the consortium of organisations implementing the Accelerated Saturation Initiative on male circumcision dubbed Soka Uncobe which means ‘circumcise and conquer’. The organisation also works with professionals, governments and community leaders to provide high quality health care for their people."
(If you can call genital mutilation in lieu of more effective, less invasive modes of prevention "high quality health care.")
"The owner of Yebo Art Gallery Mr. Peter ‘Senzenjani’ Armstrong encouraged Swazi parents to allow their children to study art as a subject in school in order to inculcate their desire and love for art. “Whatever your desire on wish it can be achieved through art expression” he says."
Let's just see if PEPFAR and the Swazi ministry of health achieve their desires and wishes through this disgusting piece of work.
I am absolutely disgusted at this disgraceful use of art. The use of art. To try and elevate and beautify genital mutilation. There are somethings that no matter how hard you try, you just can't make "beautiful."
Making a sculpture out of glass shards or rusty blades used in female circumcision would not make female genital mutilation any more acceptable. Not even if you used scissors, scalpels or other tools that doctors use to carry out the procedure in a sterile, clinical setting.
What a sick disgusting shame that my government is sinking this low to try and get Africans to accept genital mutilation. Absolute coersion and harrassment. All in the name of "humanitarian aid."When does this madness end?
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. There is a page for this on Facebook:
Pepfar is a waste of American Tax Dollars
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"
And now, it seems, the American government is turning to art to try and "inspire" the men of Swaziland to get circumcised. According to the Swazi Observer, an artist has chosen "Male Circumcision and Life!" Wow. Really? A foreskin is a life-threatening medical condition? I'm going to go through and disect the disgusting article.
"One of the hallmarks of expression in society is art."
The author is already trying to sound lofty and "artistic." Yes, one of the hallmarks of expression in society is art, but this isn't saying much; cavemen were engaging in artistic expression long before civilization as we know it existed. One can still find said pieces of art in caves.
"Stories put a human face on the important work that we do- making it come to life, appealing to emotion while showcasing talent and expressing passion about our work."
An artistic blurb that I'm not even sure is supposed to mean anything. But let's move on...
"In life and art, sculptor Raymond ‘Pondai’ Mishi focuses on the positive. A spirit of hope and sense of purpose give meaning to his life and find expression in his art."
More meaningless twaddle I think the author hoped would sound elloquent and "artistic" to his or her readers. What does any of this have to do with artistic expression? I think most people find some sort of meaning to their lives. Otherwise they lose hope and commit suicide. There has got to be some underlying message in all of this. Wait for it... here it comes...
"efforts
Consider the sculpture he created for a special art exhibit, IndzabaYetfu, hosted by the United States government to commemorate HIV prevention efforts in the Kingdom of Swaziland."
Yes! Let's consider it! What "efforts" could the United States government POSSIBLY be "commemorating..."
"Raymond shared his skills, talent and expertise in designing a 200 centimetres tall sculpture made entirely from recycled medical instruments- between 2 000 and 3 000 sterilised forceps that had been used to perform medical male circumcision, an HIV prevention intervention that is underway in Swaziland."
Bingo. Oh how "artistic."
"It took him just one week to do it. The theme for the art is 2011 60% Safer Avenue symbolic of male and female genitalia but with a symbol of practising safe sex even after one is circumcised."
Because "safe sex" is simply impossible when one isn't circumcised?
"elongated
The elongated upper torso is the penis with foreskin and the red light should be the one exposed after a man is circumcised."
More artistic use of the English language? This author is truly gifted. I'm guessing there are two penises depicted? One circumcised and one not?
"The curly middle part signifies the public area of the art work and the two legs embrace the sculpture and could be both the male’s legs wearing blue socks and also the woman’s hands embracing his partner and encouraging him to circumcise and heal the family."
What's wrong? Is the family sick? How does a father having normal genitals make his family "sick?" What if the man doesn't want to get circumcised but instead practice monogamy and faithfulness? Should a woman not encourage this? How absolutely insane.
"When asked how he feels about his artwork, Raymond was quick to say he was excited to have learnt something new and innovative."
An artistic answer to an artistic question. How is Raymond SUPPOSED to feel about his artwork? Absolutely ashamed I'm sure. He is asked about how he feels about his artwork, and he responds by telling of something "new" and "innovative" he just learned. His artwork seems to be a secondary thought. Let's see what comes first...
"I knew I wanted to do a sculpture without affecting the environment negatively using welding tools,” says Raymond, a native of Zimbabwe who lived and worked in Mozambique before settling in Swaziland."
Hrm. A non-Swazi... peculiar...
"Welding can sometimes cause more harm and instead, I used a solution queue bond which attaches metal pieces together and it sticks in two seconds… My design was born! I am proud to introduce a new art form. Take it up! Every single pair (of surgical scissors) has been in contact with the flesh, the artifacts have been in contact with life itself”. His life affirming message to young men is abstinence, the most important key to a safe and healthy life."
This is something new. It reads like cheese and chalk; you can see both this sculptor and author are working hard together to force two unrelated things to mix. The author is interested in "not causing harm"; so he employs materials that were used to destroy normal, healthy human tissue. What this has to do with "affirming life" is beyond me. If abstinence is the most important key to a safe and healthy life, where do circumcision tools come into the picture?
"It is good to be circumcised; it’s hygienic and if you decide on having sex make sure you protect yourself using a condom correctly and consistently. Sex is part of life and culture but we shouldn’t perish” he says."
What a strange, sad conglomeration of the English language. What a grotesque verbal sculpture. It's possible to practice safe sex without the use of a condom? Sex is a part of life and culture, but it is not necessary to be circumcised to practice good hygiene and safe sex. Not one thing has to do with the other. What a horrible attempt to mix two completely unrelated things.
"prone
Scientific evidence confirms that male circumcision reduces the risk of the acquisition of HIV by men by sixty percent (60%)."
Scientific evidence does no such thing. The "researchers" asserting this 60% figure have yet to furnish the evidence that circumcision indeed reduces the risk of HIV transmission. The best they can do is present statistics that don't correlate anyhere else in the world, not even in Africa.
"In addition, a circumcised penis is also easy to clean and is less prone to some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and cancer of the penis."
More irrelevant and unproven claims. The Americans and the Swazi ministry of health are trying to reduce the spread of HIV, not promote better hygiene or reduce cancer of the penis in Africa. It is not necessary to be circumcised to clean the penis, and a circumcision does not prevent the transmission of STIs. Circumcision fails at preventing STIs so much that the authors of these so-called "studies" and the promoters of circumcision themselves cannot stress the use of condoms enough. Circumcision is worthless.
"Now it is my turn. I am ready to circumcise! I have made a personal choice to do so”.
I wonder whom he is going to circumcise? And I wonder if the person he is circumcising has made that personal choice himself? I can only guess that this person is talking about himself. If he wants to become circumcised, more power to him. I only wonder if he is actually going for the cut, and not just merely saying so because the American Government paid him money to say these words for this promotional article. Who knows? The man isn't even Swazi and already is circumcised and is pretending he is not for this propaganda piece.
I question any person in these pro-circumcision articles; how many have actually undergone the cut? How many are speaking because they got PEPFAR money to be part of a promotional ad? How many were already circumcised prior in their own culture?
"Raymond first learnt about medical male circumcision when he met the Soka Uncobe team from Jhpiego, a global health non-profit organisation and affiliate of John Hopkins University that is working in more than 50 countries to prevent the needless deaths of women and their families."
Preventing the needless deaths of women and their families? Or promoting the needless genital mutilation of men and their children? By now it should be obvious what this article is; a promotional advertisment for a mass genital mutilation campaign that is failing to produce the desired results. Raymond is but another celebrity that has been hired to promote circumcision; who knows if the man already belongs to a circumcising culture, if he is not and he'll actually go for the cut or, like the Swazi king, paying lipservice to a benefactor of so-called "humanitarian aid."
"In Swaziland Jhpiego is part of the consortium of organisations implementing the Accelerated Saturation Initiative on male circumcision dubbed Soka Uncobe which means ‘circumcise and conquer’. The organisation also works with professionals, governments and community leaders to provide high quality health care for their people."
(If you can call genital mutilation in lieu of more effective, less invasive modes of prevention "high quality health care.")
"The owner of Yebo Art Gallery Mr. Peter ‘Senzenjani’ Armstrong encouraged Swazi parents to allow their children to study art as a subject in school in order to inculcate their desire and love for art. “Whatever your desire on wish it can be achieved through art expression” he says."
Let's just see if PEPFAR and the Swazi ministry of health achieve their desires and wishes through this disgusting piece of work.
I am absolutely disgusted at this disgraceful use of art. The use of art. To try and elevate and beautify genital mutilation. There are somethings that no matter how hard you try, you just can't make "beautiful."
Making a sculpture out of glass shards or rusty blades used in female circumcision would not make female genital mutilation any more acceptable. Not even if you used scissors, scalpels or other tools that doctors use to carry out the procedure in a sterile, clinical setting.
What a sick disgusting shame that my government is sinking this low to try and get Africans to accept genital mutilation. Absolute coersion and harrassment. All in the name of "humanitarian aid."When does this madness end?
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. There is a page for this on Facebook:
Pepfar is a waste of American Tax Dollars
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"
Saturday, July 23, 2011
My Tribute to Van Lewis
First Love
by Van Lewis
(Original work can be found here.)
You must have been insane,
you bloody madman,
to steal my brand new body
from my stupid mother's bed,
and lay me on your cold, hard table,
whole.
You must have been insane
to rope my baby body down,
and rip my virgin foreskin off,
to rape my battered butchered glans -
me screaming bloody murder
at your sickness-driven hands!
You must have been insane
to rub my little penis with your bloody Betadine,
then come at my erection
with your knife,
to try and make me sick as you
for life!
You must have been insane
to cut my body's best,
to chop my ridged band sex nerves off
and throw them in the trash,
and leave me here to die but half a man:
To kill my body's deepest love, was that your diabolic plan?
Rape? Rape?! This is not rape!!
I'd far prefer rape!
There is no word for what you did to me!
Inflict on me the ancient curse of the Jew?
And what, pray hell, do you think I'd do
to you?
God damn your putrid madness, you dead man!
God send down your mad vomit straight to hell!
May devil Satan make a feast upon it,
and sicken from your bloody, rotten gore,
and die in holy hell
forevermore!
Some lovers, we, you mad M.D.,
bound for all eternity!
You bloody butcher madman! Penis parasite!
Still lost upon your lonely way?
Pathogenic whore! Some trick!
Still cutting boy fillet?
Psychopathic fraud! Still sick?
You're still insane today?
Rest in peace, Van Lewis.
by Van Lewis
(Original work can be found here.)
You must have been insane,
you bloody madman,
to steal my brand new body
from my stupid mother's bed,
and lay me on your cold, hard table,
whole.
You must have been insane
to rope my baby body down,
and rip my virgin foreskin off,
to rape my battered butchered glans -
me screaming bloody murder
at your sickness-driven hands!
You must have been insane
to rub my little penis with your bloody Betadine,
then come at my erection
with your knife,
to try and make me sick as you
for life!
You must have been insane
to cut my body's best,
to chop my ridged band sex nerves off
and throw them in the trash,
and leave me here to die but half a man:
To kill my body's deepest love, was that your diabolic plan?
Rape? Rape?! This is not rape!!
I'd far prefer rape!
There is no word for what you did to me!
Inflict on me the ancient curse of the Jew?
And what, pray hell, do you think I'd do
to you?
God damn your putrid madness, you dead man!
God send down your mad vomit straight to hell!
May devil Satan make a feast upon it,
and sicken from your bloody, rotten gore,
and die in holy hell
forevermore!
Some lovers, we, you mad M.D.,
bound for all eternity!
You bloody butcher madman! Penis parasite!
Still lost upon your lonely way?
Pathogenic whore! Some trick!
Still cutting boy fillet?
Psychopathic fraud! Still sick?
You're still insane today?
Rest in peace, Van Lewis.
Friday, July 22, 2011
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."
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."
Thursday, July 21, 2011
BOTSWANA: Men Shunning Circumcision a "Mistery"
A few blog posts ago, I expose how the PEPFAR backed Soka Uncobe campaign is having trouble getting off the ground. Such a failure the campaign has been so far that organizers have tried boosting the campaign with a football team and endorsement from the king himself.
It looks like, however, Swaziland is not the only country where men aren't swallowing the circumcision/HIV pill. According to Mmegi, in Botswana, only 14,000 of 467,000 targeted men (12%) have stepped forward since the program began last year.
In the words of Principal public relations officer at the ministry of health Temba Sibanda, that a large portion of the targeted group is not coming forth for circumcision is a "mystery."
A "mistery?" Really? Has the ministry of health not considered that perhaps these men aren't too keen on getting part of their penises cut off? Even with perceived "benefits?"
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 prefering to stay intact simply not supposed to be an option?
The Soka Uncobe campaign has tried to appeal to Swazi masculinity by employing the imagery of women, and asking women to "support" men who go in for circumcisions. But does that same "support" go for the men who would rather learn proper hygiene and the proper usage of condoms?
That is a question that needs to be put to these knife-happy pro-mutilators. 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?
The priorities of so-called humanitarian aid organizations come ever into view; what is the true end-game? Is it truly the prevention of HIV transmission? Or is it the acceptance and proliferation of a controversial surgical procedure?
It looks like, however, Swaziland is not the only country where men aren't swallowing the circumcision/HIV pill. According to Mmegi, in Botswana, only 14,000 of 467,000 targeted men (12%) have stepped forward since the program began last year.
In the words of Principal public relations officer at the ministry of health Temba Sibanda, that a large portion of the targeted group is not coming forth for circumcision is a "mystery."
A "mistery?" Really? Has the ministry of health not considered that perhaps these men aren't too keen on getting part of their penises cut off? Even with perceived "benefits?"
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 prefering to stay intact simply not supposed to be an option?
The Soka Uncobe campaign has tried to appeal to Swazi masculinity by employing the imagery of women, and asking women to "support" men who go in for circumcisions. But does that same "support" go for the men who would rather learn proper hygiene and the proper usage of condoms?
That is a question that needs to be put to these knife-happy pro-mutilators. 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?
The priorities of so-called humanitarian aid organizations come ever into view; what is the true end-game? Is it truly the prevention of HIV transmission? Or is it the acceptance and proliferation of a controversial surgical procedure?
New "Studies" Give Ongoing Circumcision Campaigns a "Boost"
So recently the International AIDS Society held their yearly conference in Rome, Italy. As usual, circumcision advocates are out in full force promoting genital mutilation as HIV prevention. The usual suspects usually tout three famous "RCTs" and talk about how "successful" their "mass circumcision campaigns" are becoming, with more and more men getting circumcised, and communities "embracing" circumcision as a method of HIV prevention. This year, though, it's a bit different.
Perhaps fearing that the big "RCTs" have become lackluster, the usual circumcision advocates have decided to give a "boost" to their mass circumcision initiatives by injecting "new studies" into their mix of "evidence." I've already discussed the "boost in sex" that circumcision is supposed to give in my last blog post. In retrospect, I'm not exactly how "new" this "information" is; circumcision advocates have been trying to argue that circumcision is not sexually damaging, even "improving" it for years. But now, "new studies" report, not a "60% decrease in HIV transmission," but get this, a whopping 76%! Wow. Really?
I think it all becomes clear when you look behind who came up with these numbers. The new figure is the result of a "study" headed by none other than, according to a Bloomberg article, Bertran Auvert, the same man who headed one of the first big three African "RCTs." (Incidentally, the British medical journal The Lancet refused to publish Auvert's first big study, they didn't say why.) Auvert has been trying to correlate a lowered risk in HIV transmission with circumcision since at least 2003. He is good friends with Bill Gates, another avid circumcision promoter, and his last big "study" was funded by none other than the American National Institutes of Health. (Where doctors have vested interest in seeing the practice of circumcision, particularly infant circumcision continue.) It must be pointed out that none of the "new studies" presented at the IAS conference have been published in peer-reviewed journals.
What I'd like to know is how Auvert managed to come up with that incredible 76% figure. What did he do differently this time, and does he seriously expect the world to believe this number? Let's take a short look through time at the slow but sure increase of this number. According to Yahoo news article:
"In 2006, trials in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa found foreskin removal more than halved men's risk of infection by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Longer-term analysis found the benefit to be even greater than thought, with a risk reduction of around 60 percent."
And now that number is at 76%! I'm guessing that by 2016 that figure will be a full 100%?
Numbers sound real good on paper, but what I'd like to know is, if circumcision is so "effective" at "reducing the risk of HIV transmission," why isn't the 60%, and now 76% figure manifesting itself in real world situations where there is already a prevalence of circumcised men? Why arent these figures true outside of these so-called "trials?"
The rest of the Yahoo article is almost a complete verbatim repeat of the iafrica article I critique in my last blog post. Maybe iafrica and Yahoo are affiliates?
The Yahoo article does end with a word of caution by France's 2008 Nobel laureate Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, who in 1983 co-identified HIV as the source of AIDS;
"...over-confidence in circumcision [is] a major anxiety... Nothing provides 100-percent protection, not even a vaccine... Let's stop thinking that one preventative tool is enough. Circumcision has to be part of a combined approach."
She's mistaken though. We need to stop thinking that circumcision can actually be forced into the HIV prevention equation. Presenting circumcision confuses the message that people need to be engaging in safer sex, watching who they sleep with and employing the use of condoms.
It ends with a very disconcerting note by Centre for HIV and AIDS Prevention Studies program manager Dirk Taljaard:
"It’s really quite simple as an intervention... it’s not something that you’re trying to get somebody to do every day of his life."
It is NOT simple. Circumcision is cutting off part of a person's penis. It is a permanent alteration to normal male anatomy, and a man has to deal with it every day of his life, whether he likes the resulting product or not. And it sounds like Dirk Taljaard intends on circumcising men and just forget about them afterwards.
Wearing a condom; it's something a man has to do every time he has sex with an untested stranger if he wants any real protection from HIV transmission. What an absolutely irresponsible thing for anybody to say.
The Call
I've had enough of all this circumcision study nonsense crap. Using "study" to legitimize mass genital mutilation has reached some ridiculous proportions. 76%? 76! Am I seriously supposed to believe this? How far does Auvert seriously think he can fool people? Who's checking this crap? Who's checking to make sure everything presented has been peer reviewed? Are IAS conferences the ultimate venue to spew unmitigated garbage? Is the AIDS situation that much hopeless in Africa that no idea is too stupid to try?
What would be the reaction of people present at these IAS conferences would that somebody actually presented a "study" that showed a "reduced risk in HIV transmission" in women who have undergone labiaplasties? What would people think if somebody actually presented the madness that we need to remove the labia of as many people as possible? How would Auvert be viewed if he were bragging that his efforts were successful in "increasing the percentage of circumcised women" in a given area? Would he be welcomed or would he be openly shamed? What if he spewed that magical 76% number?
There are some things that are simply always wrong no matter how much "study" you try to veil it with. There has got to be something wrong with "researchers" who seek to necessitate a surgical procedure on healthy individuals. "Studies" that begin with a surgical procedure as a solution a priori have got to be the most logically flawed studies in existence. Where is the voice of reason in all of this? How can people suddenly pretend like circumcision isn't this historically controversial religious ritual that "scientists" have been trying to legitimize with a pseudo-medical alibi for over a century? When does the madness stop?
I think it's about time people concerned with basic human rights demanded an investigation behind all this circumcision "study." Real world data simply does not add up. Circumcision isn't this "simple" procedure. If it were really this "simple snip" then there wouldn't be so much opposition. Circumcision is radical surgery; it is a permanent alteration. It is cutting off part of a person's penis. Instead of focusing on necessitating it, real scientists should be working to render it obsolete. WHY are "researchers" like Auvert allowed to spew their madness? Who is checking his work? Who is double-checking the work of all these circumcision "researchers" to make sure it's all legit? It is disconcerting that this crap actually goes unchallenged.
It's about time we got together and demanded an investigation. Investigate the "researchers." Those at the WHO who endorsed these so-called "studies." Those institutions funding "mass circumcision campaigns." WHO ARE these people? What conflicts of interest are they failing to declare? Is it really people who are interested in the reduction of HIV transmission? Or is it the same old folks trying to vindicate an age-old religious ritual steeped in controversy?
Let's just say for the sake of argument that all of the "study" is true. Who is researching alternatives? By when can we expect circumcision to be phased out? Is there a future in sight where people can protect themselves from HIV transmission without having to cut off part of their penises? Are there any researchers working to this end? Or is everybody interested in finding more uses for circumcision? Who are the researchers responsible for seeking to find alternatives to circumcision? I want to know! I want to know why nobody's talking about NOT circumcising at these so-called AIDS conferences!!!
Perhaps fearing that the big "RCTs" have become lackluster, the usual circumcision advocates have decided to give a "boost" to their mass circumcision initiatives by injecting "new studies" into their mix of "evidence." I've already discussed the "boost in sex" that circumcision is supposed to give in my last blog post. In retrospect, I'm not exactly how "new" this "information" is; circumcision advocates have been trying to argue that circumcision is not sexually damaging, even "improving" it for years. But now, "new studies" report, not a "60% decrease in HIV transmission," but get this, a whopping 76%! Wow. Really?
I think it all becomes clear when you look behind who came up with these numbers. The new figure is the result of a "study" headed by none other than, according to a Bloomberg article, Bertran Auvert, the same man who headed one of the first big three African "RCTs." (Incidentally, the British medical journal The Lancet refused to publish Auvert's first big study, they didn't say why.) Auvert has been trying to correlate a lowered risk in HIV transmission with circumcision since at least 2003. He is good friends with Bill Gates, another avid circumcision promoter, and his last big "study" was funded by none other than the American National Institutes of Health. (Where doctors have vested interest in seeing the practice of circumcision, particularly infant circumcision continue.) It must be pointed out that none of the "new studies" presented at the IAS conference have been published in peer-reviewed journals.
What I'd like to know is how Auvert managed to come up with that incredible 76% figure. What did he do differently this time, and does he seriously expect the world to believe this number? Let's take a short look through time at the slow but sure increase of this number. According to Yahoo news article:
"In 2006, trials in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa found foreskin removal more than halved men's risk of infection by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Longer-term analysis found the benefit to be even greater than thought, with a risk reduction of around 60 percent."
And now that number is at 76%! I'm guessing that by 2016 that figure will be a full 100%?
Numbers sound real good on paper, but what I'd like to know is, if circumcision is so "effective" at "reducing the risk of HIV transmission," why isn't the 60%, and now 76% figure manifesting itself in real world situations where there is already a prevalence of circumcised men? Why arent these figures true outside of these so-called "trials?"
The rest of the Yahoo article is almost a complete verbatim repeat of the iafrica article I critique in my last blog post. Maybe iafrica and Yahoo are affiliates?
The Yahoo article does end with a word of caution by France's 2008 Nobel laureate Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, who in 1983 co-identified HIV as the source of AIDS;
"...over-confidence in circumcision [is] a major anxiety... Nothing provides 100-percent protection, not even a vaccine... Let's stop thinking that one preventative tool is enough. Circumcision has to be part of a combined approach."
She's mistaken though. We need to stop thinking that circumcision can actually be forced into the HIV prevention equation. Presenting circumcision confuses the message that people need to be engaging in safer sex, watching who they sleep with and employing the use of condoms.
It is a mistake to promote a dubious alternative
to the most effective method of HIV prevention known to us.
Back to the Bloomberg article, the same old debunked myths keep getting repeated:
"Circumcision is the surgical removal of a skin that covers the tip of the penis."
Actually, no, it's more than just skin; circumcision is the removal of an entire fold of flesh laden with blood vessels and nerves.
Actually, no, it's more than just skin; circumcision is the removal of an entire fold of flesh laden with blood vessels and nerves.
"Studies have shown the pocket between the foreskin and the tip of the penis gives viruses and bacteria a spot to grow, and circumcision eliminates it."
This is a reference to the penile microbiome study, which comes to an irrelevant conclusion; although it does show that there is a change in the penile microbiome after circumcision, it fails to demonstrate how circumcision prevents HIV. The authors present another hypothesis they must prove; that a change in the microbiome of the penis does indeed result in a reduced risk of HIV.
This is a reference to the penile microbiome study, which comes to an irrelevant conclusion; although it does show that there is a change in the penile microbiome after circumcision, it fails to demonstrate how circumcision prevents HIV. The authors present another hypothesis they must prove; that a change in the microbiome of the penis does indeed result in a reduced risk of HIV.
"The foreskin has been shown to be rich in cells that carry HIV into the body."
The Langerhans cells. Which, contrary to what is stated here, have been shown to be a natural barrier to HIV.
The Langerhans cells. Which, contrary to what is stated here, have been shown to be a natural barrier to HIV.
It ends with a very disconcerting note by Centre for HIV and AIDS Prevention Studies program manager Dirk Taljaard:
"It’s really quite simple as an intervention... it’s not something that you’re trying to get somebody to do every day of his life."
It is NOT simple. Circumcision is cutting off part of a person's penis. It is a permanent alteration to normal male anatomy, and a man has to deal with it every day of his life, whether he likes the resulting product or not. And it sounds like Dirk Taljaard intends on circumcising men and just forget about them afterwards.
Wearing a condom; it's something a man has to do every time he has sex with an untested stranger if he wants any real protection from HIV transmission. What an absolutely irresponsible thing for anybody to say.
The Call
I've had enough of all this circumcision study nonsense crap. Using "study" to legitimize mass genital mutilation has reached some ridiculous proportions. 76%? 76! Am I seriously supposed to believe this? How far does Auvert seriously think he can fool people? Who's checking this crap? Who's checking to make sure everything presented has been peer reviewed? Are IAS conferences the ultimate venue to spew unmitigated garbage? Is the AIDS situation that much hopeless in Africa that no idea is too stupid to try?
What would be the reaction of people present at these IAS conferences would that somebody actually presented a "study" that showed a "reduced risk in HIV transmission" in women who have undergone labiaplasties? What would people think if somebody actually presented the madness that we need to remove the labia of as many people as possible? How would Auvert be viewed if he were bragging that his efforts were successful in "increasing the percentage of circumcised women" in a given area? Would he be welcomed or would he be openly shamed? What if he spewed that magical 76% number?
There are some things that are simply always wrong no matter how much "study" you try to veil it with. There has got to be something wrong with "researchers" who seek to necessitate a surgical procedure on healthy individuals. "Studies" that begin with a surgical procedure as a solution a priori have got to be the most logically flawed studies in existence. Where is the voice of reason in all of this? How can people suddenly pretend like circumcision isn't this historically controversial religious ritual that "scientists" have been trying to legitimize with a pseudo-medical alibi for over a century? When does the madness stop?
I think it's about time people concerned with basic human rights demanded an investigation behind all this circumcision "study." Real world data simply does not add up. Circumcision isn't this "simple" procedure. If it were really this "simple snip" then there wouldn't be so much opposition. Circumcision is radical surgery; it is a permanent alteration. It is cutting off part of a person's penis. Instead of focusing on necessitating it, real scientists should be working to render it obsolete. WHY are "researchers" like Auvert allowed to spew their madness? Who is checking his work? Who is double-checking the work of all these circumcision "researchers" to make sure it's all legit? It is disconcerting that this crap actually goes unchallenged.
It's about time we got together and demanded an investigation. Investigate the "researchers." Those at the WHO who endorsed these so-called "studies." Those institutions funding "mass circumcision campaigns." WHO ARE these people? What conflicts of interest are they failing to declare? Is it really people who are interested in the reduction of HIV transmission? Or is it the same old folks trying to vindicate an age-old religious ritual steeped in controversy?
Let's just say for the sake of argument that all of the "study" is true. Who is researching alternatives? By when can we expect circumcision to be phased out? Is there a future in sight where people can protect themselves from HIV transmission without having to cut off part of their penises? Are there any researchers working to this end? Or is everybody interested in finding more uses for circumcision? Who are the researchers responsible for seeking to find alternatives to circumcision? I want to know! I want to know why nobody's talking about NOT circumcising at these so-called AIDS conferences!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)