Joseph4GI Turns Two

Two years ago today (March 18), I decided to start this blog. With little knowledge about how a blog even works, I decided to dive into the world of blogging. Having ranted and raved about circumcision long enough, I decided that perhaps starting a blog would be a great way to organize my thoughts.

I started this blog having absolutely zero experience blogging, and now, two years later, I'd have to say there is still much to learn before I can call myself an experienced blogger. There are still quite a few things I don't yet understand, and I'm sure if I payed attention, there is a whole array of buttons, whistles and bells that could make my blogging experience easier and more convenient. New tools and software are constantly being invented, but holding a full time job, not to mention tending to my family, I have very little time to sit down and check them all out. Little has changed visually since my last yearly update. 

Current Stats

For my blog's second anniversary, I've decided to share some of my stats to show how far I've come.

Since I've started my blog there have been many ups and downs in views relative to how much I post, and how much impact they have.

Last week, for example, marked one of the highest peaks in my visitor stats.

My most read blog post is *still* "Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay," followed by my post on the San Francisco Circumcision Ban proposal. My post "PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal" was the third most read article, followed by "Spank the Monkey, Eat Tomatoes, or Circumcision: Your Call", but as you can see, the article regarding the most recent circumcision death that has surfaced has quickly shot up the list to become the third most read article. Mind you, this happened within a matter of two or three days. It's a bit depressing that this is what catches people's attention.

My audience is mainly from the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, followed by Japan, Germany, Australia, India, Russia, France and the Philippines. There are still more Firefox users than Internet Explorer users, although Chrome seems to be catching up. Windows users still outnumber Mac users. I'm surprised iPad users at are a mere 2%, given its popularity boom.

It looks like I experienced a slump in the last year, but it's picking back up again. Overall, my stats indicate that my readership grew slightly over the last year. I've got 127 posts and 61 users who are following me openly. (How many are lurkers who follow me secretly? Who knows!)

In retrospect, I wrote 51 new posts, a number lower than last year (76). As I have said, my current situation has reduced the amount of time I can spend on my blog. 21 new users have started following me openly (half the number of users last year), indicating slight, but slow growth.

Are you a frequent visitor to this blog? Do you like what you see? Do you have a Blogger account or any other way to "follow" me openly? Add me to your blog list! I know I have more lurker readers that are not on my followers' list. Come out, come out, wherever you are! :-)

Where To From Here?
There is so much more I could be doing to improve this blog and increase its visibility. The only problem is, there is little time and money on my side that allows me to explore these options. I've been pondering a different name for the blog, possibly a donate button, and possibly giving it a proper home somewhere on a WordPress or Drupal site, but these are only just ideas and may or may not be brought to fruition any time soon. If there are any changes, you'll be sure to know about them.

So What is This Blog About?
My name is Joseph Lewis, and I am an activist for human rights. My main interests include equal rights. By extension, I am very active in speaking out against the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors of any sex. I've chosen the handle Joseph4GI for my online intactivism. Joseph4GI stands for "Joseph for Genital Integrity," and I started this blog mainly as a way to organize all of my thoughts regarding circumcision, particularly the circumcision of infants. On it, readers will find my random rants and musings on circumcision and intactivism.

There are plenty of pro-circumcision "information resources." Additionally, the so-called "benefits" of circumcision are given plenty of attention on all manner of news outlets. In addition to posting my rants and musings, I aim to present information the mainstream media omits, circumvents, or otherwise leaves out.

Up front, I don't pretend to have any kind of "neutral point of view" when it comes the subject of circumcision. I am dead against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, male or female, and I make no exception for "religion" or "culture." The only time that a child should undergo surgery is when there is actual medical or clinical indication, and all other methods of treatment have failed. (This also happens to be standard medical practice.)

Mission Statement
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual 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.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

DISCLAIMER:
I speak out against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors in any way, shape or form. I make no exception for "religion" nor "cultural practice" of any kind. Please do not conflate my disdain for the forced circumcision of minors with a belittlement of circumcised men, or a hate for Jews.

In this blog I criticize circumcision advocates and expose information about them that is not always revealed to the public. Some may argue that I am engaging in ad hominem. However, I'm only pointing out conflicts of interest, and this is not ad hominem. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on ad hominem (4/22/2012):

Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

~Joseph4GI
To read more about who I am, I have a dedicated blog post readers can view here.

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

It has all happened before.

And, until the non-therapeautic circumcision of infants is banned, it will all happen again.

But this time, it happened in Sacramento, California.

Within the last hour, Brayden Tyler Frazier died after circumcision put him in critical condition.

He started bleeding uncontrollably after he was circumcised Wednesday at UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento.

EDIT: The circumcision was actually carried out in Lodi, not at UC Davis Medical Center, as Brayden's grandfather has clarified. He was transferred to UC Davis Medical Center afterward, and the doctors there had absolutely nothing to do with Brayden's circumcision.

They tried to use coagulants, platelets, plasma etc. to try and save his life, but to no avail.

His body started having seizures because of it, which lead to his liver and kidneys starting to shows signs of failure.

He was 9 days old when he was circumcised, and he died at 11 days of age.

He was alive and well for 9 days until the day he was circumcised, and it was found that he had hemophilia.

EDIT: Brayden's grandfather says that he had been ill and taken to the Dr. for 2 days prior to the circumcision, as Brayden was sleeping constantly and not eating. Initial sticks and pricks were not healing quickly, and most bandages were kept on him for 2 days before the wounds sealed. It appeared his body was not producing "clotting" materials prior to the circumcision. But, according to Brayden's grandfather, "...it wasn't so much that anyone was alarmed."

His parents are now grieving at the Lodi Memorial Hospital.

As a Californian who was born and raised in this area, this is very, very close to home for me.

What will happen now?

Here's what will happen.

Just like all circumcision deaths, this one will be swept neatly underneath the rug.

The cause of death will be recorded as "hemorrhaging to death."

Hemophilia will be blamed.

EDIT: "He had "generalized bleeding"...sepsis, among other things," according to Brayden's grandfather.

The baby will have died of "organ failure."

No mention is going to be made of his circumcision.

Ever.

Nobody is going to ask why doctors didn't test the child for hemophilia (or any potentially hazardous conditions) prior.

Everyone will demand nobody bother the parents because they are grieving.

They will not press charges.

They will be complicit in covering up this circumcision, and protecting the doctor that did it.

They may have yet another child, and go on to circumcise him too.

People will keep quiet, and demand others do too.

And so it will continue.

One conservative estimate says that 117 deaths a year happen in the US as a result of circumcision.

Although, a recent study in Brasil suggests that rate is closer to 156 deaths a year.

Because circumcision is performed in healthy, non-consenting children without any medical or clinical indication whatsoever, how is anything above 0 conscionable?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Were these parents not made aware of this risk?

Do the benefits truly "outweigh" it, as the AAP repeats over and over?

Or was this child's death not important "because he was going to die anyway?"

I hate having to write these.

When will it end?

Note: Pictures and links to Facebook accounts were not used for this post in respect of the grieving parents.

Update (3/9/2013):

Already, Brayden's family is taking down pictures and status updates on Facebook. They're already trying to change their story to make it sound like Brayden's circumcision had absolutely nothing to do with his death, and accusing activists such as myself, of "misconstruing and exploiting Brayden's story for our own selfish purposes."

This seems to be an exact replay of Joshua Haskin's death.

It's rather sad that the health and well being of children is considered a "selfish cause" by some.

A child has died because of a needless operation.

More deaths like these can be prevented.

But more important is to preserve the fantasy that he didn't, for the parents' (and the doctors') sake.

So what is more selfish?

You be the judge.

We are being called liars who are "misconstruing," but sadly, this is the internet, and the whole thing, pictures and status updates, was caught on screen shot.

A friend on Facebook made the following observation:

"If someone had stabbed him, and he bled to death, no one would blame the child's condition. It would have been crystal clear that the injury killed him."

To which I say, EXACTLY.

They seem to be a family of faith.

Let it remain in their conscience who the real "liars" are.

Meanwhile, may Brayden rest in peace.

And may one day baby boys be spared from needless deaths like this one.

"Every time a baby dies from circumcision, there's something else involved. Bleeding. Infection. Anesthesia. Shock. Stroke. Heart attack. There's always something that can take the blame. Vulnerable parents are going to choose those things to blame, and so are the guilty medical professionals, because those things were beyond their control, and circumcision was elective and unnecessary. They are in a place where they CAN NOT admit the truth, and it is counterproductive to try." ~Aubrey Terrón

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

Another Mohel Botches a Bris

Whenever a botched circumcision case makes the news, and people start talking about it, either in the commentary section (when news outlets are actually brave enough to allow them), or parenting forums, or on Facebook, there is always somebody who says something along the lines of:

"This wouldn't have happened if it were performed by a mohel. Mohels are jacks of their trade who do circumcisions for a living."

Actually, mohels are often put on pedestals in more ways than one.

A Jewish bris performed by a mohel is better than a hospital circumcision performed by a doctor for a myriad of reasons. Here are some that I've heard:

• Mohels are more experienced, so your son is sure not to suffer a botched job
• Mohels take less time than doctors(some claim less than 10 seconds), shortening the painful procedure
• Mohels don't use pain medication (this is supposed to be a good thing, in spite of the facts)
• Mohels do their work outside of the hospital, in a religious setting, giving "meaning" to circumcision, making it more "holistic" ("holistic" taking on an entirely different meaning here)

There are other reasons, but these seem to be the main ones.

Now, there have been quite a few documented cases of mohels botching a bris, and being taken to court for it. (For example, here and here.)

But whenever I bring these up, strings and straws are grasped for, here and there, and Jewish circumcision advocates begin to list off alibis of why these are "special cases," and why mohels continue to be the best circumcision performers.

Among these are:

• The child had a pre-existing condition; not the mohel's fault (when a child is found later on to be a hemophiliac, have a heart condition and other ailments)
• The child had a particularly strange-shaped penis to work with; the case is an exception
• The botch was a result of clamp malfunction; mohel is not at fault
• The botch was performed by an inexperienced mohel; not a representative case

It's interesting to hear Jewish advocates of circumcision clarify that the bris has to be performed by a "trained and qualified mohel."

Thus, the reasons why Jewish circumcision performed by a mohel in a bris milah ritual are an ever moving target, and Jewish circumcision and its officiators remain sacrosanct.

Parents Usually Not Forthcoming
One of the reasons why very few botched circumcision jobs make the news is because parents, both Jewish and non-Jewish alike, are complicit in keeping the botched circumcision job and its perpetrator secret.

What parent wants to admit that their child has been permanently disfigured because they decided to agree to a medically unnecessary procedure?

In the case of Jewish parents, who wants to admit that what is perhaps the most precious of Jewish mitzvot is the cause of their child's disfigurement, and in worse cases, death?

As an example, when investigators were querying the Jewish families whose babies were infected with herpes, they would not name names. People in these communities were also unwilling to help find the perpetrator. The preservation of a cherished tradition that people have emotional attachment to is more important.

Circumcisors, Jewish and non-Jewish have reputations to protect. Gentile parents have peace of mind to preserve. Jewish parents have the added burden of protecting their own, and not giving away a holy man who performs the sacred ritual of bris milah. Thus, silence is perpetuated, and parents are complicit in keeping this silence.

That is, until now.

Circumcision Lawsuits
Recent years have seen a series of lawsuits against circumcisors, mohels and doctors, sometimes people who are both, for circumcision mishaps, which indicates that there are parents who are deciding to no longer keep silent about what has happened to their sons.

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, 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

The peculiar thing about Mogen is that up until the very end, they claimed that injury was impossible with the use of their clamp, "when used properly," 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.

And, just this month, another mohel was taken to court by parents in Queens. The rabbi told the parents he did an "acceptable job" that was "performed appropriately" and "within the standard of care and skill required of Jewish mohelim and circumcisers." He also allegedly told the parents that calling a doctor wasn't necessary, even though it was obvious that something had gone wrong with the bris. The parents claim that the delay in medical treatment resulted in greater permanent damage to his son, resulting in the necessity for corrective surgery with general anesthesia; the boy may need more operations in the future.

Of course there will be those who claim that this would never happen if the circumcision were "properly performed."

To which I would retort that female circumcision does not result in complications "when properly performed" by the right shaman priestess either.

The self-serving, ad hoc special pleading is astounding.

Interesting note; Jewish groups are challenging a New York law that says mohels have to warn parents of the risks, and have them sign a consent form before proceeding. Does this mean that Jewish parents AREN'T being told of the risk of glans ablations, herpes infections and death?

Hopefully more parents, Jewish and non-Jewish, will find the courage to bring the botched circumcisions of their sons to light.

Related Posts:

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room 

The Ghost of Mogen 

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way 

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes 

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

 Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

African Prostitutes: "Circumcised Men Take Too Long"

Along with a "60% reduction in HIV transmission," circumcision "researchers" in Africa promise that circumcision "doesn't diminish sex life" for men.

In fact, not only does it not negatively affect men, circumcision boosts sex life for both men and their partners!

Why, their "research" confirms it. And we all know that the more "researchers" promoters quote, (especially if it's "research" they conducted themselves) the truer their statements are.

But as I always say on this blog, there is something wrong with "research" and "findings" that don't correlate with reality.

A random survey was recently conducted amongst sex workers in the Harare red light district, Zimbabwe, by publication Zim Diaspora, which has made some interesting discoveries.

Apparently there are different prices for circumcised vs. intact clients, and circumcised men get charged more.

The reasoning behind this is that circumcised men take longer to orgasm, perhaps due to a diminished sensitivity, as a result of the removal of nerve endings in the foreskin. A longer sex session means less time to spend with other customers, and therefore a loss in potential clientele.

Said one prostitute to Zim Diaspora: "You see the problem with circumcised clients is they take too long to complete a single round. I might risk losing revenue from other clients and waste time on one guy for the same price, so we therefore push our charges upwards if one is circumcised."


According to other sex workers, the price increase can be from 20 to 30 US dollars if the client in circumcised.

Diminished sensation and therefore a longer sex session makes sense, considering research that shows that circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis.

According to the Sorrells sensitivity study, which measured different points on the intact and circumcised penis, the foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the penis, which are more sensitive than the most sensitive parts of the circumcised penis.

In addition, research outside the all-too-famous "African trials" fails to coincide with "researcher" claims that circumcision makes sex great and wonderful.

A Danish study found that "Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment," for example.

Another recent study from Belgum found that circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. Coinciding with the Zim Diaspora survey, circumcised men in the Belgian study reported that more effort was needed to achieve orgasm.

Be that as it may, some promoters of circumcision try to market the undeniable decrease in sensitivity as an advantage, because this makes men "last longer" in bed.

Perhaps it is an advantage for those insatiable women who want a long sex session.

This ceases to be an advantage when the sex session lasts a little too long.

The sex begins to hurt, the man becomes frustrated because he is not any closer to climaxing, and the woman wonders to herself when in the world he's going to finish.

This is my own speculation, but it may be in fact, that the men aren't finishing, which could be ironically the reason these men procure the services of a prostitute, and why men are willing to pay the extra price.

Interesting facts:
According to the latest health demographic survey in Zimbabwe, HIV is more prevalent in circumcised men. (The figures were similar - circumcised 16.6%, non-circumcised 14.2% - in 2005, before the circumcision campaign began in 2009.)

Image courtesy of Circumstitions News.

In spite of the fact that circumcision hasn't helped prevent HIV in this, and many other countries, "mass circumcision campaigns" continue in Zimbabwe, and other countries with similar statistics.

Related Posts:

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV 

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

Who's the "Douchebag?"

Every once in a while, you'll get someone writing about the "right" way to talk about circumcision.

The latest I've seen is in a blog post titled "How to Talk About Circumcision Without Being a Douchebag."

On the one hand, I could see what the author was getting at, but on the other, I feel that one side is being ignored.

A good point she makes is that intactivists could do a better job of delivering their message, and I agree.

But there are some points that I simply can't see eye to eye with.

To each their own, but I'm not sure I could continue being "best friends" with someone I knew agreed to have their children mutilated after having given them information.

Would you want to continue to be friends with someone you knew was OK with doing other abusive things to their children?

Beating them black and blue?

Sexually molesting them?

Yes, I see circumcision on par with sexual molestation.

Worse; sexual mutilation.

A child could heal from the wounds of sexual molestation through therapy, but a circumcision scar is permanent and can never be erased.

The author also seems to believe that circumcision is "just another choice," like bottle feeding or using disposable diapers vs. cloth diapers.

"We had a conversation about a subject that can be controversial without making it controversial because that is how adults interact.

And both of our children are thriving.  Both of our children our loved, breastfed, well taken care of."

I've seen this "celebrate our parental choices" attitude before:

And I couldn't agree any less.

It is a mistake to attack and humiliate parents over something they honestly didn't know any better about, and who would take it all back if they knew what they were doing to their children.

I'm not advocating that.

But I also do not advocate corroberating with parents, rewarding willful ignorance, making them feel justified and entitled by calling circumcision a "choice" to be "celebrated."

This author seems willing to pander to her "best friend" at the expense of the basic human rights of that friend's children, because she is more interested in "staying friends" than the principle of basic human rights for all.

I can't agree with sacrificing principle for the sake of friendship.

I couldn't pretend like "nothing happened," just to stay friends with someone whom I gave information to, but decided to mutilate his/her child anyway.

Who is a douchebag?
Now, let's talk about just who the "douchebag" is.

Who is a douchebag?

Someone whom you don't like, or has done something you don't like.

I am ready to acknowledge that there are some intactivists out there who cross the line. There is much reason an intactivist does it though; we feel as passionate about male infant circumcision as people feel about say, female circumcision. It is a gross violation of basic human rights and not to be taken lightly.

People keep saying "you shouldn't judge."

But let's ask, how do you feel about female circumcision?

How do you feel about parents that circumcised their daughters?

And be honest.

Would you hold back and "not judge?"

Would you respect that "parental choice?"

Or would you say the first thing on your mind?

That said, there are also intactivists who have lots of time and patience, and who try to deliver their message in as a non-judgemental way as possible. They try to post facts, links to information, and just leave it a that; only to have it be called "bashing" and "harassment" by parents who simply want to hear nothing other than validation and encouragement, and have it promptly deleted, user blocked.

So who's the douchebag?

The answer is, someone whom you don't like, or has done something you don't like.

Intactivists could tone it down. I will admit.

But why is the first reaction from parents who are adamant about having their child circumcised defensiveness and hostility?

Why does it make someone who wants to post factual information automatically a "douchebag?"

Not all intactivists are extreme. Not all parents are close-minded and pawn off whomever they don't want to hear as "douchebags."

This is probably asking for the sun and the moon, but there needs to be acknowledgement on both sides.

Yes, intactivists can be extreme douchebags.

But if you're a parent who things you've got it all right, but then you openly post about your son's circumcision online, and then complain that you're being "harrassed" and "bullied" by people whom all they want to do is give you information to make a better choice for your children, and that they're "getting into your business," and then delete what they have to say and block them, because you care more about mutilating your son and being "right" than you actually do about his health and well-being, then you're a douchebag too.

The fact is, circumcision is a sensitive subject, and you're not going to get away with posting about it on the internet, and getting people like us roused up.

If you don't want people "getting in your business," then don't post it on the internet for the whole world to see. 


Related Posts:

The "Mommy Page" Wars

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

GRANOLA BABIES: Responses to "Celebratory" Ad

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

UPDATE: Now with graphical representations (2/24/2013).

I had already published a post titled "Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV." Readers can see to the left, it ranks 5th as one of my most popular posts.

I recently had a conversation with one Juan Pistolas (an online intactivist persona) concerning HIV transmission rates in Mexico. It was touched off by an article I posted on my Facebook wall, titled "Sexually transmitted infection epidemic ravaging the US", to highlight the fact that having a primarily circumcised male population (over 80%, according to Dr. Schoen), most of which are men who are circumcised from birth, has not helped in the US.

It is often touted by circumcision advocates that circumcision reduces the transmission of STDs. The fact is that STD transmission rates are higher here, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare.

Juan wanted to tell me that American intactivists always point to Europe as a prime example, but that we always seem to forget our Mexican brother to the south.

I couldn't understand what he was talking about. I had always assumed that Mexico would be a poor example, with a high HIV transmission rate, being a third world country.

He replied:

"That's the problem with the majority of persons that believes that just because a third world country is cataloged as such, in this case Mexico, then they automatically assume the country lacks of everything. Hollywood movies have created false stereotypes of many cultures and countries in the world that people adopt as truth, when many times is quite the contrary.

In Mexico we may not have a super infrastructure like the US or Europe has, but despite that, we have a much more less rate of HIV. Much less.

Also, in Mexico you can have access to free condoms if any person goes to any government health clinic and request a few. Of course they aren't Trojans or Sico's, but free condoms are given. We also have free access to sex education in these same health clinics. Just go, see schedules or make an appointment."

I couldn't believe what he was saying.

I wanted numbers.

Enter the CIA World Factbook.

The intactivist organization Saving Our Sons had also just recently published an article titled "HIV in the Circumcised U.S. Up to 500% Higher than Intact Nations," which was no surprise to me, as I had already known for the longest time that the US had the highest rate of HIV transmission in the industrialized world, despite its high prevalence of male circumcision. I had already known that knowing the truth was simply a matter of looking at HIV transmission rates around the world, but I had never actually sat down to look through them. I saw in this article, for the first time, where exactly the US stood as compared to other nations in terms of HIV transmission.

So touched off by Juan's comments, and remembering that I had just recently read the Saving Our Son's article referencing the CIA World Factbook, I decided to look through it to see where Mexico stood.

Sure enough, while America hovers at No. 64, Mexico is way below at No. 79.

I couldn't believe it.

Mexico?

Really?

But I started seeing other countries which also fell well below America, countries that I would expect to have terrible HIV transmission rates, and I was floored.

Juan provided his own source IndexMundi.

Juan's source, though, does not list countries by percentage of HIV prevalence, but by actual numbers of people living with AIDS. Doing this shifts the order around quite a bit.

For example, reporting Swaziland's HIV prevalence rate by percentage (25.90%) puts it at No.1 in the CIA Factbook. But looking at the actual number of people living with HIV puts it way below. In fact, many African countries fall below the US when actual numbers of people living with HIV are compared.

I began to make observations that I thought should be posted in this blog.

HIV prevalence rates and circumcision rates in other countries
I started talking to another online intactivist acquaintance to whom I shall refer using his online persona, "dreamer," about what I saw in the CIA factbook. He suggested we look up the rate of circumcision prevalence of these countries, to see what countries with a lower HIV transmission rate than the US have high and/or low circumcision prevalence rates.

He suggested we look at the Wikipedia page on world circumcision prevalence, a suggestion with which I was rather hesitant, because Wikipedia users with a pro-circumcision bias have made circumcision-related pages at Wikipedia unreliable. I went along because I couldn't think of a better source.

Even going with Wikipedia numbers, what we found kept blowing our minds.

Using adult HIV prevalence rates from the CIA Factbook, and circumcision prevalence rates in Wikipedia, dreamer created a spreadsheet that maps out countries by circumcision and HIV prevalence rates.

We were able to see what countries had higher and lower HIV prevalence rates than the US, and which of those had high and low circumcision prevalence rates.

Why the US?
Why should the US be used as any sort of benchmark?

Because America is the driving force behind the resolve to circumcise Africa, and the drive to circumcise boys and men in cultures within its own population that do not practice circumcision. American doctors, "researchers," medical organizations and charity funds are currently placing much time, effort and precious funds in trying to make circumcision prevalence levels as high as ours.

With an adult circumcision prevalence rate of 80% or greater, the United States should serve as a prime example of the "benefits" of circumcision, or lack thereof.

As highlighted on Saving Our Sons, American circumcision "researchers" keep trying to use fear-mongering tactics to shore up support for circumcision, and to get administrators of state Medicaid programs who have stopped paying for routine male infant circumcision to change their minds.

In a recent "study," it was claimed by "researchers" at Johns Hopkins that if circumcision rates drop to the level seen in Europe, that there would be a 12% increase in HIV cases in men.

Comparing HIV/circumcision statistics between the United States and Europe, one must wonder how exactly did the "researchers" arrive at their conclusion.

Researchers claim that that circumcision cuts HIV transmission rates by 55 to 65 percent, based on three African trials. Promoters of circumcision in Swalizand (with funding from PEFPAR and others) seek to circumcise 80% of the male population as a step towards the United Nations goal of zero new HIV infections by 2020. Similarly, the W.H.O. in concert with the U.N., the World Bank, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and several other very well funded and influential N.G.Os (including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), with visible leadership from Hillary Clinton, are funding, supporting and administering a multinational effort to circumcise over 28 million men in Sub Saharan Africa by 2015.

An increased rate of HIV transmission and/or prevalence should be expected in non-circumcising countries, and a decreased rate in circumcising countries, but this is simply not observed.

The following are observations from the CIA World Factbook, and circumcision prevalence rates as found in Wikipedia.


How many countries have a higher HIV prevalence than the US? What are the circumcision rates in these countries?
There are 63 countries with a higher HIV rate than the US. Of these, 26 countries are primarily circumcising countries (e.g., have a circumcision rate over 80%). 26 countries have a low circumcision rate (eg, have a circumcision rate under 20%).

Observation: The number of primarily circumcising countries, and countries with a low circumcision rate, that have a higher HIV prevalence than the US, is about the same. (26 vs. 26)

How many countries have a lower HIV prevalence than the US? What are the circumcision rates in these countries?
There are 102 countries with a lower HIV rate than the US. Of these, 30 countries are primarily circumcising countries (e.g. have a circumcision rate over 80%). 53 countries have a low circumcision rate (have a circumcision rate under 20%).

Observation: The number of countries with a circumcision rate under 20%, and a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US, is greater than the number of circumcising countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US. The number of circumcising countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US, is lesser than the number of intact countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US. (53 vs 30)

HIV prevalence is lower in the US, where 80% of the adult male population is circumcised from birth, than 26 countries where circumcision is rare (circumcision rate is under 20%), but higher than 56 countries where circumcision is rare.

How many other countries in the world have a high circumcision rate? Is HIV prevalence higher, or lower than the US, where circumcision prevalence is high?

56 countries other than the United States have circumcision rates greater than 80%; HIV is more prevalent than the US in 26 of these countries, while less prevalent in 30 of them.

Observation: Of the countries where the circumcision rate exceeds 80%, the number of countries where HIV prevalence is lower than that of the US, is in fact greater than the number of countries  where HIV prevalence is higher than the US.

In other words, there are more circumcising countries with a HIV prevalence rate lower than the US, than there are circumcising countries with a higher HIV prevalence rate. (30 to 26)

The US does better than 26 circumcising countries, but worse than 30.

How many countries in the world have a low circumcision rate? Is HIV prevalence higher, or lower than the US, where circumcision prevalence is high?
79 countries in the world have circumcision rates under 20%. Of these, 26 have a higher HIV prevalence rate than the US, and 56 have a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US.

Observation: Of the countries where the circumcision rate falls below 20%, the number of countries where with a lower prevalence rate than the US is greater than the number of countries with a higher prevalence rate than the US.

The number of countries where the circumcision rate falls below 20% and the HIV prevalence rates are lower than the US, far exceeds the number of countries where the circumcision rate is greater than 80% and HIV prevalence rates are lower than the US. (53 to 30)

In other words, there are more countries where circumcision is rare, and have a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US, than there are circumcising countries with a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US.

Countries where circumcision rates exceed 80%, and HIV is more prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Kenya, Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, The Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Chad, Togo, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia, Angola, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Benin

Observation: These are all African countries.

Countries where circumcision rates exceed 80%, and HIV is less prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Libya, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Israel, Bahrain, Iran, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Quatar, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan

Observation: Many of these countries are countries in the Middle East, where Islam is prevalent and children are circumcised as a matter of religious practice.

Countries where circumcision rates fall below 20%, and HIV is more prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Swaziland, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Namibia, Malawi, Burundi, Rwanda, Belize, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand, Estonia, Guyana, Ukraine, Russia, Papua New Guinea, Dominican Republic, Panama, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Latvia, Burma, Portugal

Observation: The majority of countries in the first row are African countries. A good number of these countries lie along the Caribbean Sea. European countries are rare and appear sporadically.

Countries where circumcision fall below 20%, and HIV is less prevalent than the United States (By rank in HIV prevalence)

Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Cambodia, Peru, Nepal, Switzerland, Vietnam, Ecuador, France, Chile, Spain, Moldova, Mexico, Italy, India, Iceland, Costa Rica, Canada, Belarus, Austria, Paraguay, Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Bolivia, Bhutan, United Kingdom, Belgium, Nicaragua, Laos, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Mongolia, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Sweden

Observation: There is a prevalence of European, South American and Asian countries. Countries where one might expect a higher HIV prevalence rate have a surprisingly low prevalence rate. Colombia and Costa Rica border Panama, which falls above the US in HIV prevalence, yet, they have a lower HIV prevalence rate than the US. Similarly, Nicaragua borders both Honduras and El Salvador, where HIV prevalence rates are higher than the US.

I expected countries to the south of the United States, have a high prevalence of HIV. I was surprised to find Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, and Bolivia in this number.

Observe how low many of these countries fall along the list as well.

Problems With This Analysis
One of the problems with this analysis is the way circumcision percentages are reported on Wikipedia. They are reported on three major ranges, which are "less than 20%," "between 20 and 80%," and "above 80%." The problem with a range between 20% and 80% is that a country may have a circumcision rate of 21% or 79%. Additionally, percentages could hide relevant numbers.

In Lesotho, for example, 23% of adult men are circumcised, so it falls within that "between 20 and 80%" range. Promoters of circumcision may try to make an example of Lesotho, because it ranks number 3 in the CIA fact book, with an HIV prevalence rate of 23.6%. Closer analysis, however, reveals that, actually, HIV  is more prevalent among the circumcised. (The ratio of circumcised men vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 22.8 vs 15.2, according to the latest demographic health survey.)

Malawi is yet another country circumcision promoters might try to make an example of, with its rank of No. 9 in the CIA fact book (11% HIV prevalence rate), and its circumcision rate below 20%. Here too, HIV is more prevalent amongst the circumcised. (The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 13.2 vs 9.5, according to this demographic health survey.)

Rwanda is further down on the CIA fact book at No. 25, with an HIV prevalence rate of 2.9%. The low circumcision rate (less than 20%) makes Rwanda fodder for circumcision advocates, however here too, HIV  is actually more prevalent among the circumcised. (The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8 vs 2.1, according to this demographic health survey.)

Circumcision advocates are trying to make Swaziland their ultimate example, ranking No. 1 in the CIA fact book, with an HIV prevalence rate of 25.9%, and a circumcision rate that falls below 20%. What they fail to report is the fact that, yet again, HIV was actually found to be more prevalent among the circumcised. (See this demographic health survey.)

Tanzania’s circumcision rate is listed as being “between 20 and 80,” but this hides a circumcision rate of 69%. It ranks No. 12 in the CIA fact book, with an HIV transmission rate of 5.3%. And here again, HIV was more prevalent among the circumcised. (See chart here.)

Malaysia’s circumcision rate is listed as being “between 20 and 80.” However, it is a known fact that approximately 60% of the Malaysian population is Muslim, where close to 100% of the men are circumcised (circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community). According to MalaysianAIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims, which means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.

It would appear that The Philippines is a model country for promoters of circumcision. It ranks No. 147 in the CIA fact book, and a circumcision rate of over 80%. (The majority of the male population is circumcised, as it is seen as an important rite of passage.) In the 2010 GlobalAIDS report released by UNAIDS, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh (another circumcising country, No. 112 in the CIA Factbook) are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.

Conclusion

Researchers in Africa claim that circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV by 60%. They purport to have discovered a lower rate of HIV transmission in the circumcised men in their "studies." These studies were used by the WHO to endorse circumcision as a prevention measure for HIV, and are currently being used to instate "mass circumcision campaigns" in different countries in Africa, where HIV transmission rates are high, but circumcision rates are low.

These include countries where HIV is more prevalent among the circumcised!

Real world data reveals, however, that results from studies do not necessarily correlate with reality.

An analysis of data from the CIA Factbook, and circumcision rates as reported on Wikipedia reveals that a population where the majority of males are circumcised does not necessarily translate to a lowered rate of HIV transmission. A circumcision rate of 80% or greater does not necessarily equate to a lowered rate of HIV transmission, and a low circumcision rate does not necessarily mean that HIV will run rampant.

Further analysis reveals that just because a nation has both a low circumcision, and a high HIV transmission rate, this doesn't necessarily mean more men with foreskins have HIV; the majority of men with HIV may in fact be circumcised.

If circumcision is such a great way to prevent HIV, why isn't it obvious in this country? Why does America have an HIV transmission rate that is far greater than a good number of nations where circumcision prevalence is low? Why is it at the top of a list of 30 countries where circumcision prevalence high? What about all these other countries that are supposed to be "inferior" to us, and have both low circumcision AND an HIV prevalence rates? And why aren't "researchers" interested in what's happening there? Perhaps such countries are doing something that we aren't to keep HIV transmission low, but it seems "researchers" aren't that interested.

It needs to be explained how something that never worked in this country, is going to suddenly start working miracles in Africa. America should start fixing its own HIV problem before pretending like they can go to other countries and try to solve theirs.

My thanks to  Juan Pistolas and dreamer for their great help and inspiration for this blog post.