MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

As if it weren't already bad that circumcision advocates were using questionable "research" to push "mass circumcision campaigns" in Africa under the supposed guise of "HIV prevention," apparently US-funded organizations are now simply taking the liberty of kidnapping children off the streets and circumcising them without their parents' approval.

According to this report, SSDI, a component of the Malawi Ministry of Health, has been simply picking up children off the street, coaxing them with candy, cookies and drinks, forcibly circumcising them without their parents' awareness, and dumping them near their homes, much to their parents' dismay upon discovery.

SSDI apparently receives support from USAID to promote and perform male circumcisions through a campaign known as the "Sankhani HIV Prevention Project."

In one particular case in Chipakuza Village, T/A Lundu in Chikhwawa, a 9-yo boy has lost his entire penis, and his angry father is seeking to sue the Malawi Ministry of Health for damages.

The lawsuit documents served to the Attorney General and Chikhwawa District Hospital, stressed the need for authorities to take this matter seriously, chiefly citing the fundamental right of the minor, which had been violated, and the fact that the parents' wishes were not disregarded.

Furthermore, the father has complained that the people involved forcefully circumcised his son against the values and customs of the Sena culture, his culture of origin.

Given that circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery with dubious "benefits" that are already afforded by less invasive, more effective means, given that it was forcibly performed on a healthy, non-consenting child, given that his fundamental rights were violated, and given that his parents were completely disregarded, the fact that this child has lost his penis is a disastrous tragedy in more ways than one.

This needs to be brought to the attention of the WHO and UNICEF; what has happened here is anything but "voluntary."

Related Posts:

MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

JAMA: Lead Article is a "Study" on Bribing Men to Get Circumcised

AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

It's all happened before. And it's all happening again. But this time, it happened in New York.

Yes, it seems, that since the WHO used three dubious "studies" to endorse male genital mutilation as HIV prevention, circumcision advocates, each with their own different interests, have been looking for ways to promote so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" full speed ahead.

PEPFAR and Bill Gates are in Africa bankrolling so-called "mass circumcision campaigns." These have started a race to come up with an efficient gadget that will speed up circumcision. Eager circumcision advocates are trying to use the WHO judgement to get medical organizations around the world to endorse the practice of infant circumcision, and to recuperate public funding which once paid for it. In Australia, circumcision enthusiast Brian Morris can't seem to keep quiet about getting the Royal Australian College of Physicians to endorse "mandatory circumcision" for all boys. In America, Arleen Leibowitz laments the fact that 17 states have stopped Medicaid funding for infant circumcision.

All of this hullabaloo surrounding an eminent "scale-up" of circumcision seems to be focused on one concentrated purpose:

To secure acquiescence to the idea that circumcision actually does anything to prevent HIV transmission.

In recent months, a number of news outlets have run what appears to be an infomercial for a circumcision device, namely the PrePex device, developed by Israeli inventors.

A video version of the PrePex infomercial was published on the BBC, which wasn't even viewable to Britons. Perhaps the BBC knew that if Brits saw this ridiculous excuse for journalism there would be an outcry demanding an explanation. A few days later, a more dumbed down version of the infomercial was published on the Washington Post in news article form. The message and the purpose remained the same; to move the audience past the evidence (or lack thereof), and focus attention on "mass circumcision campaigns," and how the new PrePex device is the answer.


The PrePex Infomercial on the New York Times
The PrePex company has managed to get the New York Times to publish an infomercial for them, masquerading as a news article. This article goes a step further than its predecessors, however, as it is actually now calling circumcision, an amputative procedure, an actual "VACCINE."

I am going to go through the entire article and highlight all the deliberate misinformation that the New York Times tries to pass off as fact.

"AIDS Prevention Inspires Ways to Make Circumcisions Easier," reads the headline.


Already, the author is assuring his readers that yes, circumcision does in fact, prevents AIDS. No actual analysis of the "evidence" is needed, readers should just believe that this is a foregone conclusion.


Reads the caption under the picture of the "new" invention: "‘LIKE A FINGERNAIL’ One new product, PrePex, uses a ring to block blood flow. After a week, the dead foreskin falls off or can be clipped." 

Hardly innovative, the PrePex is nothing more than a glorified tourniquet device. A number of other devices use the exact same principle of cutting off blood circulation to the foreskin, including the TaraKlamp, the Smartklamp, the Ismail Clamp, the Zhenxi Ring and the Shang-ring before it.

"Like a fingernail" is an attempt to trivialize the foreskin. Tie off any part of the body and it will shrivel up and die. Reader, ask yourself; when was the last time you had to cut off circulation in your fingernails before you had to cut them off?

Let's continue with the article:
"The day of the assembly-line circumcision is drawing closer."

This seems more like wishful thinking on the part of the author, and the circumcision advocates he is writing the plug piece for. In actuality, "assembly-line circumcision" has been going on in the US for a few decades now. And actually, as per the CDC, the practice is in decline. This, I believe, is the real cause for concern for advocates of circumcision in the so-called name of disease prevention.

Moving on:
"Now that three studies have shown that circumcising adult heterosexual men is one of the most effective “vaccines” against AIDS — reducing the chances of infection by 60 percent or more — public health experts are struggling to find ways to make the process faster, cheaper and safer."

A deliberate lie, mashed together with a half-truth. "Studies" have shown no such thing.

Let us begin with this half-assed quantification of circumcision as a "vaccine." It needs to be made clear:

A vaccine functions by strengthening the immune system against pathogens that cause disease. When HIV, or any other disease, invades the body, it makes no difference to the immune system whether or not a man is circumcised. Saying that circumcision behaves ANYTHING like a vaccine is a deliberate LIE, it is an unscientific statement and a disservice in the fight against disease, and news outlets have got to stop repeating it.

It may be true that health "experts" (Experts? WHAT experts? Who are they?) are scrambling to find ways to spread circumcision, but there is absolutely no "study" in the world that can demonstrate that circumcision functions anything like a vaccine.

The worn 60% figure is never addressed. 60% of what? What did the supposed "studies" actually show?

The "studies" supposedly involved 10,908 men, 5,411 of which were circumcised, and 5,497 which were left intact as a "control" group. By the end of the studies, 201 men contracted HIV. The famous 60% figure we hear repeated over and over comes from the comparison of 137 intact men  vs. 64 circumcised men who contracted HIV. This figure quickly shrinks to an insignificant 1.37% however, when we factor in the rest of the 10,707 men who didn't get HIV. Circumcision is being heavily promoted using a ridiculously inflated number, but the New York Times etc. are touting it as gospel truth.

No, even if the "research" were correct, circumcision could not hold a candle to condoms.

Additionally, real world empirical evidence fails to correlate with the WHO's select studies.

Let's continue...
"The goal is to circumcise 20 million African men by 2015, but only about 600,000 have had the operation thus far."

Which raises a few questions. The WHO endorsed these "studies" since 2006, and campaigns such as Soka Uncobe have been blasting the message in Africa for at least a year now.  "Those foreskins are flying," assured Robert Bailey in a past article on the very New York Times. If the programs are being so "successful," how is it that there are efforts to "streamline" circumcision? Have organizers thought of the possibility that they may never even reach one or two million men, let alone 20? That despite all of the "science" and "research" thrown at them, the men may not be interested in having part of their penis cut off? Have they thought of plan B? Have they envisioned a future where HIV might be prevented WITHOUT surgery? Why does it seem like organizers in Africa are more concerned about spreading circumcision, than they are about spreading HIV awareness, and education in the use of condoms, which, even according to "research" would far supersede it?

Aren't organizers concerned that promoting circumcision is going to discourage the use of condoms?

Continuing:
"Even a skilled surgeon takes about 15 minutes, most African countries are desperately short of surgeons, and there is no Mohels Without Borders."

And why on earth would you need RELIGIOUS practitioners of circumcision? What is this effort ACTUALLY about? Aren't circumcision advocates even going to try to conceal their ulterior motives anymore?

The questions continue. KNOWING that surgeons and doctors are in short supply, and that healthcare is needed elsewhere, how is it circumcision advocates insist on exhausting this limited supply? How is it they're not looking for less invasive methods of HIV prevention that are as effective, if not even more so than circumcision?

The article continues:

"So donors are pinning their hopes on several devices now being tested to speed things up."

Or, rather, using WHO endorsement of male genital mutilation as HIV prevention, circumcision device manufactures have managed to secure a piece of the circumcision/HIV pie.

Continuing: 
"Dr. Stefano Bertozzi, director of H.I.V. for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said it had its eyes on two, named PrePex and the Shang Ring, and was supporting efforts by the World Health Organization to evaluate them."

Evaluate? Or endorse?

(And look who is doing the evaluating! None other than David R. Tomlinson, the "chief expert on circumcision" at the WHO, who also just happens to be an inventor of various circumcision devices himself, namely the AccuCirc device.)

Are Bill and Melinda Gates really interested in humanity? Or is this merely a PR endeavor?

The clincher:

"Circumcision is believe[d] to protect heterosexual men because the foreskin has many Langerhans cells, which pick up viruses and “present” them to the immune system — which H.I.V. attacks."

Here we see the New York Times, yet again, trying to merge science with quackery.

HIV most definitely attacks the immune system; this is an observable phenomenon that anyone can see and confirm for themselves. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that the Langerhans cells in the foreskin "picks up" viruses and "presents" them to the immune system.

Actually, scientific evidence proves quite the opposite: Not only do the Langerhans cells act as a natural barrier for HIV, they actually secrete Langerin, which destroys HIV on contact.

de Witte, Lot; Alexey Nabatov, Marjorie Pion, Donna Fluitsma, Marein AW P de Jong, Tanja de Gruijl, Vincent Piguet, Yvette van Kooyk, Teunis B H Geijtenbeek (2007-03-04). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" (PDF). Nature Medicine. doi: 10.1038/nm1541. http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf.

The claim that the Langerhans cells facilitate HIV transmission is categorically false.

The New York Times is "picking up" and "presenting" deliberate scientific falsehoods to the American public.

Let it be clear:

The idea that circumcision prevents male heterosexual HIV transmission is a belief; a belief that cannot be scientifically demonstrated. A "decrease" in HIV transmission can be "observed" in three hopelessly flawed, heavily skewed "studies" that fail to correlate with real world empirical evidence. That this "decrease" was indeed caused by circumcision, however, is a far-fetched belief that "researchers" have yet to substantiate. "Researchers" are trying to frame their cherished beliefs and traditions in "research," and that's not science.

The article continues:
"PrePex, invented in 2009 by four Israelis after one of them, a urologist, heard an appeal for doctors to do circumcisions in Africa, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration three weeks ago. The W.H.O. will make a decision on it soon, said Mitchell Warren, an AIDS-prevention expert who closely follows the process."

The inventors of the PrePex device are of Israeli origin which brings into question their true motives. The Jerusalem AIDS Project (JAIP) created Operation Abraham, which is an organization whose sole purpose is to promote circumcision any which way it can. They too have used the WHO's endorsement to travel all over the world to promote circumcision. Are they truly interested in public health? Or are they interested in safeguarding and promoting a religious ritual which is ever under scrutiny? Or is this purely an endeavor to cash in on the opportunity?

The PrePex plug piece continues:
"From the initial safety studies done so far, PrePex is clearly faster, less painful and more bloodless than any of its current rivals. And it relies on the simplest and least-threatening technology — a rubber band.

The band compresses the foreskin against a plastic ring slipped inside it; the foreskin dies within hours for lack of blood and, after a week, falls off or can be clipped off “like a fingernail,” said Tzameret Fuerst, the company’s chief executive officer, who compared the process to the stump of an umbilical cord’s shriveling up and dropping off a few days after it is clamped."

Again, this is hardly innovative; the PrePex is nothing but a glorified tourniquet device. A number of other devices use the exact same principle of cutting off blood circulation to the foreskin, including the TaraKlamp, the Smartklamp, the Ismail Clamp, the Zhenxi Ring and the Shang-ring before it.

"Like a fingernail" is an attempt to trivialize the foreskin. Any part of the body will shrivel up and die if you cut off circulation to it. Unlike the foreskin, or any other part of the body, fingernails are a dead part of the body, and don't need to be tied off to cut off circulation before trimming them. The umbilical cord does not need to be tied off either, as it too is a dead part of the body which will eventually shrivel up and fall off on its own.

Focus on PrePex

I'd like to zero in on this Tzameret Fuerst woman. Who is she? Why is she so enthusiastic about circumcision? Particularly this new "PrePex" device? And why does it seem like she's more excited about getting millions circumcised, than she is about HIV prevention? Why is the fact that, even if "studies" were correct, circumcision is not "100% effective" an afterthought?

If my presumptions are correct, she is the wife of Oren Fuerst, co-inventor of this device. Millions of men circumcised means that millions of PrePex devices will be bought and used. She's cashing in on the HIV gravy train, and that's why she's so enthused.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
~Upton Sinclair

Continues the PrePex ad:
It is done with topical anesthetic cream, and there is usually no bleeding. And PrePex can be put in place and removed by nurses with about three days’ training.

All really irrelevant afterthoughts... If there is no scientific proof that circumcision prevents HIV, and even given the "evidence" condoms still do a far better job, what does the minimalization and the simplicity of the procedure even matter...

The rings come in five sizes, A through E, Ms. Fuerst said, “and you won’t believe how high-tech the rubber band is.”

She's right! I don't!

"Each size must apply just enough pressure to cut off blood flow without being tight enough to cause pain"

Fuerst, does PrePex have an AIDS prevention method that DOESN'T involve cutting off part of my penis, please?

Continuing...
"The W.H.O., Mr. Warren said, is also evaluating the Shang Ring, a plastic two-ring clamp developed in China to treat conditions in which the foreskin becomes so tight that it cuts off urination."

And here we see the injection of a condition which necessitates circumcision, and another device that facilitates it. Are we even going to be given a scientific explanation as to what these "conditions" are? If they actually cut off urination, and they actually need circumcision viz Shang Ring?

What is the name of the condition where the foreskin becomes so tight it cuts off urination? What causes it? Is circumcision the only option? More gratuitous promulgation of non-science.

Moving forward:
"However, it requires cutting off the excess foreskin beyond the clamp, which means the circumciser must inject anesthetics directly into the penis and groin, wait for them to take effect, create a sterile surgical field and be trained in minor surgery."

“The Shang is not as fast, but it’s faster than full-fledged surgery,” Mr. Warren said. “And it hasn’t submitted as much safety data."

"In a safety study presented at an AIDS conference last month, scientists from Rwanda’s health ministry said they had used PrePex to circumcise 590 men. Only two had “moderate” complications; one was fixed with a single suture, and one required a new band in a different spot."

All useless information that draws attention more and more away from whether or not circumcision actually prevents anything... I'm sure with just the right amount of "research" one could invent a device that facilitates the extraction of the labia with only "moderate" complications...

Or better yet, come up with an actual solution that doesn't involve genital mutilation...

Continuing on: 
"According to Dr. Jason Reed, an epidemiologist in the global AIDS division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 of 590, or 0.34 percent, is a tenth the typical complication rate of surgical circumcision."

More statistics to blind the reader with. That's 2 out of 590 in a controlled study. What does that look like for the rest of Africa outside of the scientific environment? And what does this figure look like at 20,000,000 men? One in 295 men will suffer complications. Over 20,000,000 men that these people plan to circumcise, that's about 67,800 men who will suffer complications.

And that's *if* the people writing these "studies" were writing the truth. Remember, they're trying to MARKET their device.

I'm also being kind in assuming that all 20,000,000 African men will have undergone circumcision using the PrePex device; surgery will still be used, and, given the WHO green light, tribes will continue to circumcise youth and men traditionally. The number of complications is going to exceed 70,000, as will the number of iatrogenic HIV transmission. (In Africa, visiting a health center in and of itself is a risk for HIV. Is Daniel McNeil Jr. not aware of this fact?)

All of this, when HIV can already be easily and effectively prevented via education and condoms???

There is another lie that Jason Reed is trying to slip by here; that 0.34 percent is a "tenth" of the typical complication rate of surgical circumcision.

What kind of circumcision could Jason Reed possibly be referring to? Adult circumcision? Child circumcision? What is being counted as a "complication?"

There are reasons to believe that CDC statistics on circumcision in the United States is flawed, namely that they report "zero deaths" when intactivists have a long list of deaths documented. They report an infinitesimally small number of "complications," when we have reports that botched circumcisions have been on the rise for the past few years. Is the CDC telling the truth? Or are they circumcising it?

Instead of investigating, the New York Times takes Reed's presentation of CDC statistics at face value. Let's hear it for American journalism!

Continuing:

"None of the men became infected."

That's great! Does circumcision prevent HIV? Is it even relevant in light of HIV prevention methods which already supersede it?

Continuing:
"On the 10-point pain scale, they reported [a]n average [of] only about 1 when the ring was placed and only 3 when it was removed (about the same level of pain caused by erections during the week they wore it).

By the end of the study, the two-nurse teams could do a procedure in three minutes.

By contrast, Dr. Reed said, the best surgical “assembly lines” — a practice being pioneered in Africa with American taxpayer support — can get down to seven minutes per patient, but only by getting six nurses and a surgeon into a tight harmony."

"Looking busy" is but a distraction from the main points:

Does circumcision prevent HIV? Even if it did, even if the science were correct, is it even worth it in light of less invasive, more effective methods of prevention that already exist? Is it ethical to promote deliberate genital mutilation in the name of "research" and "public health?" Would we ever promote female circumcision if we had the same "research" to support it? What if it could be made "painless" or "bloodless?" What if we could make it so it doesn't decrease a woman's sexuality? Would we consider female circumcision then?

Continuing:
"In theory, he said, breaking that into three two-nurse PrePex teams could mean circumcising around 400 men a day, rather than the 60 to 80 a busy team now does. And the surgeon could go do something more important."

That's assuming 400 men a day would indeed line up to get circumcised. Many programs, such as Soca Uncobe, have completely missed their mark.

Or, instead of spending millions of dollars on needless devices, instead of emburdening surgeons with a time-consuming, needless procedure to mutilate the genitals of millions of men, they could be spending money on condoms and sex education, which, even if the "science" were correct, is worlds more effective. HIV transmission could be decreased WITHOUT genital mutilation, WITHOUT the need for these ridiculous devices. Men could keep their organs, condoms and sex education would prevent HIV in both men and women, and no time, money or energy has to be wasted on a dubious form of "prevention."

Continuing: 
"In fact, Dr. Reed said, American AIDS dollars for circumcisions often go toward an operating room with lights and an instrument sterilizer. Instead of circumcisions, hospitals are more likely to use it for procedures like saving women in obstructed labor"

"Which is understandable — of course that takes precedence,” he said. “But then the circumcisions don’t get done."

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It doesn't make any sense to be spending millions on genital mutilation, when, even if the science is correct, would fail to live up to a condom. It doesn't make sense that there are other, more important issues to address; healthcare in general, mother-to-child HIV transmission, food, water, etc., and "experts" like Reed are more concerned that money isn't wastefully being spent on circumcision, for which there is already cheaper, less invasive, more effective ways to prevent HIV.

What is this all about? Is this about healthcare? HIV prevention?

Or is this purely about circumcision?

Some "experts" need to get their priorities straight.

Continuing:

"Robert C. Bailey, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who helped design Kenya’s circumcision efforts, opposes timesaving devices because training nurses in minor surgery has other benefits, he said. A trained nurse could close a wound or take out an appendix, for example. And the time-consuming parts of the process are counseling and H.I.V. testing, Dr. Bailey said, so 'doing it in five minutes instead of 20 is trivial.'

"But he conceded, 'If PrePex really doesn’t require anesthesia, that’s truly an advance.'"

This part of the article is a bit confusing, and I'm not sure I understand it myself.

First off, am I to understand that nurses are being trained in surgery OTHER than circumcision? But furthermore, am I to understand that circumcision is being used as an "opportunity" for counseling and HIV testing? Couldn't circumcision simply be skipped and men could be given counseling and HIV testing directly? Or are intact men simply incapable of receiving these things?

Imagine, for a moment, a dentist using a total tooth extraction as a pretext to hand people information on oral hygiene and dental care. But his patients still have to use false dentures.

Imagine the converse. What if we started offering circumcision to the women so that doctors can then “take the opportunity” to tell them about better hygiene practices and sex education?

The million dollar question is, since when does a man need surgery to learn how to wash his penis and use a condom properly? Does not being circumcised somehow impede a man’s learning of these concepts? Does not being circumcised somehow nullify the protective effect of condoms?

The article continues:
"Rwanda is training 150 two-nurse teams; it is a small country, but it serves as a bellwether for Africa because its health care system is well organized, government corruption scandals are rare, and it is heavily supported by donor funds."

Rwanda is also a country where HIV has been shown to be more prevalent amongst the CIRCUMCISED. According to a demographic health survey taken in 2005,  the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8% vs 2.1%.

And, incidentally, according to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Rwanda. (In America, 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth.) The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C., March 15, 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." Hader once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.

Somehow, though, something tells me that the New York Times is not going to publish this part of the story.

The PrePex ad continues:

"Other, rival devices are not far along in safety testing or are failing it."

Hint hint... it's the PrePex, everyone!

"The Tara KLamp, manufactured in Malaysia since the 1990s, has created controversy in South Africa. It is a hinged plastic bracket the size of a small drinking cup. A plastic tube goes over the head of the penis, and the foreskin is pulled up it and painfully crushed by the bracket. Then the whole contraption must be worn at least five days. A 2005 clinical trial in South Africa was stopped early after the device caused far more injuries and infections than surgery did."

It is essentially the same exact contraption as the PrePex, and follows the exact same mechanism and principle of cutting off circulation to the foreskin, thereby facilitating its excision. Rest assured, though readers, the PrePex is the better design.

But again, a man needs a PrePex likes a fish needs a bicycle.

Continuing:

 "The national health ministry has banned it in most of South Africa, but it is still used heavily in KwaZulu-Natal Province, which has the country’s highest AIDS rate and where the Zulu king, Goodwill Zwelithini, reversing 200 years of tradition, ordered that all Zulu men circumcised. 

The W.H.O. knows about the stopped trial and is not considering the KLamp, Mr. Warren said."

Oh thank heavens! They don't seem to be too concerned that non-authorized devices and circumcision methods are being used in their name, though.

One must wonder as to the relevance of the Zulu king anecdote; is the author more concerned with HIV prevention, or with "reversing 200 years of tradition?" This really shows you where his heart actually is.

Reed continues:
"Dr. Reed said he had heard that another device, Ali’s Klamp, was being tested in Kenya under protocols that seemed to match W.H.O. requirements. According to Circlist.com, a circumcision information Web site, it is a Turkish device dating to 2007, and works on principles similar to those of the Tara KLamp and another device, the SmartKlamp, approved by the F.D.A. in 2004."

For all intents and purposes, all of these devices are essentially the same. They all function under the exact same principle of cutting circulation off to the foreskin. The PrePex is simply a different design.

Now, I'd like to take the time to correct a horrific error that this article commits, and that is present circlist.com as a mere "cirumcision web site."

What is Circlist? What do they do?
Circlist is a circumfetishist organization. A circumfetishist is someone who has a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, and/or derives sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself. The Circlist organization has a website and discussion group for men who sexually fantasize about performing and receiving circumcisions, often on small children. Circlist members openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision, to the point of being a sado-masochistic fetish. Circlist has been long known to intactivists as a meeting place for circumfetishists, where they discuss the erotic thrill they experience from watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction and non-fictional stories about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions. They are a fetishistic organization comparable to NAMBLA, and yet, here they are, being given credibility on the New York Times.

The fact that Circlist is being used as a reference in this piece, even though it doesn't rely on them for any facts, demonstrates how uninterested the New York Times is in logic and ethics. The site’s inclusion with a direct link to it is absolutely shameful. What a sick, disgusting shame that Daniel McNeil Jr. of the New York Times has decided to quote them as any kind of reliable resource.

SHAME on you, Daniel McNeil Jr. for daring to give publicity to this sick, disgusting group in the New York Times.

On to the end:

"PrePex was cleared by the F.D.A. because it was judged “substantially equivalent” to the SmartKlamp, Ms. Fuerst said. Proving equivalence in safety to an approved device is the fastest way to get approval, she said..."

Which seems to be her actual main concern...

"...although the technology is quite different."

No, the technology is the same, and it's rather old.

And finally:
PrePex’s ultimate cost is still being negotiated with donor agencies and foundations, Ms. Fuerst said, but may end up in the $15-to-$20 range, about the same as a surgical circumcision kit.

Let's see, at 20,000,000 men, that's $300,000,000 at minimum, and $4,000,000,000 at most.

For a useless, extraneous device looking for a purpose, not bad.

Not bad at all.

Closing comments
The "science" behind this massive effort to stuff circumcision down African people's throats is horrendously flawed. Why news outlets simply publish lies without questioning their validity is perplexing. A question that I keep encountering on the blogosphere is "Whatever happened to actual journalism?" But that's a different discussion for another blog post.

Even IF we lent any credibility to the latest twaddle some people dare to call "science," we have got to ask, why is the solution always circumcision?

Contrary to what is published here in the New York Times, there is actually no demonstrable scientific proof that the Langerhans cells "pick up viruses and "present" them to the immune system." But let's just assume just for a moment, that the claims were true. Let's just assume for a moment, that the Langergans cells, as they claim, "presents HIV to the immune system."

Is there any reason why the so-called "researchers" aren't looking for ways to deactivate Langerhans cells, as opposed to cutting them off?

Is there any reason why PrePex is not looking for non-destructive ways to prevent HIV transmission, and instead facilitating male circumcision which just happens to be a cherished tradition in their own country of origin?

Let's ask other questions. Assuming the Langerhans cells behave the way circumcision advocates claim, is there a reason why "researchers," PREPEX etc. aren't looking into FEMALE CIRCUMCISION? It is irrefutable scientific fact that Langerhans cells are found in the genital mucosa in BOTH sexes. If the Langerhans cells "facilitate" HIV transmission for men, then it would also do so for women. Circumcision, would only be offering "benefit" to men; women would still be vulnerable to the viral load in semen.

Which raises the question:

How is it conscionable to be spending millions of dollars on the promotion of an alternative to the most conclusively effective mode of HIV prevention known to us?

Why aren't the WHO, PEPFAR, PrePex etc. worried at all that the promotion of male circumcision is going to result in the grossest of violation of the most basic of human rights?

The Bottom Line
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 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.

Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or "research" is still genital mutilation.

Consider this: There would never be enough "science" or "research" to endorse the promotion of female circumcision to prevent ANYTHING.

It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were made "painless," "bloodless," and it didn't affect a girl's sexuality. It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were performed in the clean environment of the hospital, by a trained professional, using pain killers and the most pristine, and most "advanced" utensils. Why do "researchers" grope for reasons to promote male circumcision?

The day will come when anyone whoever endorsed this despicable human rights violation will be too embarrassed to ever admit that they did.

May god have mercy on their souls.

Lisa Russel: Attention Whore Confirmed

In my last post, I criticize USAID champion Lisa Russel for authoring pro-genital mutilation propaganda.

And what is her response? "Oh I'm so insulted. I can't even get through the hate."

How in the world she feels entitled to the victim card is beyond me. How are men supposed to feel for having our bodies insulted and treating them like a disposable piece of trash? But somehow SHE is the victim? Aw, poor baby...

So I thought she was just gonna blow this off, as most circumcision advocates do. What does she really care? I was expecting for this post to simply be another long and boring post in my long list of worthless ramblings. She ignores me, I forget that such a woman called “Lisa Russel” ever existed, and we both go about our business.

Well, word has gotten 'round to me that she actually DID read it, and has decided to, instead of address real and direct questions I pose, play the victim:

"Lisa Russell
My film is causing such a heated debate that I am now getting personal hate press. This one is my fav. "So who is this Lisa Russel person? Does she actually care about humanity and public health? Is she
actually a concerned world citizen, or is she merely an attention whore who finally found somebody to sponsor her?" Wow. Too bad I can't even get to this dude's argument bc I can barely get through the hate."

She means to say she can't even touch my arguments, so she chose to focus on my anger. I'm not going to deny it; the promotion of male genital mutilation, even if it's under the guise of pseudo-medicine makes me angry. This video that disrespects and desecrates males in the name of humanity pisses me off.

When she made this video, she should have known she was going to hear it from guys like me. She should have known that there are men who would not stand by silently while she uses pseudo-science to insult us and slander our bodies.

She needs to stop acting surprised and answer the questions posed to her. She's an adult; she needs to be responsible for her work.

Others who are more restrained and more respectful than I ever could, posted polite but firm comments on her Facebook wall, only to have them deleted. Here are some of the comments she is allowing to remain, however...

"Toni Blackman They say you know you've said something when others have something to say about what you said. #KeepTalkin This Lisa Russell is makin moves and impact"

Yes, that's right Toni. And judging by the fact that somebody, especially Lisa, and you, and others, are saying something about what I've said, I am "makin' moves and impact" too.

"Lisa Russell Thx Toni. You gotta check out the photo he posted of metoo. Side by side with the joker with the caption, "I'm not sure abouteveryone else, but I see a resemblance..." Am thinking of making it myprofile pic. lol."

I guess she's not familiar with trollface? :-) :-) :-)

Aw, I'm sorry Lisa, but I just couldn't resist. I just don't know what to think about somebody who thinks it's gracious and humanitarian to promote male genital mutilation in the name of HIV prevention. The next Foreskin Man comic should be about you. You cannot have my respect if you call yourself a "humanitarian" but yet you're promoting THIS bullshit.

"Kamau Ngigi keep on lisa, dont let them stop you..."

...from riding the circumcision/HIV gravy train, that is. There's money and fame to be made at the expense of others here, Lisa, don't you let somebody holding you to moral standards stop you!

"Brigitte Britt Russell Lisa - making heads turn. His hate makes you noticed by others. Which once they check you out, will only turn into something great!"

And HER hate makes others notice me in turn! You see how that works? Once they check ME out, people can see how absolutely full of shit this Lisa person really is. It looks like this IS turning into something great!

"Amber Peterman If you are not making waves, you are not making change..."

Yes Amber, this is so true. Just look at how far Lisa has taken it! Moving it from what it's supposed to be about (AIDS PREVENTION, HELLO???) to a melodramatic pity party to get everyone's sympathy validation. (cue the violins)

"Amber Peterman cont'... There will always always be haters. If anything, you have encouraged discussion."

So true. I mean look at Lisa! But you know, for as much as I think she is just an attention whore in it for fortune and fame, you are right. She has encouraged discussion. Hopefully there will be actual discussion, and not just one-sided argument.

"Amber Peterman cont'... And remember, for every study, scientific finding, you will find another study or scientist who disagrees!"

Yes, and you must only pay attention to those "studies" and "scientists" that suit you. After all, that is what science is all about, right? Paying attention only to the evidence that supports your cause, as flawed and as biased as it may be, while ignoring and dismissing concrete irrefutable evidence that is devastating to it? Right?

"Russell ‎@amber - that is so true. i had a back and forth with someone who kept referencing scientific study that i then found a study to contradict its findings. i'm basing my beliefs on the research yes but also on my gut and the things i witnessed first hand. thanks for that and everyone else for the love..."

Aw... can't you just feel the love? This is no longer about research and science, it's based on "gut feelings." Real world data shows that circumcision never prevented HIV. But screw this, she’s got “gut feelings.” Look, Lisa, you can present all the "studies" you want. If they fail to correlate with reality, then I'm afraid those studies are suspect.

Tell us Lisa, why did you decide to delete your back-and-forth? Is it because the links to information made you uncomfortable? Is it because you can’t admit that maybe, just maybe there are others that know more than you do? Is it that you don’t want to be made to eat crow for creating a genital mutilation propaganda video based on flawed and biased "research?"

How does circumcision prevent HIV?
Tell us Lisa, since you’re such an expert and you have done all the research, how does circumcision prevent HIV? Have you witnessed the foreskin facilitating HIV transmission first hand? Has it been demonstrably proven that the foreskin actually facilitates HIV transmission, and that removing it “reduces the risk?” Or is this just merely another one of your “gut feelings?”

The answer to this question is, you don't know. Nobody knows. Not even the very authors of the latest circumcision/HIV studies can demonstrate that circumcision prevents HIV transmission. The best they have done is present carefully cherry-picked data from select countries of their liking (leaving out data that didn't conform to their pre-determined conclusion of course), and insist that a lower rate observed in the data they present is attributed to circumcision. The mechanism whereby this happens, however, is always a “gut feeling,” that needs never be fully and concretely explained. Entire mass-circumcision campaigns are being carried out using “studies” that lack a working hypothesis!

Circumcision “studies,” all circumcision “studies,” are based on hypotheses that have never been proven, or that have been completely dis-proven. Their biggest flaw is that they beg the question; circumcision is assumed to prevent disease a priori. For whatever reason, circumcision "researchers" aren't expected to actually prove circumcision prevents anything; it’s perfectly acceptable to conduct statistical analysis based on “gut feelings” that something is true. Correlation, however skewed and farfetched it may be, does equal causation, after all.

Let’s analyze some of the “gut feelings” that have been scientifically blown out of the water:

Toughened Skin Theory
In the early 1980s, long before there were any "studies" in Africa concerning circumcision and HIV, Aaron J. Fink invented the idea that circumcision prevented HIV transmission out of thin air. He presented the first hypothesis for this presenting his “gut feeling” that HIV is sexually transmitted through the moist and supple mucosa of the inside of the foreskin, which, according to him, tears easily. Circumcision was supposed to prevent HIV transmission because it was unable to penetrate the skin of the remaining mucosa and the glans, toughened by keratin layers. This theory has been completely destroyed (see references below).

Dinh, MH; McRaven MD, Kelley Z, Penugonda S, Hope TJ (2010-03-27). "Keratinization of the adult male foreskin and implications for male circumcision.". AIDS 24 (6): 899-906. PMID 20098294. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098294. Retrieved 2011-06-28. "We found no difference between the keratinization of the inner and outer aspects of the adult male foreskin. Keratin layers alone are unlikely to explain why uncircumcised men are at higher risk for HIV infection.".


Dinh, Minh H; Sheila M Barry, Meegan R Anderson, Scott G McCoombe, Shetha A Shukair, Michael D McRaven, Thomas J Hope (2009-12-06), "HIV-1 Interactions and Infection in Adult Male Foreskin Explant Cultures" (PDF), 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Montreal, Canada, http://retroconference.org/2009/PDFs/502.pdf, retrieved 2011-06-28, "No difference can be clearly visualized between the inner and outer foreskin."

Langerhans Cells Theory
Once the keratin theory was destroyed, “researchers” moved to indict the Langerhans cells, saying that they are the “prime port of entry” for the HIV virus. deWitte has demonstrated that, contrary to circumcision researchers’ “gut feelings,” the Langerhans cells actually help FIGHT the HIV virus, because they release Langherin, a secretion that destroys HIV on contact.

de Witte, Lot; Alexey Nabatov, Marjorie Pion, Donna Fluitsma, Marein AW P de Jong, Tanja de Gruijl, Vincent Piguet, Yvette van Kooyk, Teunis B H Geijtenbeek (2007-03-04). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" (PDF). Nature Medicine. doi: 10.1038/nm1541. http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf. Retrieved 2011-06-28.

The quip that “circumcision reduces HIV by 60%” has become pop-science mantra, but scientists and circumcision “researchers” have yet to demonstrably prove that circumcision prevents HIV. Millions are being spent on “mass circumcision campaigns,” and boys and men are being circumcised in Africa, some by force, all using “studies” that are based completely on “gut feelings.”

The Prophecies are Already Coming True
Promoting circumcision in Africa is already proving to be disastrous. Men are already saying that they don’t have to wear condoms, that they are completely immune to HIV, and HIV transmission rates are shown to be rising. Funds for HIV prevention and treatment are already scarce, and humanitarians struggle to keep donors from bailing out on them. Condoms and sex education are cheaper, less invasive, have been conclusively proven to prevent HIV transmission. Oh but let’s continue to trust our “gut feelings” and waste millions on dollars on a dubious mode of "prevention" while we forget about TB and malaria.

The Questions Avoided
In my last post, I ask important questions, but Russel has chosen to ignore them. I repost some of them here for reader reference, and just for good measure:

If circumcision is so effective at preventing HIV, why do the results of the latest “studies” fail to manifest themselves in the real world?
The United States is a country where condoms are widely available and prevention efforts are top notch. It is also a country where 80% of the male population is already circumcised, and yet HIV rates are still high. If circumcision is so effective at "reducing the rate of HIV," why then, are HIV rates in fact higher in America, where the majority of the male population is already circumcised, than in Europe, where the majority of the male population is not?

UNAIDS, World Health Organization.
Global HIV/AIDS and STD Surveillance Project: Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic 1998.

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

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

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

According to none other than USAID, "there appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher?"

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

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

These are real numbers from real countries. They’re not arguing anything one way or another;  they are hard, solid fact. On what “gut feeling” did WHO, UNAIDS, USAID etc. officials decide it would be a good idea to promote circumcision anyway? On what premise have American organizations decided to promote a mode of “prevention” that never worked in our own country?

Would Russel ever promote female genital cutting in the fight against AIDS?
Circumcision advocates always like to frame their advocacy with humanitarianism. Stressing the severity of the HIV/AIDS situation in Africa, they insist circumcision should be promoted because it's "one more tool in the fight against AIDS." It sounds real noble and all, but how far are people actually interested in finding "every tool available out there?" Or does this reasoning stop at male circumcision?

In my last post, I ask what Russel what her stance would be if "studies showed" that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV by 60%," but she has decided talking about my "hate" was more important.

I'm going to elaborate on my question here a little bit more, because somebody always has to get dramatic about "how much worse" female circumcision is than male circumcision: The WHO recognizes that there are at least four different levels of severity for female genital cutting. Yes, we all know that infibulation is so much worse than male circumcision, but what if HIV transmission could be reduced by performing surgery that isn’t "as bad?"

What if "scientists and researchers" found a way to remove all that "extra skin," while leaving behind the clitoris and a woman’s ability to orgasm? Would Russel support it then?

People might not be familiar, but what we might consider to be "female genital mutilation" is already practiced in doctors clinics in the West. Some women find that their labia aesthetically displeasing and ask to have them removed in a procedure known as a "labiaplasty." Some women go even further and have the hood of their clitoris removed to permanently expose it in a procedure called "unroofing." This "unroofing" would be precisely what happens in South-East Asian "sunat." So what if "labiaplasties" and "unroofing" were proven to "reduce the risk of HIV by 60%"? Would Russel dare promote it as "another tool in the fight against HIV?"

Believe it or not, there are actually a handful of studies that suggest that female circumcision might "reduce the risk of HIV." See them for yourself here, here and here. Additionally, other studies show that even women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still able to orgasm. You can see studies here and here. A recent article in Africa came out addressing this same point here. There is at least one study that claims that labiaplasties increase sexual satisfaction in both women and their partners.

Russel might say that "there aren’t enough studies to promote female circumcision," and she might have a point. To which I would ask, would there ever BE enough “studies” that would convince her to promote female circumcision? Would she support "studies" to look further into the matter? What would she think of "studies" where scientists performed labiaplasties on 1,000 women, kept a control group of 1,000 unlabiaplastied women and then followed these groups around to see who got AIDS faster? And then, if scientists saw a "significant reduction in HIV transmission in the labiaplastied women," what would she think if they performed labiaplasties on the remaining 1,000 women on the grounds that "not doing so would be unethical?" Would she fully agree, or would she decry as unethical the fact that somebody thought conducting these “studies” would be acceptable in the first place?

If "studies showed" that labiaplasties provided a "significant reduction in HIV transmission," would Russel get behind them? Would she fully support the WHO for endorsing labiaplasties as HIV prevention policy? Would she fully back "mass labiaplasties" for women?

Is there a number of studies that would ever convince Russel to create a propaganda film that encouraged women to go get their labia and clitoral hood removed? What "reduction rate" would ever convince her to create a film promoting labiaplasties as "another tool in the fight against HIV for those women who request it?" 60%? 70%? 100%? Yes? No? Maybe so?

Russel might say that, even if these "studies" were correct, that promoting them would be a mistake because they would be misused to perpetuate the forced genital mutilation of non-consenting women. That while the studies might only endorse “voluntary female medical circumcision” or “VFMC,” as it might be called, tribal leaders would use WHO endorsement to perform traditional variations of circumcision, which may include infibulation. And she would be correct. But why isn’t this a concern regarding the forced genital mutilation of non-consenting men?

Why don’t "researchers" seem to be concerned that their "studies" will be endorsing brutal circumcision rituals? That tribal leaders will use their studies to perpetuate the forced genital mutilation of boys and men? Why don’t they seem to care that frauds that aren’t even real tribal shamans are taking advantage of the WHO endorsement to cash in on circumcision rituals? That scores of boys and men die in South Africa every year due to tribal initiations involving circumcisions? That countless more lose their penises to gangrene? Why isn’t THIS a concern?

Are boys and men simply that worthless and disposable?

I know that in my last post I made some cutting remarks, but I think they were warranted. Do I "hate" Lisa Russel? Only with the "hate" a Greenpeace activist might have for somebody writing a pseudo-scientific documentary on the benefits and virtues of whaling. Lisa Russel is choosing to ride the circumcision/HIV gravy train for USAID brownie points and promote what is essentially male genital mutilation in the name of humanitarian aid. She needs to know that such endorsement of human rights violation, even if thinly veiled as "medicine" is not going to be taken lightly. She is gravely mistaken if she thinks she can create something like this and not hear back from actual human rights activists.

In spite of my anger, I think I've asked legitimate questions, but Russel has chosen to make this about hurt feelings instead (her own). This demonstrates to me what she really cares about; not about humanity, not about HIV prevention at all. It's all about "me, me, me," and she has just confirmed it. All she cares about is attention and validation for her and her films.

When men in Africa realize that circumcision failed to protect them from HIV, will Russel be there to film their faces of betrayal? When the circumcision/HIV hoax blows over, will she have the courage to film herself admitting that she helped spread lies in the name of disease prevention and humanity? Will she own her words and be responsible? When pressed once again for answers, would she admit she wasn't fully infromed? Or would she once again put on the victim act?

Lisa Russel and USAID DoubleThink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNAIDS, World Health Organization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related article:
Lisa Russel: Attention Whore Confirmed