PEPFAR To Blow Millions on PrePex

PrePex had been running paid ads on high-end news outlets bidding for the WHO approval that would allow them to cash in on the African HIV/circumcision pie. They had a video on BBC, and ran dedicated articles on the Washington Post and the New York Times, as well as others.

Well, it looks like PrePex entrepreneurs have finally gotten their wish. According to the New York Times, the WHO has finally given their approval for the PrePex device, and PEPFAR leader Eric Goosby has already pledged to buy PrePex devices to circumcise as much as 20 million boys and men in Africa by 2015, under the ostensible pretense of "reducing HIV."

Grinning like a french poodle

In the New York Times, PrePex CEO Tzameret Fuerst said that the estimated price for each PrePex device would be an estimated $15 to $20 range. If PEPFAR pays for 20 million devices, that's a minimum of $300,000,000 a maximum of $400,000,000 American tax dollars that the program would spend on a dubious practice with speculative benefits, a waste of money considering that there are cheaper, less invasive, more effective ways of preventing HIV transmission.

No Demonstrable Scientific Proof Circumcision Prevents HIV
The sound bite that "circumcision reduces HIV 60%" is repeated over and over like a mantra, the WHO has given their blessing, and interested programs and manufacturers are promising to circumcise millions for foreign aid, but there is actually no scientifically demonstrable proof that circumcision does anything to prevent HIV transmission.

Close scrutiny of the so-called "research," however, reveals that there is actually no demonstrable scientific proof that circumcision does anything to prevent, or even "reduce the risk" of HIV at all, let alone by "60%." Circumcision promoters brush past this fact by distracting their listeners with the less-than impressive "60%" figure, and by mentioning how many men are "lining up to get circumcised." They need the money now, now, now.

There have been recent attempts to posit yet another hypothesis that attempts to explain "how circumcision prevents HIV," but they miss the mark, instead arriving at irrelevant conclusions, and not coming anywhere closer to furnishing the causal link for the so-called "effect" the much talked about "studies" were supposed to measure in the first place. Without a causal link, the "studies" are nothing more than statistics embellished with correlation hypothesis, and the efforts to circumcise millions in Africa are myth-based, not evidence-based.

African Men Not Buying into Circumcision for HIV Prevention
Despite the hyped up "mass circumcision" programs in Africa, it's been report after report of programs failing to meet their quota of circumcising boys and men in the past year.

Though they tried and tried, the much hyped Soka Unkobe program failed in Swaziland, where approximately 34,000 out of the expected 200,000 men (about 17%) were circumcised. Rather than abandon the strategy to mutilate the genitals of the men of Swaziland, American organizers are trying to figure out "what went wrong."Apparently, they feel they feel getting men to agree to have part of their penis cut off is simply a matter of "sending the right message." There is something wrong with an HIV prevention program that measures its progress by how many men they've circumcised, and not by how many they've educated about condoms and safe sex.

Three years into the 5 year program, only 80,000 of 1.2 million targeted men (about 6.7%) have been circumcised in Zimbabwe, and here too circumcision promoters are scratching their heads. Why aren't the men biting?

[There is no evidence that circumcising men in Zimbabwe has any effect against HIV.]


Click to enlarge
In Botswana, programs are also failing to convince men to cut off part of their genitals. One program circumcised only 685 out of an intended 10,000. In another program, promoters convinced only 360 out of 2560 men (approx. 14%) to get circumcised. Here too, promoters are dumbfounded and can't find the right people to blame. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they're trying to convince men to undergo permanently altering surgery on their genitals, could it?

In Zambia, circumcision uptake has also been low.

In Kenya, Homabay district, only 11,000 men have been circumcised out of the estimated 42,000 since September 2008 when the program was initiated. Here too, circumcision uptake has been low, so coordinators are targeting children who are neither at risk for HIV, nor putting others at risk, not to mention the ethical dilemma of forcibly cutting off part of the genitals of healthy, non-consenting individuals. (So much for "Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision.")

The WHO may have given their coveted blessing to plunder African HIV funds to PrePex, and PEPFAR leader Eric Goosby may have pledged American money to pay for their devices, but it remains to be seen whether the devices will actually ever be used, or if they'll simply remain sitting in storage compartments unused.

While a failure to implementing PREPEX would be ironically heartening insofar as it shows that African men aren't buying into the circumcision propaganda, it remains disturbing that millions of dollars that could be providing more effective aid and advances in public health are being wasted and squandered by PEPFAR.

Real World Data Fails to Correlate with "Findings"
While the "60% reduction" claim is repeated, it fails to manifest itself in the real world.

It is interesting that PEPFAR is so eager to help circumcise millions of men in Africa, while circumcision has done America no favors in terms of HIV reduction.

80% of America's male population is circumcised from birth, yet AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hotspots in Africa. In some parts of the U.S., they're actually higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. 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 Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda.

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)

According to a recent report:

"HIV/AIDS is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States among people age 15 to 24, and half of young people infected with HIV are not aware of it. An unbelievable 26 percent of all new HIV infections are among those 13 to 24."

According to HIV prevalence data in the CIA Factbook, and circumcision prevalence figures in Wikipedia, the United States, where 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth, has a higher HIV prevalence rate than 53 countries where circumcision is rare (e.g., falls below 20%).

Countries where circumcision falls 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

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. One would expect a higher prevalence of HIV in these countries, but they fare better than the United States, where 80% of the men are circumcised, instead.

Before handing out millions to gold-mining circumcision device manufacturers, PEPFAR ought to address the question of why something that never prevented HIV in this country is suddenly going to start working miracles in Africa.

PrePex CEO Tzameret Fuerst Gloats
In the following video, Tzameret Fuerst can be seen gloating about securing billions from PEPFAR, one can almost see the dollar signs in her eyes, as if she actually cared about HIV prevention. She repeats the same old circumcision/HIV propaganda, touting circumcision as a "one-time intervention with the efficacy of a vaccine." Sharp viewers may note other thinly veiled interests.

It'd be interesting to see her credentials. She holds degrees in urology, surgery and epidemiology, and can explain to us the mechanism whereby circumcision immunizes a man against HIV I'm sure.





But all is not lost; this new device makes the argument that circumcision would be "more painful, more complicated and more traumatic as an adult" a moot point, if in fact, as Tzemeret tells us, her product is "virtually painless and simple to do."


Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION: BBC Runs Paid PrePex Ad

CIRCUMCISION: The Washington Post Folds to the PrePex Ad Campaign

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV 

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

 

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Circumcision Propaganda Parodies

Last year, I wrote about how circumcision promoters in Uganda were turning to outright stigma and misandry to push circumcision on males there.

For this post, I have created parodies based on the posters being propagated in Uganda as part of the so-called "mass circumcision campaign," in order to illustrate just how hateful and sexist their messages are, and how people would be disgusted at the same posters would that the genders were reversed.

Let's begin with the first poster:

We've all seen this one.

This quite possibly the one that pissed me off the most.

In this country, feminists are always talking about how they resent viewed as just another piece of meat for a man. They balk at boob jobs, buttocks enlargement, dental floss bikinis, high heels, all manor of body alterations, accessories and apparel in order to fit the mold of attractive beauty desired by a patriarchal society.

But yet this kind of propaganda is acceptable for males.

In response to the above poster, I created this:

I wonder what the response of Western women be if they knew something like this was circulating in Africa, or any part of the world.

Another poster that really pissed me off was this one:

It's wrong on so many levels.

I go into more detail in a past blog post.

In response to this poster, I created the following:

And this would not be inaccurate; studies do show a reduction in HIV transmission among circumcised women. (See here and here.)

Of course some may say "the studies are flawed," which is precisely the case regarding male circumcision.

But this isn't the problem. Even assuming the studies presented here were 100% accurate, they would still not be enough to cause the WHO to promote the wholesale circumcision of African women.

There could never be enough "research" to promote the genital cutting of women in any way shape or form.

At times, the propaganda doesn't even seem to try to feign an interest in HIV prevention.

And forget the fact that you're HIV negative. More important is the fact that a man isn't circumcised.

I talk more about it here.

In response to this poster, I created this:

Is the deliberate sexism obvious now?

Women, how would you feel if you read something like this regarding your own bodies?

Having created the posters above, I went on to create posters of my own.

(What can I say? I was on a roll!)

Basically, what it boils down to.

Circumcision for HIV prevention simply isn't causing the mass flood towards circumcision clinics the so-called "researchers" and promoters were expecting, so now they're basically trying to use women's opinions and stigmatization of intact men to try and create the demand they want.

And a last one.

This is an old one, but one that seems to persist as rationale for male circumcision.

The same rationale could never be used to promote genital cutting in women.

It is an insult to point out normal and natural aspects of female genitals, i.e. smells, secretions etc., but calling out the same normal smells and secretions in men is fair game.

When will men have the same respect as women?

Related Post:

UGANDA: Circumcision Promoters Turn to Stigma and Misandry

Circumcision in Africa: We Keep Warning. Is Anybody Listening?

Ever since the WHO endorsed circumcision as HIV prevention in 2006, we intactivists have been trying our best to warn promoters of circumcision, and organizers of so-called "mass-circumcision" campaigns that this is going to backfire.

We keep warning that the studies are horribly flawed, that empirical data completely contradicts the results in the so-called "research," and that African men are going to see this as nothing other than a green light for unprotected sex, putting millions of men and women in danger of sexually transmitted HIV.

IS ANYBODY LISTENING???
Nope, major charities and organizations such as Bill and Melinda Gates and PEPFAR are in Africa bankrolling so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" full-speed ahead. Whenever any of these organizations puts out any sort of statement, it's always "circumcision, circumcision, circumcision." Abstinence, faithfulness and condoms seem to have been placed on the back burner, and are barely even mentioned, if at all.

How is it possible that we are over-stating an alternative to the most effective mode of protection against sexually transmitted HIV known to us?

In May last year, I wrote a similar post to this one. PANOS Eastern Africa had put out a report that showed that the circumcision/HIV messages meant to reduce the prevalence of the disease were actually facilitating its spread. I also gave instances of others warning that this is precisely what would happen, as well as many cases in point in vivo.

It is now the end of January, starting a new year, and neither PEPFAR nor Bill Gates etc. have changed their message. In fact, these organizations and more have come out stronger than ever in their drive to circumcise the whole of Africa. In December last year, PEPFAR kicked off another year reinforcing the circumcision campaigns in Africa. Very recently, Bill Gates released his 2012 annual letter, and, as expected, he pushed circumcision. Circumcision, claims Gates, reduces AIDS transmission by a whopping 70%. Where IS he getting this number from? Why ISN'T this number manifested in the real world?

More Reports Come In
While you'll hear in the news about how "successful" the "mass circumcision campaigns" have been (not so much in reducing HIV, but in how many men they've managed to dupe), you won't hear about reports warning that men and women are taking home the wrong message.

According to AllAfrica.com, "Nyanza provincial director of public health and sanitation, who is also the task force chairman Jackson Kioko, said there have been reports that those who have been circumcised are taking it as immunity against HIV."

PlusNews reports of a study in Kenya conducted by the University of Illinois' Chicago School of Public Health, which found, among other things, that "most women were happy with the appearance of their partner's penis and enjoyed sex more after circumcision." (Others studies will find that there are men that like the experience of their partner's circumcised vulvas, and that they enjoy sex more, but we'll not ever hear about them.) As sexist and degrading as this "study" is to men, it was supposed to be the study's "plus" side. On the negative, the study found that the women believed that condoms were less necessary than circumcision, that they were more likely to have more than one sexual partner, and to have sex without a condom. One would think that these issues would have been addressed BEFORE rolling out these so-called "circumcision campaigns?"

HELLO??? IS ANYBODY AT THE WHO LISTENING?
Nevermind the ethical dilemma of endorsing genital mutilation in the name of  public health interests, and nevermind the sexist, misandrist marketing practices of trying to sexify circumcision, and stigmatize intact men. And nevermind the fact that plans are already underway to forcibly circumcise newborns and youth.

Is nobody concerned that the promotion of circumcision will deprecate the value of cheaper, more effective, less invasive HIV prevention measures, thereby putting the lives of millions of African men and women in danger???

The Warning Continues...
The promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a catastrophic mistake. Even if the "research" was correct, and it is horrendously flawed, circumcision would fail to deliver the efficacy of HIV prevention methods which far exceed it. In light of condoms and education, which have been conclusively proven to prevent HIV, promoting circumcision is an impertinent disservice in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The promotion of circumcision will result is already resulting in Africans perceiving the most effective HIV prevention known to us as an expendable option. The promotion of circumcision is going to backfire, sending the wrong message, putting the lives of men and women in danger. The promotion of circumcision is going to be a waste of precious funds, where they are desperately needed in other areas (i.e. food, water, access to actually needed healthcare, etc). The promotion of circumcision is an ethical, scientific scandal waiting to explode. The promotion of circumcision is going to be a disaster that is going to haunt any organization and individual that ever endorsed it.

Even if the "research" was accurate, circumcision fails. Circumcision fails, and this is why even the very authors cannot stress the importance of condoms enough. Condoms would prevent, not only the transmission of HIV, but the transmission of other STDs more effectively, and more efficiently. Condoms would prevent STD transmission not only in men, but in their partners as well. Additionally, condoms prevent unwanted pregnancy. Circumcision does not.

It is going to prove a fatal mistake to have ever endorsed a dubious alternative to the only effective method of HIV prevention ever known to us.

AND...
It is endorsing the grossest violation of  the most basic of human rights.

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?

Genital mutilation, whether wrapped in "science," "research," and feigned interests in public health, is still, in the end, genital mutilation.

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.

ZIMBABWE: MPs Shun Deputy Prime Minister's Call for Circumcision

According to BBC, Deputy Prime Minister Thokozani Khupe has called on Zimbabwe's male MPs to "set an example" in the fight against AIDS and get circumcised. And who can blame her, if she's bought the line (or maybe she has been paid to say?) that "circumcised men are 60% less likely to get infected with HIV?" (Actually, it doesn't.)

Of the eight MPs the BBC has spoken to, only one said he might consider it. Another has rightfully called it "madness," while another said he was setting a good example through his behavior.

Moses Mzila Ndlovu, Minister of National Healing, told the BBC that some of his cabinet colleagues had described Deputy Prime Minister Khupe's suggestion as "madness" and "bizarre". His colleague Nelson Chamisa said it should be a matter of individual choice. (EXACTLY!)

It's nice to hear smart Africans speaking up, and that not everybody is buying into the whole circumcision/HIV gravy train.

Indeed, even the very World Health Organization, who has all but decreed that all Africans should be circumcised, is careful to say that, even if the latest "studies" were correct, "[m]ale circumcision provides only partial protection," and that it should be part of a "comprehensive HIV prevention package" that includes HIV testing and counseling services, treatment for STD infections, the promotion of safer sex practices and the provision of condoms and the promotion of their correct and consistent use.

Even if the recent trials were accurate (and their credibility is highly questionable), circumcision could only reduce the relative risk of acquiring HIV between circumcised and uncircumcised men by 60% over a period of about one year. Condoms have an absolute reduction risk of acquiring HIV that's over 95% (closer to 100% when used properly), making circumcision a moot point.

Of all the legislators, Edgar Mbwembwe, from Zanu-PF was the only one who said he would go ahead with the procedure. Another, Willias Madzamure, said the call was a good idea and said he was "seriously considering" it but did not firmly commit himself.

Two female MPs backed Ms Khupe. "Politicians, especially elected politicians, have a responsibility beyond the personal - they would set a good example if they did so, " Jessie Majome said.

Yes, it's always very easy to support circumcision when you're not the one who has to undergo it, eh Jessie? There are actually "studies" that show a "lowered risk" in HIV transmission in circumcised women here, here, and here. Maybe she should "lead by example" and go get circumcised herself?

More to the Deputy Prime Minister's Call than Meets the Eye?
Zimbabwe is one of the countries worst hit by AIDS, and the government launched a campaign to circumcise up to 80% of the country's young men (some three million people) last year. Only a few of Zimbabwe's ethnic groups practise circumcision for cultural reasons, and as evidenced by the attitudes of the MPs, there is notable resistance.

Now WHY has the Deputy Prime Minister openly made the call for MPs to "lead by example," get circumcised and announce it to the world? Why is she calling for a public display of endorsement? Could it be that like Swaziland, Botswana and now Kenya, not very many men are jumping to get part of their penises cut off, and "mass circumcision campaign" organizers are failing to meet their quotas in Zimbabwe? It would be interesting to know how far along their 80% quota Zimbabwe circumcision promoters have gotten. It might reveal the real reason for Khupe's call.

So What is Plan B?
I will keep asking; have "mass circumcision campaign" organizers ever considered the possibility that some men may never agree to get circumcised? That some men treasure their bodies and would prefer an alternative? What alternatives do circumcision campaign organizers have ready for such men? Or was preferring to stay intact simply not supposed to be an option?

Much "support" is offered to men who go in for circumcisions. But is that same "support" offered to the men who would rather learn proper hygiene and the proper usage of condoms?

One of the prime ministers has said that he was setting a good example through behavior. Why should men who intend on staying faithful to their partners be pressured to consider an operation that does not benefit them?

Nelson Chamisa said it should be a matter of individual choice, an excellent point. What of the men who don't want circumcision? Shouldn't there be an "education package" for those who opt out of circumcision?

Again, is circumcision supposed to be the only option?

These are questions that these program organizers must answer. What if despite all the efforts, the men would prefer an alternative to circumcision? Do they have that scenario in mind? Have they prepared education packages as part of these "mass circumcision campaigns" for men who do not want to be circumcised? Or are they simply not going to offer these men that option?

AFRICA: When Propaganda Fails, Try Bribery

In earlier posts, I point out how "mass circumcision campaign" efforts have been unsuccessful in coercing men into circumcision in some parts of Africa. So desperate are some circumcision promoters in getting their programs off the ground that they've tried turning to various propaganda approaches, without much success.

In Swaziland, for example, the Soka Uncobe ("Circumcise and Conquer" in Swazi) campaign had been so unsuccessful in convincing the men to undergo the knife since its launch*, that they've tried hiring an entire sports team to endorse the project. As if that weren't enough, organizers "re-launched" the program in July, with the endorsement of the Swazi King, which, by the way, keeps many wives and isn't even circumcised himself. To top it off, they've even tried hiring an artist to try and beautify the genital surgery, thinly veiling it in artistic expression. Millions of dollars in trying to convince men to cut off part of their penises, this despite the fact that HIV transmission was found to be more prevalent among the CIRCUMCISED in their own country. I can think of no better expression to describe the situation, than officials pissing in the mouths of Africans and calling it rain.

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)

*Numbers vary by source: According to the Swazi Observer, Xaba reported that 28,000 out of 152,000 men had been circumcised as a result of the campaign, while Times Live reported only 3,000

In Botswana, only 14,000 of 467,000 targeted men (12%) have stepped forward since the program began last year, according to a Mmegi report in July. In the words of Principal public relations officer at the ministry of health, Temba Sibanda, that a large portion of the targeted group was not coming forth for circumcision is a "mystery." Here too, officials decided to go with the football team approach.

According to The Standard, officials in Turkana County, Kenya, are facing the same challenge in meeting their quota; since their program began in March this year, only 3,000 out of 175,000 men have come forth for the operation. Numbers were high at first, but they've since dwindled. Their approach? Bribe men sh100 ($1.07) to get circumcised. Through their paid referral program, men also get paid for each man they bring in for the operation.

Quoth Program Director Dr. Nicholas Muraguri:

"We really want this programme to succeed. That is why we are giving locals, who visit health facilities for the cut, incentives."

In other words, HIV prevention isn't good enough.

"This approach will help us to achieve our targets. The more you bring clients to the health facility for the cut, the more money you get... We are educating the community the health benefit of male cut in the prevention of HIV to encourage men to get circumcised."

...that is, if by "educating," he means "brainwashing," and by "encourage," he means "bribe."

I've asked before, and I'll ask again; have "mass circumcision campaign" organizers ever considered the possibility that some men may never agree to get circumcised? That some men treasure their bodies and would prefer an alternative? What alternatives do circumcision campaign organizers have ready for such men? Or was preferring to stay intact simply not supposed to be an option?

Much "support" is offered to men who go in for circumcisions. But is that same "support" offered to the men who would rather learn proper hygiene and the proper usage of condoms?

These are questions that these program organizers must answer. What if despite all the efforts, the men would prefer an alternative to circumcision? Do they have that scenario in mind? Do they have education packages as part of these "mass circumcision campaigns" for men who do not want to be circumcised in place? Or are they simply not going to offer these men that option?

So much for education and informed consent...

The Ghost of Mogen

Advocates of circumcision always minimize circumcision to "just a little snip with little to no risks." They always say "there are no risks, and if there are, they're worth it." When you present them examples of circumcisions gone wrong, they will always say "Oh, well that's just a once in a million case. Circumcision mishaps don't ever happen when a professional does it." Well, in this blog post I'm going to talk about a very real risk that circumcision advocates may not tell you about. The following circumcision mishap is one that is so common that there have already been numerous court cases; glans amputation.

In a very recent case, a judge approved a $4.6 million settlement on a behalf of a boy who lost the head of his penis in a botched circumcision attempt. The doctor who performed the circumcision used a Mogen clamp, a device notorious for glans amputations, even when used by professionals. So notorious is the Mogen clamp for glans amputations that the company that makes this device went out of business last year, because it couldn't afford the $11 million dollar lawsuit filed against it, after a mohel severed the end of another baby's glans using one of their clamps. A year after Mogen goes out of business, we are still hearing of the damage their clamp is causing.

The peculiar thing about Mogen is that until the very end, they claimed that injury was impossible with the use of their clamp, even after other glans amputations were reported. The injury behind a prior lawsuit at Fulton County Superior Court had already put Mogen on notice about the danger of the device. In a different case, at South Fulton Medical Center, another law suit was won in 2009. In that case, a child lost a third of his glans, and the plaintiffs were awarded 2.3 million dollars.

I'm afraid that this may not be the last we hear of Mogen glans amputations yet. Despite going out of business in America, and despite its notoriety for glans amputations, Mogen clamps are being used in a pilot project to have male children circumcised at birth under the pretext of HIV prevention in Kenya. They are currently being used in Rwanda to circumcise newborns under the pretext of "HIV prevention." In light of the fact that newborn children aren't at risk for sexually transmitted HIV, and in light of the fact that there are already better, more effective, less invasive modes of prevention, how is taking this risk conscionable?

Until the next apparition of  Mogen's ghost... *sigh*

UPDATE (added 7/28/2011):
It utterly infuriates me that the WHO has been effectively pissing in our mouths and calling it rain... "Circumcision would only be offered to consenting adults," they promised. Well why in the hell have they approved circumcision devices for infant male circumcision? Given what I presnt above, why have they approved MOGEN of all torture devices? What in the world are these people THINKING??? GEEZ. Pisses me off.

SWAZILAND: American Government Sinks to New Low

It seems our American goverment is going to stop at nothing to try and normalize circumcision in Swaziland. As if the Soka Uncobe "mass circumcision" campaign weren't enough, they've turned to celebrity endorsement by employing a football team and even a less than influential king to try and "breathe life" into the campaign. (The Soka Uncobe campaign is turning out to be a big flop, and the Swaziland ministry of health and American officials don't know why the men aren't rushing to have their organs mutilated.)

And now, it seems, the American government is turning to art to try and "inspire" the men of Swaziland to get circumcised. According to the Swazi Observer, an artist has chosen "Male Circumcision and Life!" Wow. Really? A foreskin is a life-threatening medical condition? I'm going to go through and disect the disgusting article.

"One of the hallmarks of expression in society is art."

The author is already trying to sound lofty and "artistic." Yes, one of the hallmarks of expression in society is art, but this isn't saying much; cavemen were engaging in artistic expression long before civilization as we know it existed. One can still find said pieces of art in caves.

"Stories put a human face on the important work that we do- making it come to life, appealing to emotion while showcasing talent and expressing passion about our work."

An artistic blurb that I'm not even sure is supposed to mean anything. But let's move on...

"In life and art, sculptor Raymond ‘Pondai’ Mishi focuses on the positive. A spirit of hope and sense of purpose give meaning to his life and find expression in his art."

More meaningless twaddle I think the author hoped would sound elloquent and "artistic" to his or her readers. What does any of this have to do with artistic expression? I think most people find some sort of meaning to their lives. Otherwise they lose hope and commit suicide. There has got to be some underlying message in all of this. Wait for it... here it comes...

"efforts
Consider the sculpture he created for a special art exhibit, IndzabaYetfu, hosted by the United States government to commemorate HIV prevention efforts in the Kingdom of Swaziland."

Yes! Let's consider it! What "efforts" could the United States government POSSIBLY be "commemorating..."

"Raymond shared his skills, talent and expertise in designing a 200 centimetres tall sculpture made entirely from recycled medical instruments- between 2 000 and 3 000 sterilised forceps that had been used to perform medical male circumcision, an HIV prevention intervention that is underway in Swaziland."

Bingo. Oh how "artistic."

"It took him just one week to do it. The theme for the art is 2011 60% Safer Avenue symbolic of male and female genitalia but with a symbol of practising safe sex even after one is circumcised."

Because "safe sex" is simply impossible when one isn't circumcised?

"elongated
The elongated upper torso is the penis with foreskin and the red light should be the one exposed after a man is circumcised."

More artistic use of the English language? This author is truly gifted. I'm guessing there are two penises depicted? One circumcised and one not?

"The curly middle part signifies the public area of the art work and the two legs embrace the sculpture and could be both the male’s legs wearing blue socks and also the woman’s hands embracing his partner and encouraging him to circumcise and heal the family."

What's wrong? Is the family sick? How does a father having normal genitals make his family "sick?" What if the man doesn't want to get circumcised but instead practice monogamy and faithfulness? Should a woman not encourage this? How absolutely insane.

"When asked how he feels about his artwork, Raymond was quick to say he was excited to have learnt something new and innovative."

An artistic answer to an artistic question. How is Raymond SUPPOSED to feel about his artwork? Absolutely ashamed I'm sure. He is asked about how he feels about his artwork, and he responds by telling of something "new" and "innovative" he just learned. His artwork seems to be a secondary thought. Let's see what comes first...

"I knew I wanted to do a sculpture without affecting the environment negatively using welding tools,” says Raymond, a native of Zimbabwe who lived and worked in Mozambique before settling in Swaziland."

Hrm. A non-Swazi... peculiar...

"Welding can sometimes cause more harm and instead, I used a solution queue bond which attaches metal pieces together and it sticks in two seconds… My design was born! I am proud to introduce a new art form. Take it up! Every single pair (of surgical scissors) has been in contact with the flesh, the artifacts have been in contact with life itself”. His life affirming message to young men is abstinence, the most important key to a safe and healthy life."

This is something new. It reads like cheese and chalk; you can see both this sculptor and author are working hard together to force two unrelated things to mix. The author is interested in "not causing harm"; so he employs materials that were used to destroy normal, healthy human tissue. What this has to do with "affirming life" is beyond me. If abstinence is the most important key to a safe and healthy life, where do circumcision tools come into the picture?

"It is good to be circumcised; it’s hygienic and if you decide on having sex make sure you protect yourself using a condom correctly and consistently. Sex is part of life and culture but we shouldn’t perish” he says."

What a strange, sad conglomeration of the English language. What a grotesque verbal sculpture. It's possible to practice safe sex without the use of a condom? Sex is a part of life and culture, but it is not necessary to be circumcised to practice good hygiene and safe sex. Not one thing has to do with the other. What a horrible attempt to mix two completely unrelated things.

"prone
Scientific evidence confirms that male circumcision reduces the risk of the acquisition of HIV by men by sixty percent (60%)."

Scientific evidence does no such thing. The "researchers" asserting this 60% figure have yet to furnish the evidence that circumcision indeed reduces the risk of HIV transmission. The best they can do is present statistics that don't correlate anyhere else in the world, not even in Africa.

"In addition, a circumcised penis is also easy to clean and is less prone to some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and cancer of the penis."

More irrelevant and unproven claims. The Americans and the Swazi ministry of health are trying to reduce the spread of HIV, not promote better hygiene or reduce cancer of the penis in Africa. It is not necessary to be circumcised to clean the penis, and a circumcision does not prevent the transmission of STIs. Circumcision fails at preventing STIs so much that the authors of these so-called "studies" and the promoters of circumcision themselves cannot stress the use of condoms enough. Circumcision is worthless.

"Now it is my turn. I am ready to circumcise! I have made a personal choice to do so”.

I wonder whom he is going to circumcise? And I wonder if the person he is circumcising has made that personal choice himself? I can only guess that this person is talking about himself. If he wants to become circumcised, more power to him. I only wonder if he is actually going for the cut, and not just merely saying so because the American Government paid him money to say these words for this promotional article. Who knows? The man isn't even Swazi and already is circumcised and is pretending he is not for this propaganda piece.

I question any person in these pro-circumcision articles; how many have actually undergone the cut? How many are speaking because they got PEPFAR money to be part of a promotional ad? How many were already circumcised prior in their own culture?

"Raymond first learnt about medical male circumcision when he met the Soka Uncobe team from Jhpiego, a global health non-profit organisation and affiliate of John Hopkins University that is working in more than 50 countries to prevent the needless deaths of women and their families."

Preventing the needless deaths of women and their families? Or promoting the needless genital mutilation of men and their children? By now it should be obvious what this article is; a promotional advertisment for a mass genital mutilation campaign that is failing to produce the desired results. Raymond is but another celebrity that has been hired to promote circumcision; who knows if the man already belongs to a circumcising culture, if he is not and he'll actually go for the cut or, like the Swazi king, paying lipservice to a benefactor of so-called "humanitarian aid."

"In Swaziland Jhpiego is part of the consortium of organisations implementing the Accelerated Saturation Initiative on male circumcision dubbed Soka Uncobe which means ‘circumcise and conquer’. The organisation also works with professionals, governments and community leaders to provide high quality health care for their people."

(If you can call genital mutilation in lieu of more effective, less invasive modes of prevention "high quality health care.")

"The owner of Yebo Art Gallery Mr. Peter ‘Senzenjani’ Armstrong encouraged Swazi parents to allow their children to study art as a subject in school in order to inculcate their desire and love for art. “Whatever your desire on wish it can be achieved through art expression” he says."

Let's just see if PEPFAR and the Swazi ministry of health achieve their desires and wishes through this disgusting piece of work.

I am absolutely disgusted at this disgraceful use of art. The use of art. To try and elevate and beautify genital mutilation. There are somethings that no matter how hard you try, you just can't make "beautiful."

Making a sculpture out of glass shards or rusty blades used in female circumcision would not make female genital mutilation any more acceptable. Not even if you used scissors, scalpels or other tools that doctors use to carry out the procedure in a sterile, clinical setting.

What a sick disgusting shame that my government is sinking this low to try and get Africans to accept genital mutilation. Absolute coersion and harrassment. All in the name of "humanitarian aid."When does this madness end?

Americans
If you think the promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a waste of our tax dollars, get a hold of PEPFAR and let them know. There is a page for this on Facebook:

Pepfar is a waste of American Tax Dollars

Africans
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.

I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.

Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:

You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"

BOTSWANA: Men Shunning Circumcision a "Mistery"

A few blog posts ago, I expose how the PEPFAR backed Soka Uncobe campaign is having trouble getting off the ground. Such a failure the campaign has been so far that organizers have tried boosting the campaign with a football team and endorsement from the king himself.

It looks like, however, Swaziland is not the only country where men aren't swallowing the circumcision/HIV pill. According to Mmegi, in Botswana, only 14,000 of 467,000 targeted men (12%) have stepped forward since the program began last year.

In the words of Principal public relations officer at the ministry of health Temba Sibanda, that a large portion of the targeted group is not coming forth for circumcision is a "mystery."

A "mistery?" Really? Has the ministry of health not considered that perhaps these men aren't too keen on getting part of their penises cut off? Even with perceived "benefits?"

Have "mass circumcision campaign" organizers ever considered the possibility that some men may never agree to get circumcised? That some men treasure their bodies and would prefer an alternative? What alternatives do circumcision campaign organizers have ready for such men? Or was prefering to stay intact simply not supposed to be an option?

The Soka Uncobe campaign has tried to appeal to Swazi masculinity by employing the imagery of women, and asking women to "support" men who go in for circumcisions. But does that same "support" go for the men who would rather learn proper hygiene and the proper usage of condoms?

That is a question that needs to be put to these knife-happy pro-mutilators. What if despite all the efforts, the men would prefer an alternative to circumcision? Do they have that scenario in mind? Do they have education packages as part of these "mass circumcision campaigns" for men who do not want to be circumcised in place? Or are they simply not going to offer these men that option?

The priorities of so-called humanitarian aid organizations come ever into view; what is the true end-game? Is it truly the prevention of HIV transmission? Or is it the acceptance and proliferation of a controversial surgical procedure?

Swazi King: "Better You Than Me"

So in my last post, I suspected that Soka Uncobe organizers were growing desperate. There had been reports that in spite of all the hype, the campaign wasn't having the desired impact. Laws are on the table to make circumcision compulsory, organizers have resorted to using the influence of celebrity endorsement, and recently the Soka Uncobe project was supposed to be "re-launched" with the Swazi king's endorsement.

So according to Times Live, the king himself has indeed endorsed circumcision, likening HIV to a "terrorist."

At first I was very concerned that the country's monarch endorsing circumcision might actually make an impact, but then I read this and I almost died laughing!

Apparently it's not the first time the king has made some outrageous remarks; a decade ago he posited that HIV-positive people should all be "branded and sterilised". (Could you imagine a campaign for THAT!)

And, apparently circumcision used to be widespread in Swaziland, but the practice was abandoned in the 19th century. The king likens the return of the practice to other traditions he has revived as a response to the rampant HIV epidemic; in 2001 he required young girls to wear tassels to display their virginity and banning men from having sex with girls under 18. (When he broke his own ban by taking a 17-year-old wife, he fined himself a cow.)

While the article repeats Ambassador Irving's statement of reaching a goal of zero infections by 2020, it also points to the reality that Swaziland has a long way to go; 4 out of 10 pregnant women test HIV-positive at clinics, according to Health Minister Benedict Xaba. (Remember him?) Circumcision will not prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission, and it will not cure an HIV+ child. But nevermind that, let's spend millions on circumcising the men, discouraging the use of condoms and increasing the infection of women!

Here's the strange part. While in the Swazi Observer Xaba reports that 28,000 men have been circumcised due to the campaign, the Times Live says that only 3,000 men have undergone circumcision since the massive Soka Uncobe campaign began. OK, so how many men have fallen for Soka Uncobe REALLY? With illusive numbers like these we may never know for sure.

And, it's just as I've thought. Soka Uncobe is such a failure that the organizers were hoping that the king could, in the words of Times Live, "breathe life into the campaign."

A ray of hope lies yet for those of us against this deliberate rape of Africa:

"The king still commands enormous respect, but in the rural areas near Mankayane dissatisfaction is bubbling to the surface as his subjects feel the pinch of a deepening economic crisis.

'The king has a lot of money in the bank but he can't help us. He has many women and a luxurious life. His children get an overseas education. He doesn't care about Swazis,' local Boxer Vilakazi told AFP."

'I love the king but 90 percent of youth are not working. Only those close to the king get jobs,' said 21-year-old Mthobisi Dlahla, who said he planned to go for the surgery for his own safety -- not because Mswati said so. (6 months into the campaign and he's still "planning" on it? Hrm...)

The polygamous monarch has been criticised for failing to lead by example in his kingdom, where multiple partnerships are seen as the major catalyst of the AIDS crisis.

Mswati did not say Friday whether he intended to get circumcised himself."

So not only is Soka Uncobe proving to be a big flop, but now it looks as though the organizers are so desperate that they'll even stoop as low as trying to use the endorsement of a monarch whose influence and authority is dwindling, and who can't even lead by example!

And how can we be sure that Soka Uncobe organizers are putting their money where their penises are? It would be interesting to ask them to strip for us to make sure they're leading by example. What would we find? Not even the KING is circumcised yet!

At this point I must ask, WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING ON HERE? What's REALLY going on in Africa? Are the numbers we see in the news even real? Let's strip down Callie's footballers. Were they REALLY circumcised, or were they payed PEPFAR money to give their endorsement?

WHEN ARE WE GONNA STOP DICKIN' AROUND WITH CIRCUMCISION AND STICK TO WHAT WE KNOW PREVENTS HIV TRANSMISSION FOR SURE?

Circumcision DOES NOT PREVENT HIV, and spending millions promoting as HIV prevention is not only a waste of money, because African men AREN'T BUYING IT, it's actually COSTING LIVES.

Americans
If you think the promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a waste of our tax dollars, get a hold of PEPFAR and let them know.

Africans
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.

I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.

Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:

You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"

Soka Uncobe Ringleaders Getting a Little Desperate?

When it first came out, there was much ado about Soka Uncobe, a US backed initiative to mutilate 80% of the men and male children in Swaziland in the name of so-called "HIV prevention." (Nevermind the fact that HIV was more prevalent amongst the circumcised population there.)

The initiative had a bumpy start, as the message was confusing people, sending the message that getting circumcised meant not having to wear condoms and having sex with multiple partners. The Ministry of Health was left defending its obviously flawed campaign.

In recent bulletins, the Soka Uncobe campaign was reported to be having disappointing results. In a more recent one from the Swazi Observer, it was reported that a law to make circumcision for men compulsory was on the table.

And now, it looks like their latest tactic is to try and use celebrity endorsement by getting an entire team of soccer players to get circumcised and using this to push circumcision on influential youth. Are Soka Uncobe directors getting a bit desperate? Has PEPFAR twisted their arm and threatened to cut AIDS funds unless they see results?

"NOT only are they focused in football matters but newly promoted elite league outfit Tambankulu Callies also ‘play it safe’."

Once again, Soka Uncobe is going to risk sending a mixed message. What does "play it safe" mean? That once you're circumcised you're "safe" and don't have to wear condoms? We keep saying it, and we'll keep saying it; promoting circumcision, even if the latest "studies" were accurate, is a bad idea because it causes confusion where there needn't be. Promoting circumcision is already proving to be disastrous, resulting in confused citizens and an increased HIV rate.

"Interviewed on the developments, the team’s PRO Senzo Shabangu said they decided it was a good idea to have the team educated on how to behave themselves, especially now that they had been promoted to the elite league.

'They have been educating us on how this procedure can be of benefit to us men when it comes to health issues so we took the decision to go for it. After our nurse at the Clinic brought up this issue we decided to take up the challenge,' he said."

You really need to cut off part of somebody's penis to "educate" him? I wonder what exactly is passing as "education." I'm afraid these poor men are being hornswoggled. Are they going to interview the men that get erection problems and manage to contract HIV despite their circumcisions?

"Shabangu added that this was also meant to protect the boys just in case they were overwhelmed by fame."

You have GOT to be kidding me! I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. They seriously think this is going to make any difference! Because circumcision was already "reducing HIV" in Swaziland, right? As it has in other African countries and other countries of the world? On the other hand, this may be the key to Soka Uncobe's undoing; when the footballers start getting AIDS and giving it to their partners, I'd like to see Soka Uncobe and PEPFAR promoting the team then.

"When sought for comment on the matter, PSI’s Communications Officer Bongiwe Zwane said they were very happy with the initiative taken by the team.

"Football players are very influential in their communities so in this way more youngsters will want to be part of this procedure.

We would encourage other teams to follow suit so that we have a healthy nation,” he said."

Yes, we can see where PSI's hearts lie; they're more concerned about getting everybody circumcised than they are about actual HIV prevention. I'm wondering how long will this continue until people finally realize circumcision is a waste of money that doesn't work. It is possible to have a healthy nation WITHOUT circumcision.

How many infected men and women until we realize the money could have been better spent?

Message to the Men of Africa
To any Swazi men or other men being coerced to undergo circumcision by local campaigns in Africa, I've got something to tell to you; circumcision doesn't prevent anything. Never has, never will. I'm afraid your governments have come to depend on sick benefactors who care about nothing more than mutilating your bodies and the bodies of your children for aid. You're at the mercy of corrupt government leaders who have sold your foreskins for so-called "humanitarian aid." You lose part of your genitals and they line their pockets. And you're still no better protected.

I'm here to tell you, you don't have to get circumcised to prevent HIV. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent you from getting sexually transmitted HIV. Only condoms provide true protection. When nurses and doctors ask you if you've circumcised yourself or your children, tell them it's none of their business. Tell them that you're educated enough to learn how to take a shower. Tell them that you are faithful to your wife. Tell them you want an alternative.Tell them you want an HIV prevention method that does not require cutting off part of your genitals and the genitals of their children. Tell them thanks, but no thanks. Demand the respect and dignity you deserve. You are human beings, not animals.

Do you have a Facebook account? Would you like to know what Soka Uncobe isn't telling you? Do you want to avoid AIDS but don't want to get circumcised? Find us on Facebook! Log on and click on the following link:

You Can Conquer Without Circumcision: Say NO to "Soka Uncobe"

Beware media claims of "increasing circumcision demand"

People need to beware of claims of "increased circumcision demand" in the media. Readers may notice news reports that tell of "men are lining up to be circumcised" in Africa, but such reports may be misleading.

In at least one article by allAfrica (and I've seen many others like it), we're told about how "circumcision demand has shot up." Our attention is brought to the fact that doctors are working non-stop to circumcise the boys and men that line up. One might be lead to believe that this is because the boys or men were actually convinced by the circumcision/HIV propaganda, but closer inspection reveals that the "increase in demand" is actually due to the arrival of the circumcision season where circumcision/HIV promoters have opened up their clinics. In those areas, circumcision is already culturally engrained, and boys and men are expected to undergo circumcision. In short, the "demand" has nothing to do with an interest in HIV prevention, and it isn't actually "increasing" per se, just being diverted to circumcision/HIV "clinics."

If you read the article, the answers the boys give when asked about their motives sound like badly memorized lines. The first thing on their lips is their interest in having sex without condoms, and the fact that their parents made them line up. (We're supposed to believe that the circumcision/HIV programs in Africa are "completely voluntary."  Why, taking advantage of young, impressionable youth is not abusive in the least!) A little nudge and the interest in the HIV "counselling" comes "gushing out." (This is in the journalist's own words, not mine!)

The question is, then, are these boys here for HIV "counselling" and because they actually care about supposedly "reducing their chances" for HIV? Or are they here to cash in on a free circumcision? We hear about men "lining up" in other African countries. But how many of the men were actually convinced by the circumcision/HIV message, and how many were merely seeking an alternative to what would be a harrowing ordeal at a traditional "circumcision school?"

I think it is important for people reading these "reports" to take them in with a grain of salt. We must remember that circumcision isn't a simple walk in the park, like a vaccine; circumcision is radical surgery, which permanently removes part of a person's genitals, and isn't taken lightly by just anyone.

We must remember that circumcision/HIV advocates aren't introducing anything "new" to Africa. In many countries or regions, circumcision is already a cultural norm as a tribal rite of passage, or a requirement of Islam. Circumcision is already widely practiced in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa, for example. In countries where circumcision is already normal due to culture, men would be more willing to "line up" for a free circumcision, even if they have to pretend like they care about HIV prevention. Parents of said cultures would not hesitate to submit their male children to be circumcised; they already do. It is misleading to report "an increase in circumcision demand" at circumcision clinics placed where circumcision is already a cultural practice.

Circumcision fails to become a "demand" in countries or cultures that do not practice circumcision. Circumcision/HIV propagandists are having trouble convincing the Luo in Kenya for example, which traditionally do not circumcise, to adopt circumcision. Malawi has refused to adopt circumcision as HIV prevention policy. Despite all the hype, it looks like the Soka Uncobe ("Circumcise and Conquer") campaign in Swaziland isn't having as much of an impact as pro-circumcision American benefactors had hoped. So unsuccessful have efforts been to circumcise the men of Swaziland that laws are now on the table to make circumcision compulsory. (Note the doublethink; circumcision is supposed to be "voluntary," as the term "Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision" (VMMC) indicates.)

So when we hear about "thousands of men lining up to be circumcised," one needs to ask, how many are doing so because the men are indeed interested in circumcision as a way to "reduce the risk of HIV?" How many parents who agree to have their children circumcised actually come from cultures where circumcision is already a social requirement, and the circumcision/HIV propagandists are taking credit for this as a sign of their programs' "success?"

We must remember that the HIV front in Africa is in a very precarious situation. Humanitarian groups that focus on the HIV crisis are running out of money, and donors are bailing out on their pledges to donate to the cause. African governments and humanitarian groups alike have come to depend on aid from benefactors who have come under the circumcision/HIV craze, and use the WHO endorsement to dictate circumcision quotas. In order to keep their donors and benefactors happy, African govenment and humanitarian organizations have to demonstrate that they are conducting "mass circumcision campaigns," and that they are achieving "success."

Is there REALLY an "increased demand" in circumcisions? How many men or parents of boys have actually been convinced by the dubious circumcision/HIV message? Or are governments and humanitarian establishments who depend on pro-circumcision aid taking advantage of the pre-existing circumcising culture to appear "successful?"

What it's always been about...

I've never been convinced.

Ever since "researchers" came out with the "studies" that circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV," I saw it for what it was. This isn't about "HIV," this isn't about "public health care." This is all about ultimately legitimizing what "doctors" and "scientists" have been trying to legitimize for years; the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting infants. They've been trying to do this for over a century, the "disease" that circumcision is supposed to prevent changing every time real science manages to debunk the claims.

Since the first "studies" came out in 2006, "doctors" and "scientists" were already thinking about how they could use the latest "studies" to legitimize, not the circumcision of sexually active adults who are at risk for sexually transmitted HIV, no; the "doctors" and "researchers" were already thinking about how the "science" could be used to push the circumcision of INFANTS. INFANTS, who do not yet have sex and are at absolute zero risk for sexually transmitted HIV. And not infants in Africa, no; people were eager to get circumcision for HIV transmission endorsed here at home for American children.

Well, that hasn't happened just yet, but it looks like pro-circumcision advocates have finally achieved in legitimizing the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants under the guise of HIV transmission all the way in Africa. How absolutely disgusting.

What trial? What "studies" were conducted in healthy, non-consenting infants? If I remember correctly, all of the "studies" conducted in Africa were conducted on adult men consenting to undergo the procedure of circumcision. What on EARTH are we doing pushing circumcision on healthy, non-consenting infants? WHY are we doing this? What if we conducted "studies" on consenting women who wanted to part with their labia and clitoral hoods? If "studies" showed a "reduction in HIV transmission" for the women, would we proceed to recommend it in CHILDREN? WHY is our government doing this??? Is it because they've been unsuccessful in getting our AAP to endorse this here at home? Do they somehow think if they could achieve it in Africa, that this would somehow translate back home? According to the CDC, the neonatal circumcision rate in the US has fallen to approx. 33%. Is it their intention to shore that up here at home at the expense of children in Africa?

According to the Swazi Observer, "HARDLY a month after the neonatal circumcision campaign was launched; there have been over 400 circumcised." WHY is there even a neonatal circumcision campaign?
Are children having sex? Are they at any risk for sexually transmitted HIV? WHY are they being denied a choice?

"We have held the press conference on the 30th of June because it is the last day of the children’s month. Therefore, we felt it proper to look back and reflect on what we have done this month towards improving the lives and health of Swazi children during a time when societies are greatly affected by the deaths caused by HIV/AIDS," said Public Services International (PSI) HIV Services Director Jessica Greene.

Improving the lives and health of Swazi children? Once again, ARE CHILDREN DYING OF HIV/AIDS??? AREN'T THEY MORE AT RISK FOR MOTHER-TO-CHILD TRANSMISSION??? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!!!

"The USAID Director and PEPFAR officer Jennifer Albertini said she was very grateful for the accelerated approach to circumcision in the country and said she was confident that in the long run the benefits of the mass circumcision campaign would be massive in terms of reducing the spread of HIV in the country."

Yes, Albertini. Because children are contributing the most to the HIV transmission rate. It's not the circumcised men, where HIV tranmission was found to be MORE PREVALENT.

"The target is to circumcise 152 000 males after a year and bearing in mind we have already, one is optimistic that we will be able to meet the target," said Albertini.

That's what it's all about isn't it, Albertini, meeting a target...

"Neonatal male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin that covers the tip of the newborn’s penis."

The foreskin IS the tip of the newborn's penis. What a gross representation of basic human anatomy.
 
"NEONATAL circumcision is advantageous because it reduces the risk of negative complications."
 
NO, ANY surgery where it is not needed is an INCREASE in the risk of negative complications.
 
"Early circumcision maximises the benefits of circumcision and becomes very easy to perform. Therefore, providing the most apparent reason why we recommend all parents should take their children for circumcision when while they are still young," said Reid.

What "benefits" is a healthy child in need of? The most apparent reason that Reid recommends parents take their children in for circumcision "while they are still young" is because they would not be so willing to undergo the operation as adults. In other words, Reid is legitimizing deliberate child abuse. Absolutely despicable.

Meanwhile, Mohammed Mahdi from the Elizabeth Glazer Pediatric AIDS Foundation said it was very important that circumcision was included on both prior and post counseling of the mothers. "We are currently panning to introduce circumcision in the counseling offered to mothers before birth so that they are taught about the benefits before they even before they give birth," said Mahdi.

Hrm... what if the children are born with HIV? Shouldn't they be talking to them about preventing mother-to-child transmission FIRST??? Why is THIS priority? Are male children simply already sick in utero? Mohammed Mahdi... sounds like this person may have a personal bias... he would "advise mothers" about the "benefits" of circumcision anyway...

"FOLLOWING some cases on the effects of circumcision, the World Heath Organisation has issued guidelines on how the process should be conducted by all doctors.

This was announced by Dr Dennis Buwembo from JHPIEGO who said some fatal cases and after effects of some fatal cases and operations that had gown wrong had become a cause for concern.
Hence, the main reason the WHO issued the guidelines which stipulate clearly that the process can only be conducted by professionals through local anesthesia."

Are they **** serious. First off, HAS the WHO actually gone ahead and endorsed circumcision as HIV transmission prevention in CHILDREN? And if children are dying, shouldn't they be RECONSIDERING??? This is absolutely infuriating.

The article continues with dispensing of the same old misinformation.

"Advantages of Neonatal Male Circumcision"
Question one; WHY should it be performed in the first place? Aren't we going to hear about the advantages of NOT circumcising? Or is there only one option?

"Faster healing"
WHY is there need for a deliberate wound, PERIOD???

"Less complications if performed by trained health care workers"
This is not always guaranteed. Why should a healthy, non-consenting child be put at risk for ANY complications???

"Lower costs"
There are NO costs in leaving the child alone.

"Neonatal MC maximizes the benefits of circumcision by providing the procedure before the male becomes sexually active"
"Benefits" which are dubious at best. Even if these "benefits" were 100% concrete, how does a child, who is not sexually active benefit? Shouldn't it be up to the child to decide whether he wants this "benefit?" WHY are they circumcising healthy, non-consenting, sexually inactive INFANTS???

"Easy to perform"
"Sunat" is easy to perform too.
"Risks of Neonatal Male Circumcision
Pain after the procedure
Bleeding
Infection
Reaction to the anaesthesia
Swelling of the wound"

Partial or full ablation??? DEATH??? It is mentioned in this very article. Yet, it's not part of this **** list.

WHY???

It is a complete outrage that our country is taking advantage of 3rd world countries this way to push infant genital mutilation. It's enough that doctors take advantage of parental naivete and the defenselessness of children to reap profit from completely unnecessary surgery. Now we're going as far as Africa to push it there as well? This is absolutely despicable. It's morally repugnant. I am outraged that this. THIS is what my tax dollars are being used for. Forget about quackery that doesn't work; we're outright endorsing deliberate child abuse and genital mutilation. Sooner or later this nation is going to pay for raping Africa in the name of "humanitarian aid." Something has got to be done about this.