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"
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
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?"
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?"
Labels:
Africa,
circumcision,
free circumcision,
HIV
Saturday, July 9, 2011
The counselling or the free circumcision?
After reading this article at allAfrica.com, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. "South Africa: Circumcision Demand Shoots Up," it says, but the title is rather misleading. The author might have you believe that circumcision demand has actually "shot up," until s/he reveals to you that it's circumcision season, in South Africa. Every year, scores of men die at "circumcision schools," and countless others end up losing their penises to gangrene. But that's not any reason why boys might want to take advantage of a free circumcision in a clinical setting. Oh no, not at all.
"In just one week following the start of the winter school holidays over 1000 boys queued up to get circumcised..."
Now let's ask the author how many of these boys would have had to go to a circumcision school anyway.
The rest of the article is basically sensationalism to embellish the fact that an expected surge in clinical circumcisions done at circumcision/HIV clinics is happening. Some of what comes out of these boys' mouths when asked why they are there may give you a pause, however:
Why did you want to circumcise, I asked Buhle.
"To avoid the diseases because in South Africa there are many diseases by having sex with no condom. So, it protects you from the diseases because if you are circumcised, it's 60% less diseases", he replied.
Uh... yeah...
Did you have to talk to your parents about circumcising?
"Yes, it's them who told me that I have to come circumcise", he said.
So it sounds like, this child is not here out of his own volition...
Then, he gushed about the quality of counselling he got at the centre.
"Oh, counselling! It's the counseling that made me to be here today because I wasn't going to be here because I was scared. The counselling is very good because it's talking to you to know how to know yourself, know your status they even test you here high blood, sugar. They were telling us about condoms, how to use them. Condoms are important because if you are circumcised there is 60% less (chances of getting HIV), but if you use condoms that 40% is going to be on that means 100% safer for you".
Something's in the water. In just the previous breath he was talking about sex with no condoms, and the fact that he is here because of his parents. But now it's the counselling. Oh yes, it's the counselling that made him be here today! And the quality of the counseling shows. Because condoms don't provide 100% protection unless their wearers are circumcised...
"Not only has the clinic increased the number of circumcised boys. It has also increased the number of boys who take up HIV counselling and testing. And so has the Bophelo Pele centre in Orange Farm. Over 80% of the 1084 boys who were circumcised at both centres have accepted the HIV test."
Yes, because HIV counseling and testing is simply not possible unless the recipient is circumcised. Maybe they should start providing clinical female circumcision. That way they could counsel the women as WELL as the men. I mean, it's how it works, right?
"Scientific research shows that circumcised men have a 60% less risk of infection."
Actually, no, no it doesn't. The select data "researchers" with an agenda present "shows" a 60% decrease, and this is attributed to circumcision. To be sure, "studies" were seeking to attribute a reduction in HIV transmission to circumcision since about 1986. The decrease found in the latest "studies" doesn't manifest itself outside of the carefully constructed "research." The "researchers" have yet to produce a working hypothesis for their studies. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that demonstrably proves circumcision prevents anything. This doctor is either keeping this trade secret to himself, or he doesn't know.
"Combined with the use of condoms, the protectiveness is increased."
Actually, no, circumcised or not, condoms provide the exact same protection. You don't need to be circumcised to wear a condom.
In America, 80% of the male population is circumcised, AND condoms are easily available. Despite this fact, HIV transmission rates, and the transmission rates of other STDs, are higher in America, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare. Somehow, this is going to work differently in Africa.
If by "counselling" they mean corroborating with boys and men that were seeking to get circumcised anyway, these "doctors" are doing an excellent job.
This article is misleading. It says there is an "increase in circumcision demand," where there is actually none. Are circumcision/HIV advocates trying to take credit for circumcisions that would have taken place anyway? Do you SERIOUSLY have to circumcise a man or child in order to test him and counsel him in the use of condoms? Like, is his brain simply not able to process this information until he's been circumcised? Does circumcision somehow make his brain more receptive? I wouldn't be surprised to see a scientific "study" that "shows" this in the near future.
"In just one week following the start of the winter school holidays over 1000 boys queued up to get circumcised..."
Now let's ask the author how many of these boys would have had to go to a circumcision school anyway.
The rest of the article is basically sensationalism to embellish the fact that an expected surge in clinical circumcisions done at circumcision/HIV clinics is happening. Some of what comes out of these boys' mouths when asked why they are there may give you a pause, however:
Why did you want to circumcise, I asked Buhle.
"To avoid the diseases because in South Africa there are many diseases by having sex with no condom. So, it protects you from the diseases because if you are circumcised, it's 60% less diseases", he replied.
Uh... yeah...
Did you have to talk to your parents about circumcising?
"Yes, it's them who told me that I have to come circumcise", he said.
So it sounds like, this child is not here out of his own volition...
Then, he gushed about the quality of counselling he got at the centre.
"Oh, counselling! It's the counseling that made me to be here today because I wasn't going to be here because I was scared. The counselling is very good because it's talking to you to know how to know yourself, know your status they even test you here high blood, sugar. They were telling us about condoms, how to use them. Condoms are important because if you are circumcised there is 60% less (chances of getting HIV), but if you use condoms that 40% is going to be on that means 100% safer for you".
Something's in the water. In just the previous breath he was talking about sex with no condoms, and the fact that he is here because of his parents. But now it's the counselling. Oh yes, it's the counselling that made him be here today! And the quality of the counseling shows. Because condoms don't provide 100% protection unless their wearers are circumcised...
"Not only has the clinic increased the number of circumcised boys. It has also increased the number of boys who take up HIV counselling and testing. And so has the Bophelo Pele centre in Orange Farm. Over 80% of the 1084 boys who were circumcised at both centres have accepted the HIV test."
Yes, because HIV counseling and testing is simply not possible unless the recipient is circumcised. Maybe they should start providing clinical female circumcision. That way they could counsel the women as WELL as the men. I mean, it's how it works, right?
"Scientific research shows that circumcised men have a 60% less risk of infection."
Actually, no, no it doesn't. The select data "researchers" with an agenda present "shows" a 60% decrease, and this is attributed to circumcision. To be sure, "studies" were seeking to attribute a reduction in HIV transmission to circumcision since about 1986. The decrease found in the latest "studies" doesn't manifest itself outside of the carefully constructed "research." The "researchers" have yet to produce a working hypothesis for their studies. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that demonstrably proves circumcision prevents anything. This doctor is either keeping this trade secret to himself, or he doesn't know.
"Combined with the use of condoms, the protectiveness is increased."
Actually, no, circumcised or not, condoms provide the exact same protection. You don't need to be circumcised to wear a condom.
In America, 80% of the male population is circumcised, AND condoms are easily available. Despite this fact, HIV transmission rates, and the transmission rates of other STDs, are higher in America, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare. Somehow, this is going to work differently in Africa.
If by "counselling" they mean corroborating with boys and men that were seeking to get circumcised anyway, these "doctors" are doing an excellent job.
This article is misleading. It says there is an "increase in circumcision demand," where there is actually none. Are circumcision/HIV advocates trying to take credit for circumcisions that would have taken place anyway? Do you SERIOUSLY have to circumcise a man or child in order to test him and counsel him in the use of condoms? Like, is his brain simply not able to process this information until he's been circumcised? Does circumcision somehow make his brain more receptive? I wouldn't be surprised to see a scientific "study" that "shows" this in the near future.
Labels:
allAfrica.com,
circumcision demand,
South Africa
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.
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.
Monday, July 4, 2011
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?
![]()
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.
And what is her response? "Oh I'm so insulted. I can't even get through the hate."
How in the world she feels entitled to the victim card is beyond me. How are men supposed to feel for having our bodies insulted and treating them like a disposable piece of trash? But somehow SHE is the victim? Aw, poor baby...
So I thought she was just gonna blow this off, as most circumcision advocates do. What does she really care? I was expecting for this post to simply be another long and boring post in my long list of worthless ramblings. She ignores me, I forget that such a woman called “Lisa Russel” ever existed, and we both go about our business.
Well, word has gotten 'round to me that she actually DID read it, and has decided to, instead of address real and direct questions I pose, play the victim:
"Lisa Russell
My film is causing such a heated debate that I am now getting personal hate press. This one is my fav. "So who is this Lisa Russel person? Does she actually care about humanity and public health? Is she
actually a concerned world citizen, or is she merely an attention whore who finally found somebody to sponsor her?" Wow. Too bad I can't even get to this dude's argument bc I can barely get through the hate."
She means to say she can't even touch my arguments, so she chose to focus on my anger. I'm not going to deny it; the promotion of male genital mutilation, even if it's under the guise of pseudo-medicine makes me angry. This video that disrespects and desecrates males in the name of humanity pisses me off.
When she made this video, she should have known she was going to hear it from guys like me. She should have known that there are men who would not stand by silently while she uses pseudo-science to insult us and slander our bodies.
She needs to stop acting surprised and answer the questions posed to her. She's an adult; she needs to be responsible for her work.
Others who are more restrained and more respectful than I ever could, posted polite but firm comments on her Facebook wall, only to have them deleted. Here are some of the comments she is allowing to remain, however...
"Toni Blackman They say you know you've said something when others have something to say about what you said. #KeepTalkin This Lisa Russell is makin moves and impact"
Yes, that's right Toni. And judging by the fact that somebody, especially Lisa, and you, and others, are saying something about what I've said, I am "makin' moves and impact" too.
"Lisa Russell Thx Toni. You gotta check out the photo he posted of metoo. Side by side with the joker with the caption, "I'm not sure abouteveryone else, but I see a resemblance..." Am thinking of making it myprofile pic. lol."
I guess she's not familiar with trollface? :-) :-) :-)
Aw, I'm sorry Lisa, but I just couldn't resist. I just don't know what to think about somebody who thinks it's gracious and humanitarian to promote male genital mutilation in the name of HIV prevention. The next Foreskin Man comic should be about you. You cannot have my respect if you call yourself a "humanitarian" but yet you're promoting THIS bullshit.
"Kamau Ngigi keep on lisa, dont let them stop you..."
...from riding the circumcision/HIV gravy train, that is. There's money and fame to be made at the expense of others here, Lisa, don't you let somebody holding you to moral standards stop you!
"Brigitte Britt Russell Lisa - making heads turn. His hate makes you noticed by others. Which once they check you out, will only turn into something great!"
And HER hate makes others notice me in turn! You see how that works? Once they check ME out, people can see how absolutely full of shit this Lisa person really is. It looks like this IS turning into something great!
"Amber Peterman If you are not making waves, you are not making change..."
Yes Amber, this is so true. Just look at how far Lisa has taken it! Moving it from what it's supposed to be about (AIDS PREVENTION, HELLO???) to a melodramatic pity party to get everyone's sympathy validation. (cue the violins)
"Amber Peterman cont'... There will always always be haters. If anything, you have encouraged discussion."
So true. I mean look at Lisa! But you know, for as much as I think she is just an attention whore in it for fortune and fame, you are right. She has encouraged discussion. Hopefully there will be actual discussion, and not just one-sided argument.
"Amber Peterman cont'... And remember, for every study, scientific finding, you will find another study or scientist who disagrees!"
Yes, and you must only pay attention to those "studies" and "scientists" that suit you. After all, that is what science is all about, right? Paying attention only to the evidence that supports your cause, as flawed and as biased as it may be, while ignoring and dismissing concrete irrefutable evidence that is devastating to it? Right?
"Russell @amber - that is so true. i had a back and forth with someone who kept referencing scientific study that i then found a study to contradict its findings. i'm basing my beliefs on the research yes but also on my gut and the things i witnessed first hand. thanks for that and everyone else for the love..."
Aw... can't you just feel the love? This is no longer about research and science, it's based on "gut feelings." Real world data shows that circumcision never prevented HIV. But screw this, she’s got “gut feelings.” Look, Lisa, you can present all the "studies" you want. If they fail to correlate with reality, then I'm afraid those studies are suspect.
Tell us Lisa, why did you decide to delete your back-and-forth? Is it because the links to information made you uncomfortable? Is it because you can’t admit that maybe, just maybe there are others that know more than you do? Is it that you don’t want to be made to eat crow for creating a genital mutilation propaganda video based on flawed and biased "research?"
How does circumcision prevent HIV?
Tell us Lisa, since you’re such an expert and you have done all the research, how does circumcision prevent HIV? Have you witnessed the foreskin facilitating HIV transmission first hand? Has it been demonstrably proven that the foreskin actually facilitates HIV transmission, and that removing it “reduces the risk?” Or is this just merely another one of your “gut feelings?”
The answer to this question is, you don't know. Nobody knows. Not even the very authors of the latest circumcision/HIV studies can demonstrate that circumcision prevents HIV transmission. The best they have done is present carefully cherry-picked data from select countries of their liking (leaving out data that didn't conform to their pre-determined conclusion of course), and insist that a lower rate observed in the data they present is attributed to circumcision. The mechanism whereby this happens, however, is always a “gut feeling,” that needs never be fully and concretely explained. Entire mass-circumcision campaigns are being carried out using “studies” that lack a working hypothesis!
Circumcision “studies,” all circumcision “studies,” are based on hypotheses that have never been proven, or that have been completely dis-proven. Their biggest flaw is that they beg the question; circumcision is assumed to prevent disease a priori. For whatever reason, circumcision "researchers" aren't expected to actually prove circumcision prevents anything; it’s perfectly acceptable to conduct statistical analysis based on “gut feelings” that something is true. Correlation, however skewed and farfetched it may be, does equal causation, after all.
Let’s analyze some of the “gut feelings” that have been scientifically blown out of the water:
Toughened Skin Theory
In the early 1980s, long before there were any "studies" in Africa concerning circumcision and HIV, Aaron J. Fink invented the idea that circumcision prevented HIV transmission out of thin air. He presented the first hypothesis for this presenting his “gut feeling” that HIV is sexually transmitted through the moist and supple mucosa of the inside of the foreskin, which, according to him, tears easily. Circumcision was supposed to prevent HIV transmission because it was unable to penetrate the skin of the remaining mucosa and the glans, toughened by keratin layers. This theory has been completely destroyed (see references below).
Dinh, MH; McRaven MD, Kelley Z, Penugonda S, Hope TJ (2010-03-27). "Keratinization of the adult male foreskin and implications for male circumcision.". AIDS 24 (6): 899-906. PMID 20098294. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098294. Retrieved 2011-06-28. "We found no difference between the keratinization of the inner and outer aspects of the adult male foreskin. Keratin layers alone are unlikely to explain why uncircumcised men are at higher risk for HIV infection.".
Dinh, Minh H; Sheila M Barry, Meegan R Anderson, Scott G McCoombe, Shetha A Shukair, Michael D McRaven, Thomas J Hope (2009-12-06), "HIV-1 Interactions and Infection in Adult Male Foreskin Explant Cultures" (PDF), 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Montreal, Canada, http://retroconference.org/2009/PDFs/502.pdf, retrieved 2011-06-28, "No difference can be clearly visualized between the inner and outer foreskin."
Langerhans Cells Theory
Once the keratin theory was destroyed, “researchers” moved to indict the Langerhans cells, saying that they are the “prime port of entry” for the HIV virus. deWitte has demonstrated that, contrary to circumcision researchers’ “gut feelings,” the Langerhans cells actually help FIGHT the HIV virus, because they release Langherin, a secretion that destroys HIV on contact.
de Witte, Lot; Alexey Nabatov, Marjorie Pion, Donna Fluitsma, Marein AW P de Jong, Tanja de Gruijl, Vincent Piguet, Yvette van Kooyk, Teunis B H Geijtenbeek (2007-03-04). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" (PDF). Nature Medicine. doi: 10.1038/nm1541. http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
The quip that “circumcision reduces HIV by 60%” has become pop-science mantra, but scientists and circumcision “researchers” have yet to demonstrably prove that circumcision prevents HIV. Millions are being spent on “mass circumcision campaigns,” and boys and men are being circumcised in Africa, some by force, all using “studies” that are based completely on “gut feelings.”
The Prophecies are Already Coming True
Promoting circumcision in Africa is already proving to be disastrous. Men are already saying that they don’t have to wear condoms, that they are completely immune to HIV, and HIV transmission rates are shown to be rising. Funds for HIV prevention and treatment are already scarce, and humanitarians struggle to keep donors from bailing out on them. Condoms and sex education are cheaper, less invasive, have been conclusively proven to prevent HIV transmission. Oh but let’s continue to trust our “gut feelings” and waste millions on dollars on a dubious mode of "prevention" while we forget about TB and malaria.
The Questions Avoided
In my last post, I ask important questions, but Russel has chosen to ignore them. I repost some of them here for reader reference, and just for good measure:
If circumcision is so effective at preventing HIV, why do the results of the latest “studies” fail to manifest themselves in the real world?
The United States is a country where condoms are widely available and prevention efforts are top notch. It is also a country where 80% of the male population is already circumcised, and yet HIV rates are still high. If circumcision is so effective at "reducing the rate of HIV," why then, are HIV rates in fact higher in America, where the majority of the male population is already circumcised, than in Europe, where the majority of the male population is not?
UNAIDS, World Health Organization.
Global HIV/AIDS and STD Surveillance Project: Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic 1998.
Global HIV/AIDS and STD Surveillance Project: Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic 1998.
If circumcision is so effective at "reducing the rate of HIV," why are countries where circumcision is already wide-spread suffering increased HIV transmission rates? Countries like Malaysia, the Philippines, and Israel? (Haaretz reports on Israel's AIDS crisis here, here, here, and here.)
If circumcision is so effective at "reducing the rate of HIV," then why was HIV found to be more prevalent among the circumcised in 6 different African countries?
In Cameroon, where 91% of the male population is circumcised, the ratio of circumcised men vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 4.1 vs. 1.1. (See p. 17) In Ghana "...the vast majority of Ghanaian men (95 percent) are circumcised... There is little difference in the HIV prevalence by circumcision status..." (1.6 vs 1.4 See p. 13) In Lesotho, 23% of the men are circumcised, and the ratio circumcised men vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 22.8 vs 15.2. (p. 13) In Malawi, 20% of the male population is circumcised. The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 13.2 vs 9.5. (p. 10) According to a demographic health survey taken in Rwanda in 2005, the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8 vs 2.1. (See p. 10) And for Swaziland, in a recent demographic health survey (2006-2007), the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was found to be 22 vs. 20.(p. 256)
According to none other than USAID, "there appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher?"
Other studies:
"Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence data. The results are important in considering the development of circumcision-focused interventions within AIDS prevention programs."
Results: ...No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries.
These are real numbers from real countries. They’re not arguing anything one way or another; they are hard, solid fact. On what “gut feeling” did WHO, UNAIDS, USAID etc. officials decide it would be a good idea to promote circumcision anyway? On what premise have American organizations decided to promote a mode of “prevention” that never worked in our own country?
Would Russel ever promote female genital cutting in the fight against AIDS?
Circumcision advocates always like to frame their advocacy with humanitarianism. Stressing the severity of the HIV/AIDS situation in Africa, they insist circumcision should be promoted because it's "one more tool in the fight against AIDS." It sounds real noble and all, but how far are people actually interested in finding "every tool available out there?" Or does this reasoning stop at male circumcision?
In my last post, I ask what Russel what her stance would be if "studies showed" that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV by 60%," but she has decided talking about my "hate" was more important.
I'm going to elaborate on my question here a little bit more, because somebody always has to get dramatic about "how much worse" female circumcision is than male circumcision: The WHO recognizes that there are at least four different levels of severity for female genital cutting. Yes, we all know that infibulation is so much worse than male circumcision, but what if HIV transmission could be reduced by performing surgery that isn’t "as bad?"
What if "scientists and researchers" found a way to remove all that "extra skin," while leaving behind the clitoris and a woman’s ability to orgasm? Would Russel support it then?
People might not be familiar, but what we might consider to be "female genital mutilation" is already practiced in doctors clinics in the West. Some women find that their labia aesthetically displeasing and ask to have them removed in a procedure known as a "labiaplasty." Some women go even further and have the hood of their clitoris removed to permanently expose it in a procedure called "unroofing." This "unroofing" would be precisely what happens in South-East Asian "sunat." So what if "labiaplasties" and "unroofing" were proven to "reduce the risk of HIV by 60%"? Would Russel dare promote it as "another tool in the fight against HIV?"
Believe it or not, there are actually a handful of studies that suggest that female circumcision might "reduce the risk of HIV." See them for yourself here, here and here. Additionally, other studies show that even women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still able to orgasm. You can see studies here and here. A recent article in Africa came out addressing this same point here. There is at least one study that claims that labiaplasties increase sexual satisfaction in both women and their partners.
Russel might say that "there aren’t enough studies to promote female circumcision," and she might have a point. To which I would ask, would there ever BE enough “studies” that would convince her to promote female circumcision? Would she support "studies" to look further into the matter? What would she think of "studies" where scientists performed labiaplasties on 1,000 women, kept a control group of 1,000 unlabiaplastied women and then followed these groups around to see who got AIDS faster? And then, if scientists saw a "significant reduction in HIV transmission in the labiaplastied women," what would she think if they performed labiaplasties on the remaining 1,000 women on the grounds that "not doing so would be unethical?" Would she fully agree, or would she decry as unethical the fact that somebody thought conducting these “studies” would be acceptable in the first place?
If "studies showed" that labiaplasties provided a "significant reduction in HIV transmission," would Russel get behind them? Would she fully support the WHO for endorsing labiaplasties as HIV prevention policy? Would she fully back "mass labiaplasties" for women?
Is there a number of studies that would ever convince Russel to create a propaganda film that encouraged women to go get their labia and clitoral hood removed? What "reduction rate" would ever convince her to create a film promoting labiaplasties as "another tool in the fight against HIV for those women who request it?" 60%? 70%? 100%? Yes? No? Maybe so?
Russel might say that, even if these "studies" were correct, that promoting them would be a mistake because they would be misused to perpetuate the forced genital mutilation of non-consenting women. That while the studies might only endorse “voluntary female medical circumcision” or “VFMC,” as it might be called, tribal leaders would use WHO endorsement to perform traditional variations of circumcision, which may include infibulation. And she would be correct. But why isn’t this a concern regarding the forced genital mutilation of non-consenting men?
Why don’t "researchers" seem to be concerned that their "studies" will be endorsing brutal circumcision rituals? That tribal leaders will use their studies to perpetuate the forced genital mutilation of boys and men? Why don’t they seem to care that frauds that aren’t even real tribal shamans are taking advantage of the WHO endorsement to cash in on circumcision rituals? That scores of boys and men die in South Africa every year due to tribal initiations involving circumcisions? That countless more lose their penises to gangrene? Why isn’t THIS a concern?
Are boys and men simply that worthless and disposable?
I know that in my last post I made some cutting remarks, but I think they were warranted. Do I "hate" Lisa Russel? Only with the "hate" a Greenpeace activist might have for somebody writing a pseudo-scientific documentary on the benefits and virtues of whaling. Lisa Russel is choosing to ride the circumcision/HIV gravy train for USAID brownie points and promote what is essentially male genital mutilation in the name of humanitarian aid. She needs to know that such endorsement of human rights violation, even if thinly veiled as "medicine" is not going to be taken lightly. She is gravely mistaken if she thinks she can create something like this and not hear back from actual human rights activists.
In spite of my anger, I think I've asked legitimate questions, but Russel has chosen to make this about hurt feelings instead (her own). This demonstrates to me what she really cares about; not about humanity, not about HIV prevention at all. It's all about "me, me, me," and she has just confirmed it. All she cares about is attention and validation for her and her films.
When men in Africa realize that circumcision failed to protect them from HIV, will Russel be there to film their faces of betrayal? When the circumcision/HIV hoax blows over, will she have the courage to film herself admitting that she helped spread lies in the name of disease prevention and humanity? Will she own her words and be responsible? When pressed once again for answers, would she admit she wasn't fully infromed? Or would she once again put on the victim act?
Labels:
Africa,
HIV,
Lisa Russel,
USAID
Friday, July 1, 2011
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?
![]()
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
![]()
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
"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.
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
Labels:
Africa,
circumcision and hiv,
Lisa Russel,
PEPFAR,
soka uncobe,
Swaziland,
UNICEF,
USAID
Monday, June 27, 2011
SWAZILAND: Compulsory Circumcision Law Proposed
So while intactivists are fighting in San Francisco to ban the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants, officials in Swaziland are trying to make it legally compulsory for all men, under the mistaken belief that circumcision does anything in the fight against HIV.
According to the Swazi Observer, there is a group of women advocating this law, and demanding chiefs cooperate in making sure the law was followed. Men who refused to be circumcised would be fined.
Discussions and lectures were organized by the Swazi Ministry of Health. Apparently Swaziland has a "National Male Circumcision Director." I can't even believe this!
Apparently the women believe that "having all men circumcised would not only help [the men], but the nation at large in that the risks of their wives contracting sexually transmitted diseases would decrease."
What in the WORLD are they feeding these women? Is the Swazi goverment on crack? Don't they know that the studies conflict with reality, and that even if they were 100% accurate, circumcision would not offer women any benefits?
I sense American influence behind this. Perhaps PEPFAR and Bill Gates are frustrated that the much hyped Soka Uncobe campaign is failing to help reach the proposed 80% quota, that now they are twisting Swazi officials arms to get a move on with the mass mutilation campaign?
And they want to do this even though HIV was shown to be more prevalent in circumcised men in this country?
"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)".
Studies show that circumcision is next to worthless in the fight against HIV. Actually, it's proving to be less than worthless, as it's leading men to believe that they don't have to wear condoms, making the situation worse. The Soka Uncobe campaign was the biggest blunder for the Swazi Ministry of Health because it sent the message that "Circumcise and Conquer" meant once you were circumcised you "conquered" HIV, and you could "conquer" all the women you want.
Circumcision gives men an excuse to be complacent with condoms, which, even if "studies" were correct, outperforms circumcision. And now they want to make circumcision for all the men compulsory?
![]()
Precisely what crock have Americans been feeding the men of Swaziland? Or are they simply that gullible?
The day is coming when this drive to mutilate the whole of Africa under the guise of HIV prevention will be seen for the despicable human rights atrocity that it is. Sooner or later America is going to have to be responsible.
How much longer before the world wakes up to this mass genocide being conducted in Africa?
EDIT (added 6-27-2011):
Just imagine. How would this story be reported in the news if it were the opposite? What if officials were pushing for a law that made female circumcision mandatory? What if there were men who wanted their women circumcised? How would that play out?
What if "studies showed" that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV" in women? Would American institutions of higher education pay to conduct "studies" to find this out? Would they fly to Africa, circumcise 1000 women and then follow them around to see who got AIDS first? And then use the results to say that "circumcision prevented HIV" in the women who didn't get it? Would they then use these "studies" to pressure the WHO to endorse female circumcision as HIV prevention policy? Would they pressure governments to enact "mass-circumcision campaigns" and compulsory laws?
Why, why, why is this acceptable to do with male circumcision?
Incidentally, "studies show" female circumcision could help "reduce the risk" of HIV here, here, and here. Not to mention that "studies" ALSO show that women who have been circumcised still experience sexual pleasure here and here.
So what are we waiting for! I don't see the WHO, UNAIDS, USAID, PEPFAR etc. getting behind this... Why, they're completely ignoring another "tool" in the fight against AIDS!
(Sorry for the sarcasm...)
According to the Swazi Observer, there is a group of women advocating this law, and demanding chiefs cooperate in making sure the law was followed. Men who refused to be circumcised would be fined.
Discussions and lectures were organized by the Swazi Ministry of Health. Apparently Swaziland has a "National Male Circumcision Director." I can't even believe this!
Apparently the women believe that "having all men circumcised would not only help [the men], but the nation at large in that the risks of their wives contracting sexually transmitted diseases would decrease."
What in the WORLD are they feeding these women? Is the Swazi goverment on crack? Don't they know that the studies conflict with reality, and that even if they were 100% accurate, circumcision would not offer women any benefits?
I sense American influence behind this. Perhaps PEPFAR and Bill Gates are frustrated that the much hyped Soka Uncobe campaign is failing to help reach the proposed 80% quota, that now they are twisting Swazi officials arms to get a move on with the mass mutilation campaign?
And they want to do this even though HIV was shown to be more prevalent in circumcised men in this country?
"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)".
Studies show that circumcision is next to worthless in the fight against HIV. Actually, it's proving to be less than worthless, as it's leading men to believe that they don't have to wear condoms, making the situation worse. The Soka Uncobe campaign was the biggest blunder for the Swazi Ministry of Health because it sent the message that "Circumcise and Conquer" meant once you were circumcised you "conquered" HIV, and you could "conquer" all the women you want.
Circumcision gives men an excuse to be complacent with condoms, which, even if "studies" were correct, outperforms circumcision. And now they want to make circumcision for all the men compulsory?
Precisely what crock have Americans been feeding the men of Swaziland? Or are they simply that gullible?
The day is coming when this drive to mutilate the whole of Africa under the guise of HIV prevention will be seen for the despicable human rights atrocity that it is. Sooner or later America is going to have to be responsible.
How much longer before the world wakes up to this mass genocide being conducted in Africa?
EDIT (added 6-27-2011):
Just imagine. How would this story be reported in the news if it were the opposite? What if officials were pushing for a law that made female circumcision mandatory? What if there were men who wanted their women circumcised? How would that play out?
What if "studies showed" that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV" in women? Would American institutions of higher education pay to conduct "studies" to find this out? Would they fly to Africa, circumcise 1000 women and then follow them around to see who got AIDS first? And then use the results to say that "circumcision prevented HIV" in the women who didn't get it? Would they then use these "studies" to pressure the WHO to endorse female circumcision as HIV prevention policy? Would they pressure governments to enact "mass-circumcision campaigns" and compulsory laws?
Why, why, why is this acceptable to do with male circumcision?
Incidentally, "studies show" female circumcision could help "reduce the risk" of HIV here, here, and here. Not to mention that "studies" ALSO show that women who have been circumcised still experience sexual pleasure here and here.
So what are we waiting for! I don't see the WHO, UNAIDS, USAID, PEPFAR etc. getting behind this... Why, they're completely ignoring another "tool" in the fight against AIDS!
(Sorry for the sarcasm...)
Labels:
America,
compulsory circumcision,
legislation,
PEPFAR,
soka uncobe,
Swaziland
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)