Circumcision is not a Surgical Vaccine

I have borrowed from the work of Dr Robert Darby of Circinfo.org (my additions are in bold italics)

This blog is to counter the argument that circumcision is like a surgical vaccine, and not a treatise on the pros & cons of vaccinations, that is another argument which I will not deal with here. The argument here establishes that circumcision is very different to the process and protection offered by vaccinations.

Circumcision promoters seem unable to grasp the fundamental difference between amputating body parts to provide limited protection against a rare disease to which the individual is unlikely to be exposed, and giving a person a needle that confers a high level of immunity to common or contagious diseases. The justification for vaccination of non-consenting children is that the diseases to which it confers immunity are common and/or highly contagious. Airborne diseases, such as smallpox, diphtheria, measles and scarlet fever were all major killers before vaccines were developed. Edward Jenner’s vaccine against smallpox was one of the few preventive health success stories of the nineteenth century. Because such diseases are spread by breathing, one person can quickly infect many others: a single child can infect a class or a whole school, just by being there. Vaccination thus protects both the individual who receives the treatment and the people with whom he comes into contact.  Obviously HIV is not spread by being in the same room as others and breathing their air!


Unlike these diseases, HIV is a low-virulence disease. It is very difficult to pass on a disease that is spread by bodily fluids such as blood and sperm, which must enter the bloodstream of the other person before they can do any harm. No matter how much close social interaction with other people there is, there is no risk that an HIV-positive person can pass on the virus to anybody else – unless he or she has unprotected sexual intercourse or otherwise transfers bodily fluids into the other person’s system. Even in cases of unprotected intercourse, the risk of infection is quite low – estimated at rather less than 10 per cent. Quite apart from the vital matter of disfigurement, the justification for vaccination against highly contagious diseases simply does not apply to HIV-AIDS.  Vaccinations do not physically disfigure whereas circumcision does. Even if circumcised one must still wear a condom to avoid infection which doesnt make circumcision much of a vaccine, and you've lost the pleasures and function of the foreskin.


Circumcision is amputation of a prominent, functional body part that causes injury, loss and harm for a merely speculative gain. Vaccination is a harmless pinprick that strengthens the body’s natural defence mechanisms and confers a high level of immunity against contagious diseases.  (There appears to be some evidence that vaccinations are not a harmless pinprick for all babies, with complications evident for some babies, but that is not the argument here)

Vaccinations confer lifelong immunity in all situations to both genders, no matter sexual orientation, whether one is a IV drug user, whereas there is no proof circumcision confers lifelong  protection as trials were halted after 18 to 24 months, there is no evidence of immunity to HIV (At best viral entry points are reduced but not eliminated, but no immunity to HIV is conferred), circumcised males appear to infect female partners at higher rates, gay men have no protection, IV drug users have no protection, young children dont have sex, and you still have to wear a condom if circumcised.............. Not much of a vaccine!!