Circumcision a Licence to Infect & Contract HIV

In 2010 the chairman of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in Press stated as a Response to pro-circumcision propaganda that circumcision was like a "surgical vaccine" said that "this Message is a recipe for a public health disaster"...........  And he's right!!!!!!

Another report from Africa stating recently circumcision is increasing unsafe sex behaviours:

http://www.bnltimes.com/index.php/daily-times/headlines/features/12423-male-circumcision-a-ticking-bomb


In Malawi recently Circumcised men go on sexual rampage believing they are immune from HIV:


http://mondofown.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/circumcision-looming-public-health.html

Research from Carribbean shows circumcised men with higher HIV & STI's

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02871.x/abstract


The latest evidence from Zimbabwe (Wednesday, 11 July 2012 15:35 Source AfricaReport) shows higher infections in circumcised men who believe they are now protected from HIV:

http://www.theafricareport.com/index.php/20120711501815186/southern-africa/zimbabwe-concern-over-high-hiv-rates-among-circumcised-males-501815186.html#.T_5XIkR-OzI.twitter

From a USAID report: "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." http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms". http://www.info.gov.za/issues/hiv/survey_2009.htm
From the committee of the South African Medical Association Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee : "the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission."

The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60998-3/abstract

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery seems likely to cost African lives rather than save them.Male circumcision offers zero protection from HIV to females, with one trial showing the opposite, that male circumcision increased infections to female partners by 54% compared to intact partners, when the male partner was already HIV positive.  See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2905212/  In the male trials a significant number of circumcised men became infected with HIV proving circumcision is at best only partially effective and therefore condoms are absolutely nevessary. (Why then get circumcised?)

The circumcision campaigns in Africa are targeting all men to be circumcised, and are not screening out those already HIV positive.

Reports in Press from Africa, are claiming recently circumcised men are stating they are now immunized against HIV and no longer need to use condoms.   Because, Most of these men are not being screened for HIV, therefore if they are already HIV positive, their recent circumcision gives them a licence to infect!
In African Press recently:

Report says circumcision does not reduce chances of HIV and other STD infection

Test by lloyd on 6/08/12

By Tsitsi Matope

However, with huge campaigns advocating male circumcision, the Circumcision Resource Centre researchers said there are possibilities that this could result in lower condom use, with some people mistakenly believing circumcision meant “a natural condom.”
The American Medical Association, in its recent journal, stated that “behavioural factors were far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, which cannot be responsibly viewed as protecting against such infections”.
It further states promoting unnecessary surgery when much less-invasive, less-costly and more-effective methods such as condoms, were available, raised ethical concerns and conflicted with common sense.
“The cost of one circumcision in Africa can pay for 3000 condoms, which also have the advantage of protecting women without any surgical risks and complications,” the journal noted.
Other surveys have also condemned male circumcision as genital mutilation that decreased sexual sensitivity and caused wide-ranging psychological consequences.
HIV-prevention expert Mohlabi, meanwhile, appears to concur with those taking the circumcision advocacy apart.
“There were a lot of issues that researchers in trials held in Kenya, Uganda and Zambia, for instance, might not have known for sure when they were conducting their studies because in such a study, it is difficult to control the group. For instance, one needs to establish whether the circumcised men were not using any other protection,” Mohlabi said, adding the low-risk perception after circumcision had also contributed to some men indulging in risky sexual behaviour.
“The perception that I’m circumcised and therefore, not so much at risk of acquiring HIV, has caused some men to do away with the use of condoms. The procedure might have a bearing on reducing infection but our major battle is how to ensure consistency on the use of condoms after circumcision.”

What a public health disaster!!!!!!!!