What you'll find people from circumcision cultures doing is to pair infant circumcision with breastfeeding as a way of normalising the practice of infant circumcision, trying to associate healthy breastfeeding with circumcision, well lets just compare circumcision with breastfeeding, and see how they compare with each other in infant development? Before the comparison its worth noting that in recent deaths from circumcision breastfeeding the baby following a circumcision has been used as the cause of death??? WOW, they want the association with breastfeeding but willing to trash Breastfeeding as soon as a baby dies from circumcision, SAYS IT ALL REALLY!!!!!!!!
Proximity = In Breastfeeding the infant is in close proximity to mother facilitating attachment vs circumcision the baby is taken away from mother disrupting attachment.
Attachment = The infant attaches to mother via breastfeeding vs circumcision disrupts attachment with separation, gaze aversion, pain and often trauma.
Soothing = Breastfeeding soothes the baby vs circumcision causes the baby excruitiating pain.
Development = Breastfeeding facilitates development via nutrition and attachment, vs circumcision creates stress responses including cortisol elevation, and stops the penis from developing as nature intended.
Feeding = Breastfeeding is a primary source of feeding vs circumcision disrupts the breastfeeding process with many babies refusing to feed following circumcision
Neural development = Breastfeeding facilitates neural and brain development, vs circumcision which causes a flood of cortisol in the brain, which has been found to cause neural pruning
Urinary Tract Infections = Breastfeeding babies appear to have protective effect for UTI's vs circumcision has been documented to cause UTI's shortly after circumcision
Death = Breastfeeding never causes death, whereas circumcision does. OH .....if a baby dies from circumcision then you can blame breastfeeding, in order to protect circumcision breastfeeding is trashed as happened in Africa recently (Reported in Press).
Human Rights & Ethics = Breastfeeding is normal natural & healthy and has never been a human rights issue, other than every baby deseves it if possible, whereas infant circumcision is widely seen as a human rights violation & medically unethical.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Circumcision Propaganda Spin - Parents & Health Benefits
If you take a look at the latest pro-circumcision propaganda spin, the two main themes are around "Parents make the best decisions for their children", and "Circumcision has proven health benefits". It appears they either have employed a clever PR consultant or are just clever at applying political spin to the subject of circumcision.
Firstly with the "Motherhood" statement that "parents always know whats best for their children", I mean superficially who the hell would ever want to disagree with that? Only deviants? Its Great PR spin!!! But, it doesnt take much closer examination, and a look at some basic facts to see that this statement is not all what it seeems to be. Take the area of child protection as one example, The main offenders of child abuse, including, neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse are the Parents of the children. So here is some factual evidence that demonstrates parents dont always know or do whats best for their children. Another point to make is you can only know whats best when you know all the facts. If Most American parents are told and believe that the foreskin is a useless piece of skin, instead of the truth that it is a functional sex organ in its own right, then the circumcision decision is made by uninformed parents. If parents knew the truth would they make the same decision for their children. American parents are also told that circumcision is painless & risk free. Would these parents make the same decision if they knew how much pain their baby would endure, and the risks of complications? So how can parents make the best decision when they dont know all the facts??
The "Proven health benefits claim" comes from a selection of research which is usually poorly designed, with methodological flaws and is never contrasted to the research that has opposite or different findings. The most important data in health/medicine is usually epidemiological data, which is actual population data of health outcomes i real life. Not data from poorly designed and methodolically flawed studies. Its what actually occurs in the real world. Epidemiology finds = The healthiest longest lived people with the lowest STI's/HIV, with lowest infant mortality are from non-circumcision cultures of EU & Japan. This epidemiological evidence actually finds that intact people are the healthiest in the world. Of course American Parents are never told this.
Although procirc spin is very very clever it just doesnt stand up to closer scrutiny.
Firstly with the "Motherhood" statement that "parents always know whats best for their children", I mean superficially who the hell would ever want to disagree with that? Only deviants? Its Great PR spin!!! But, it doesnt take much closer examination, and a look at some basic facts to see that this statement is not all what it seeems to be. Take the area of child protection as one example, The main offenders of child abuse, including, neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse are the Parents of the children. So here is some factual evidence that demonstrates parents dont always know or do whats best for their children. Another point to make is you can only know whats best when you know all the facts. If Most American parents are told and believe that the foreskin is a useless piece of skin, instead of the truth that it is a functional sex organ in its own right, then the circumcision decision is made by uninformed parents. If parents knew the truth would they make the same decision for their children. American parents are also told that circumcision is painless & risk free. Would these parents make the same decision if they knew how much pain their baby would endure, and the risks of complications? So how can parents make the best decision when they dont know all the facts??
The "Proven health benefits claim" comes from a selection of research which is usually poorly designed, with methodological flaws and is never contrasted to the research that has opposite or different findings. The most important data in health/medicine is usually epidemiological data, which is actual population data of health outcomes i real life. Not data from poorly designed and methodolically flawed studies. Its what actually occurs in the real world. Epidemiology finds = The healthiest longest lived people with the lowest STI's/HIV, with lowest infant mortality are from non-circumcision cultures of EU & Japan. This epidemiological evidence actually finds that intact people are the healthiest in the world. Of course American Parents are never told this.
Although procirc spin is very very clever it just doesnt stand up to closer scrutiny.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Research finds that Australian Children have superior health outcomes compared to when Circumcision was common
Health Outcomes in Children taken from Circinfo.org =
Firstly, A recent Australian (2009) research found that present day Australian Children had far superior health outcomes to when routine infant circumcision was common, read as follows:
"The health of Australia’s children continues to improve, according to the latest report on child health from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, A Picture of Australia's Children 2009. During the period 1986-2006 there was a dramatic decline in infant and child deaths (which fell by half), improved survival in cases of cancer, and a reduction in the incidence of asthma.
These are significant findings, given that the period 1986 to 2006 witnessed a huge decline in the incidence of circumcision, from about 40 per cent of boys in the early 1980s to about 10 per cent in 2006. It is thus good empirical proof that “lack of circumcision” does not increase child health problems. Even more significantly, it is a decisive refutation of “scientific” predictions by Terry Russell, Brian Morris and other diehard promoters of routine circumcision that the fall in the circumcision rate would lead to an explosion of genito-urinary problems in boys and an ever-increasing death toll from urinary tract and bladder infections. No such problems are identified in this report, which does not even mention any health problems affecting the genito-urinary area.
On the contrary, the halving of the death rate among infants and children suggests that leaving the foreskin in place could even have significantly improved child health outcomes and contributed to the decline in infant and child mortality. It is, after all, quite illogical to claim that a boy with wound on his penis is somehow healthier than a boy who has not been injured there. As the British child health expert N.R.C. Roberton points out, “it is fundamentally illogical that mutilating someone might be beneficial.” *
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is the Australian Government’s premier health research foundation.
The full report and press release can be downloaded from the AIHW website.
Further Reading, data which refutes the idea circumcision leads to better health outcomes:
Reference
N.R.C. Roberton, “Care of the Normal Term Newborn Baby,” in Textbook of Neonatology, eds. Janet M. Rennie, N.R.C. Roberton, 3rd edn. (Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston, 1999), 378-379.
Health Outcomes in Children taken from Circinfo.org =
Firstly, A recent Australian (2009) research found that present day Australian Children had far superior health outcomes to when routine infant circumcision was common, read as follows:
"The health of Australia’s children continues to improve, according to the latest report on child health from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, A Picture of Australia's Children 2009. During the period 1986-2006 there was a dramatic decline in infant and child deaths (which fell by half), improved survival in cases of cancer, and a reduction in the incidence of asthma.
These are significant findings, given that the period 1986 to 2006 witnessed a huge decline in the incidence of circumcision, from about 40 per cent of boys in the early 1980s to about 10 per cent in 2006. It is thus good empirical proof that “lack of circumcision” does not increase child health problems. Even more significantly, it is a decisive refutation of “scientific” predictions by Terry Russell, Brian Morris and other diehard promoters of routine circumcision that the fall in the circumcision rate would lead to an explosion of genito-urinary problems in boys and an ever-increasing death toll from urinary tract and bladder infections. No such problems are identified in this report, which does not even mention any health problems affecting the genito-urinary area.
On the contrary, the halving of the death rate among infants and children suggests that leaving the foreskin in place could even have significantly improved child health outcomes and contributed to the decline in infant and child mortality. It is, after all, quite illogical to claim that a boy with wound on his penis is somehow healthier than a boy who has not been injured there. As the British child health expert N.R.C. Roberton points out, “it is fundamentally illogical that mutilating someone might be beneficial.” *
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is the Australian Government’s premier health research foundation.
The full report and press release can be downloaded from the AIHW website.
Further Reading, data which refutes the idea circumcision leads to better health outcomes:
Reference
N.R.C. Roberton, “Care of the Normal Term Newborn Baby,” in Textbook of Neonatology, eds. Janet M. Rennie, N.R.C. Roberton, 3rd edn. (Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston, 1999), 378-379.
Firstly, A recent Australian (2009) research found that present day Australian Children had far superior health outcomes to when routine infant circumcision was common, read as follows:
"The health of Australia’s children continues to improve, according to the latest report on child health from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, A Picture of Australia's Children 2009. During the period 1986-2006 there was a dramatic decline in infant and child deaths (which fell by half), improved survival in cases of cancer, and a reduction in the incidence of asthma.
These are significant findings, given that the period 1986 to 2006 witnessed a huge decline in the incidence of circumcision, from about 40 per cent of boys in the early 1980s to about 10 per cent in 2006. It is thus good empirical proof that “lack of circumcision” does not increase child health problems. Even more significantly, it is a decisive refutation of “scientific” predictions by Terry Russell, Brian Morris and other diehard promoters of routine circumcision that the fall in the circumcision rate would lead to an explosion of genito-urinary problems in boys and an ever-increasing death toll from urinary tract and bladder infections. No such problems are identified in this report, which does not even mention any health problems affecting the genito-urinary area.
On the contrary, the halving of the death rate among infants and children suggests that leaving the foreskin in place could even have significantly improved child health outcomes and contributed to the decline in infant and child mortality. It is, after all, quite illogical to claim that a boy with wound on his penis is somehow healthier than a boy who has not been injured there. As the British child health expert N.R.C. Roberton points out, “it is fundamentally illogical that mutilating someone might be beneficial.” *
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is the Australian Government’s premier health research foundation.
The full report and press release can be downloaded from the AIHW website.
Further Reading, data which refutes the idea circumcision leads to better health outcomes:
Reference
N.R.C. Roberton, “Care of the Normal Term Newborn Baby,” in Textbook of Neonatology, eds. Janet M. Rennie, N.R.C. Roberton, 3rd edn. (Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston, 1999), 378-379.
Monday, October 17, 2011
How bad is the African HIV Circumcision research?
|
Thursday, September 29, 2011
HPV infections findings of Thorough Research versus Inadequate Research
Below is a study from University of washington which found a slight but non-statistically significant higher HPV infection rate in circumcised men compared to intact men. This contrasts with African research which found higher HPV infections in intact men. However, when you look at the methodologies, you find the African researchers only tested for HPV at 1 site, the glans, versus the washington uni tested for HPV at multiple sites on the penis. The more thorough investigation found a reported "no difference in HPV infections" using the more thorough methodology. If you read the statistics circumcised men actually had had higher HPV rates with the ratio of 10 circumcised had infections versus 9 intact had HPV infections .
Circumcised men at equal risk of HPV infection
A large-scale study at the University of Washington has found no difference in the incidence of HPV infection between circumcised and uncircumcised male college students. HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) is a large group of viruses that may cause genital warts, and are implicated in the genesis of genital cancers. HPV is very common among the sexually active population. but most people never show any symptoms. The risk factors for the development of cancer have been shown to be numerous different sexual partners and smoking. The new study confirmed previous research which showed that the location of the virus differed between circumcised and uncircumcised men: circumcised men tend to carry the virus on the shaft skin of the penis, while intact men are more likely to carry it on the glans. The study also also found that circumcised men have more sexual partners. In a previous study the researchers found found that for college females the circumcision status of their partner was NOT a risk factor for HPV infection in women. The authors comment that the African Random Clinical Trials, which seemed to show that uncircumcised men were more likely to carry the HPV virus, were seriously flawed because they took samples only from the glans (not from the shaft skin, where the virus is concentrated in the circumcised).ABSTRACT
Background: The role of circumcision in male HPV acquisition is not clear.
Methods: Male university students (aged 18–20 years) were recruited from 2003 to 2009 and followed up triannually. Shaft/scrotum, glans, and urine samples were tested for 37 human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes. Cox proportional hazards methods were used to evaluate the association between circumcision and HPV acquisition. Logistic regression was used to assess whether the number of genital sites infected at incident HPV detection or site of incident detection varied by circumcision status.
Results: In 477 men, rates of acquiring clinically relevant HPV types (high-risk types plus types 6 and 11) did not differ significantly by circumcision status (hazard ratio for uncircumcised relative to circumcised subjects: 0.9 [95% confidence interval{CI}: 0.7–1.2]). However, compared with circumcised men, uncircumcised men were 10.1 (95% CI: 2.9 –35.6) times more likely to have the same HPV type detected in all 3 genital specimens than in a single genital specimen and were 2.7 (95% CI: 1.6–4.5) times more likely to have an HPV-positive urine or glans specimen at first detection.
Conclusion: We found no differences by circumcision status in overall HPV acquisition or in number of HPV types acquired. Findings held for all clinically relevant HPV types, as well as for the subgroups of high-risk types, high-risk -9 types, and HPV-16. This observation is consistent with findings from other longitudinal studies.
Bottom line: Circumcision does not lower the risk of infection with Human Papilloma Virus. People who claim that uncircumcised men are more likely to develop or communicate genital cancers are ignoring the facts and spreading misleading information.
Source: Kelley Van Buskirk et al, Circumcision and Acquisition of Human Papillomavirus Infection in Young Men, Sexually Transmitted Diseases 38 (12), December 2011.
Journal homepage: http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/pages/default.aspx
Abstract available at journal - Published ahead of print: http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/toc/publishahead
Monday, August 29, 2011
New African HIV Research claiming 76% reduction is flawed
New African research claiming circumcision reduces HIV infections by 76% actually compared young men who were interested and participated in the circumcision HIV prevention program who were given health care, education and other resources vs older men who were not interested and didnt participate in the program and were not resourced by the programmers, and Researchers found a difference in infection rates? Is this surprising? You are talking about 2 different types of men with different beliefs, values and behaviours. One group that cares about HIV prevention and is prepared to receive help, have a healthy body part removed, and to change their behaviour to more safe sex, versus another group which cares less about HIV prevention, does not want to participate in a prevention program, and is most probably less prepared to change their behaviour. Yet these researchers just focus on the variable of Circumcision.
HELLO which variables are causing the change!!!!!! This is typical procirc propaganda and Disingenuous Science & Reporting!! And as usual the media reports it as fact!!
HELLO which variables are causing the change!!!!!! This is typical procirc propaganda and Disingenuous Science & Reporting!! And as usual the media reports it as fact!!
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
What to say to dr's & nurses about foreskin retraction
It can be difficult to communicate with those in positions of power or authority so here is just one suggestions on how to make this easier. Many other sources have other suggestions.
In our decision to keep our son intact and refuse circumcision we have adopted the medical/health models from non-circumcision cultures which understand and value the foreskin. In those cultures the foreskin is seen as normal and healthy, and the foreskin is not retracted until the boy retracts it himself. Anatomically the foreskin is fused to the glans and separates naturally, and this is seen as a normal developmental process. Forceably retracting the foreskin is seen as harmful, and can cause health problems including infections. We would appreciate that you respect our position and or refer us on if you cannot. (You can type/copy this and hand to doctors)
If the doctor or nurse responds to you with health reasons to retract. You can respond by saying, that In cultures that value the foreskin like the Europeans, Men are healthier, live longer, and have less STI/HIV and penile cancer than circumcised American men, and therefore you want to follow the genito/urinary practices of the European health authorities which say no to premature retraction.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Respone to David Wilton @mc_hiv
This is a response to David Wilton's summary of his trip to UNAIDS Rome, where in the end he asks for responses from the intactivist community, my responses will be in bold, David Wilton's article has been reproduced in plain text:
I perceived our interaction with the delegates who chose to come by our booth as mostly positive. Excellent A few wanted to argue. A few said they agreed with us, but felt powerless to oppose the juggernaut. Almost none knew anything about foreskin anatomy or the purpose of the foreskin. Thats our/your job to educate., and you educated, even though some did not want to listen. Those who said they agreed with us were from non-circumcising countries, including Cambodia, Russia, Brazil, Colombia, Italy, South Africans descended from non-South African tribes, Australians, and really anyone who has had or experienced a foreskin outside of Africa. You provided an alternative voice, as the circumcision promoters want to use this platform as a way of arguing for infant circumcision, and therefore your presence was strategically important.
The ones who know what a foreskin is and how it impacts comfort, health, and sexual pleasure were with us. Of Course its just common sense. Those who did not have this experience or knowledge where skeptical. I concluded somewhere through the middle of the four days of the conference that our message was not going to succeed on refuting the risk reduction impact of circumcision, but on informing about the benefits of the foreskin. Ignorant people, including Auvert, Piot, Fauci, Bailey, Westercamp, Gray, Weiss, and others, cannot be expected to provide informed consent in their circumcision consent generating interviews when they know little about the appendage they propose to cut off - and couldn't care less anyway. This is the ethical issue, that we must fight for and insist on, informed consent, of all the facts, including the anatomy and function of the foreskin, and the limitations of the protective effect of circumcision.
Worse still is the possibility that the information told to circumcision candidates is inaccurate or may trivialize foreskin anatomy and function. Truthful & Factual information is important in providing informed consent and ethical, this needs to be highlighted in peer review journals, that the ethics of this program need to be questioned. One argument that came up with a group of Ugandans was that a little bit of pleasure was worth losing for the benefit gained. They are entitled to take this position, as adults they can trade part of their functional anatomy for another gain. Obviously they need to be fully informed about the limits of the gain, because if they are trading their foreskin for completet protection from HIV then that is a fraud. So accurate informed consent is the ethical issue here. Clearly, this common counterargument had been subsumed in the discussion and discounted long before IAS 2011. Not once but often we heard the refrain, do you have any evidence to support your position? Our answer was to refer to the myriad published studies that support our contentions usually through reinterpretation. This was not often convincing to a skeptical scientific audience. Your job is to provide truthful accurate information and not the impossible which is to convince those that do not want to believe. You need to clarify what arguments you want to make, at one level it is a bit unclear to me also.
The question is how can we provide any plausible counterarguments if we are not in Africa, not doing the research, not involved in the roll out or planning phases of circumcision campaigns, and generally confined behind our screens and keyboards. That is the crux of the issue. The circumcision lobby has gone into Africa, and whatever their motivations, they have bought 100's of millions of dollars of medical resources, to combat a disease that has cost 10's of millions of lives. How can you possibly be expected to compete with that. If we could get a wealthy benefactor such as Gates to donate hundreds of millions of dollars and provide healthcare and education, retroviral medication, offering a non-surgical solution for Africa's HIV epidemic, then we may have earned greater influence. At the very least, we need to present something even if it is only within our booth and not part of the official program. With the resources you had, you did brilliant, just need to have realistic expectations about what is possible with only a small percentage of the resources you had. We either get involved or sit it out and let the circumcisers continue to drive developments. This conference clarified this for me. Clarify your goals what are they? Is it to end infant ciircumcision in America or to end HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa? What adult volunteers decide to do with their bodies is different to what you do to a baby that cannot consent! This is the key argument. Proper Informed consent is a valid criticism, and you can make points here. Only adults can make proper informed consent. Babies cannot become informed or consent. Babies havent yet decided what life-style options they will pursue, and are not yet aware of the circumstances of their environment = such as do they live in a high risk hiv prevalance area or a low risk low hiv prevalance area?
I call on the community of intactivists to think this through and come up with a strategy that will arm us with better information and counterarguments to face this threat to genital integrity and informed consent in Africa and ultimately the United States. From a scientific point of view, intactivist who are peers of the scientists making claims of 70% reductions in HIV infections, have to examine the methodology and results of the published work and write to peer review journals, identifying the scientific/methodological floors if there are any. Superficially, there appears to be many confounding factors in what is being reported.
The well known evidence/arguments are established and as follows;
How is HIV sexually acquired and sexually spread, & How can we reduce or eliminate infections. The further question = Does circumcision reduce HIV sexually acquired and spread infections and if so how?
Sexually acquied HIV is acquired through sexual activity, hypothesised to be least likely via dermal (skin) absorption, and most likely via blood exposures, through micro-tears in genital/human skin. The greatest risk factor in the spread of the disease is unprotected sex spread via multiple sex partners.
Well established and universally recognised prevention methods are Education and behaviour change. Using condoms appear the most effective way of reducing skin and blood exposures. Behaviour change can be very challenging though. Changing sexual practices such as having sex with multiple sex partners is difficult as there are powerful cultural variables at play. Long term education is required here. Unfortunately one of the greatest risk factors is the possibility of behavioural disinhibition, with circumcision becoming a licence for unprotected sex with multiple sex partners. One auther quoted a non-statistically significamt figure of 0.84 condom use of circumcised men compared to intact men.
What has science found that works :
1. Condoms are very effective, however the reality is humans dont consistently use them. The key here would be how to get humans to use condoms more consistently. Europe which has the lowest HIV infections in the western world also has the highest condom usage. If its education wealth and healthcare that are the variables here, Africa is a long way from Europe and may require additional strategies.
2. Current HIV vaccines have only proven partial effectiveness. More work needs to be done here, and its hope lies in the future.
3. HIV Viral medication appears promising. More research and money needed here to up-scale these programs.
4. Controversially male circumcision has been found to have an effect in partially reducing exposures for males who have sex with females, but does not protect females, or men who have sex with men. Controversially because there have been many criticisms of the male circumcison trials and the methodology used, and some then use this data to advocate universal infant circumcision, which has issues of consent, and whose body is it. Some of the confounding factors include how much has the education, attention, clinical input, and being part of these campaigns reduced HIV infections versus the circumcision itself.
5. If circumcision is partially effective how does it work. Removing the foreskin removes a large area of genital skin, and therefore reduces skin absorption and micro-tears in genital skin and potential blood exposures. So in a way it has to work in part. The questions here are as follows? Why just stop at male genital skin, why not offer the same partial protection option to females? The vulva will have the same risk factors as the male foreskin, research has found a correlation between lower hiv infections in circumcised African women. Western values of course will intervene. However, if adult males can be fully informed about the limitations of the protection of circumcision, and the anatomical losses of the foreskin, they are aware of whether they live in a high or low hiv prevalence are, then it is an option for them to choose for themselves.
6. Ethics, it is one thing for an adult male to make a fully informed consent decision, versus infant circumcision where the human being has no say over their body or future lifestyle options, not to mention the risks of complications of the surgery on a baby who cannot consent.
7. In the end Africans need to decide for themselves, we just need to make sure American, Australian, European Asian and Latin Maerican babies arent circumcised because of what Africans decide to do for themselves.
I perceived our interaction with the delegates who chose to come by our booth as mostly positive. Excellent A few wanted to argue. A few said they agreed with us, but felt powerless to oppose the juggernaut. Almost none knew anything about foreskin anatomy or the purpose of the foreskin. Thats our/your job to educate., and you educated, even though some did not want to listen. Those who said they agreed with us were from non-circumcising countries, including Cambodia, Russia, Brazil, Colombia, Italy, South Africans descended from non-South African tribes, Australians, and really anyone who has had or experienced a foreskin outside of Africa. You provided an alternative voice, as the circumcision promoters want to use this platform as a way of arguing for infant circumcision, and therefore your presence was strategically important.
The ones who know what a foreskin is and how it impacts comfort, health, and sexual pleasure were with us. Of Course its just common sense. Those who did not have this experience or knowledge where skeptical. I concluded somewhere through the middle of the four days of the conference that our message was not going to succeed on refuting the risk reduction impact of circumcision, but on informing about the benefits of the foreskin. Ignorant people, including Auvert, Piot, Fauci, Bailey, Westercamp, Gray, Weiss, and others, cannot be expected to provide informed consent in their circumcision consent generating interviews when they know little about the appendage they propose to cut off - and couldn't care less anyway. This is the ethical issue, that we must fight for and insist on, informed consent, of all the facts, including the anatomy and function of the foreskin, and the limitations of the protective effect of circumcision.
Worse still is the possibility that the information told to circumcision candidates is inaccurate or may trivialize foreskin anatomy and function. Truthful & Factual information is important in providing informed consent and ethical, this needs to be highlighted in peer review journals, that the ethics of this program need to be questioned. One argument that came up with a group of Ugandans was that a little bit of pleasure was worth losing for the benefit gained. They are entitled to take this position, as adults they can trade part of their functional anatomy for another gain. Obviously they need to be fully informed about the limits of the gain, because if they are trading their foreskin for completet protection from HIV then that is a fraud. So accurate informed consent is the ethical issue here. Clearly, this common counterargument had been subsumed in the discussion and discounted long before IAS 2011. Not once but often we heard the refrain, do you have any evidence to support your position? Our answer was to refer to the myriad published studies that support our contentions usually through reinterpretation. This was not often convincing to a skeptical scientific audience. Your job is to provide truthful accurate information and not the impossible which is to convince those that do not want to believe. You need to clarify what arguments you want to make, at one level it is a bit unclear to me also.
The question is how can we provide any plausible counterarguments if we are not in Africa, not doing the research, not involved in the roll out or planning phases of circumcision campaigns, and generally confined behind our screens and keyboards. That is the crux of the issue. The circumcision lobby has gone into Africa, and whatever their motivations, they have bought 100's of millions of dollars of medical resources, to combat a disease that has cost 10's of millions of lives. How can you possibly be expected to compete with that. If we could get a wealthy benefactor such as Gates to donate hundreds of millions of dollars and provide healthcare and education, retroviral medication, offering a non-surgical solution for Africa's HIV epidemic, then we may have earned greater influence. At the very least, we need to present something even if it is only within our booth and not part of the official program. With the resources you had, you did brilliant, just need to have realistic expectations about what is possible with only a small percentage of the resources you had. We either get involved or sit it out and let the circumcisers continue to drive developments. This conference clarified this for me. Clarify your goals what are they? Is it to end infant ciircumcision in America or to end HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa? What adult volunteers decide to do with their bodies is different to what you do to a baby that cannot consent! This is the key argument. Proper Informed consent is a valid criticism, and you can make points here. Only adults can make proper informed consent. Babies cannot become informed or consent. Babies havent yet decided what life-style options they will pursue, and are not yet aware of the circumstances of their environment = such as do they live in a high risk hiv prevalance area or a low risk low hiv prevalance area?
I call on the community of intactivists to think this through and come up with a strategy that will arm us with better information and counterarguments to face this threat to genital integrity and informed consent in Africa and ultimately the United States. From a scientific point of view, intactivist who are peers of the scientists making claims of 70% reductions in HIV infections, have to examine the methodology and results of the published work and write to peer review journals, identifying the scientific/methodological floors if there are any. Superficially, there appears to be many confounding factors in what is being reported.
The well known evidence/arguments are established and as follows;
How is HIV sexually acquired and sexually spread, & How can we reduce or eliminate infections. The further question = Does circumcision reduce HIV sexually acquired and spread infections and if so how?
Sexually acquied HIV is acquired through sexual activity, hypothesised to be least likely via dermal (skin) absorption, and most likely via blood exposures, through micro-tears in genital/human skin. The greatest risk factor in the spread of the disease is unprotected sex spread via multiple sex partners.
Well established and universally recognised prevention methods are Education and behaviour change. Using condoms appear the most effective way of reducing skin and blood exposures. Behaviour change can be very challenging though. Changing sexual practices such as having sex with multiple sex partners is difficult as there are powerful cultural variables at play. Long term education is required here. Unfortunately one of the greatest risk factors is the possibility of behavioural disinhibition, with circumcision becoming a licence for unprotected sex with multiple sex partners. One auther quoted a non-statistically significamt figure of 0.84 condom use of circumcised men compared to intact men.
What has science found that works :
1. Condoms are very effective, however the reality is humans dont consistently use them. The key here would be how to get humans to use condoms more consistently. Europe which has the lowest HIV infections in the western world also has the highest condom usage. If its education wealth and healthcare that are the variables here, Africa is a long way from Europe and may require additional strategies.
2. Current HIV vaccines have only proven partial effectiveness. More work needs to be done here, and its hope lies in the future.
3. HIV Viral medication appears promising. More research and money needed here to up-scale these programs.
4. Controversially male circumcision has been found to have an effect in partially reducing exposures for males who have sex with females, but does not protect females, or men who have sex with men. Controversially because there have been many criticisms of the male circumcison trials and the methodology used, and some then use this data to advocate universal infant circumcision, which has issues of consent, and whose body is it. Some of the confounding factors include how much has the education, attention, clinical input, and being part of these campaigns reduced HIV infections versus the circumcision itself.
5. If circumcision is partially effective how does it work. Removing the foreskin removes a large area of genital skin, and therefore reduces skin absorption and micro-tears in genital skin and potential blood exposures. So in a way it has to work in part. The questions here are as follows? Why just stop at male genital skin, why not offer the same partial protection option to females? The vulva will have the same risk factors as the male foreskin, research has found a correlation between lower hiv infections in circumcised African women. Western values of course will intervene. However, if adult males can be fully informed about the limitations of the protection of circumcision, and the anatomical losses of the foreskin, they are aware of whether they live in a high or low hiv prevalence are, then it is an option for them to choose for themselves.
6. Ethics, it is one thing for an adult male to make a fully informed consent decision, versus infant circumcision where the human being has no say over their body or future lifestyle options, not to mention the risks of complications of the surgery on a baby who cannot consent.
7. In the end Africans need to decide for themselves, we just need to make sure American, Australian, European Asian and Latin Maerican babies arent circumcised because of what Africans decide to do for themselves.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
A desonestidade de pesquisadores da circuncisão
A desonestidade de pesquisadores circuncisão nunca deixa de me surpreender, principalmente quando apresentam informações como fato para uma mídia crédula e público.
Mais recentemente, em um relatório da ONUSIDA em Roma Circuncisão Pesquisadores relataram que os programas de circuncisão havia sido eficaz em reduzir novas infecções por HIV em 55%.
O que realmente foi comparado homens que escolheu-se a fazer a circuncisão, que tendiam a ser mais jovens, mais instruídos e mais propensos a conhecer o seu estado HIV, que se oferecera para circumcison e tinha recebido educação, aconselhamento, triagem clínica, e preservativos gratuitos, e compararam suas taxas de novas infecções para os homens que se recusou a obter-se circuncidar, eram mais velhos, menos educados, menos provável que conheça o estado de HIV, tinha recebido menos ou nenhuma educação, aconselhamento, triagem clínica, ou preservativos gratuitos, basicamente, não participou em qualquer aspecto dos programas de intervenção.
A questão aqui é honesto científica quanto é que as variáveis: Idade, Educação Atitude, a circuncisão, aconselhamento, triagem clínica, Preservativos grátis, o conhecimento do estado serológico, e participação nos outros não-cirúrgico aspectos do programa de intervenção contribuir para diminuir infecções por HIV em comparação com o efeito da circuncisão??
No entanto, os pesquisadores circuncisão apresentar a diferença nas taxas de novas infecções como devido a circuncisão. Como desonesto e não-científica que é isso?
Mais recentemente, em um relatório da ONUSIDA em Roma Circuncisão Pesquisadores relataram que os programas de circuncisão havia sido eficaz em reduzir novas infecções por HIV em 55%.
O que realmente foi comparado homens que escolheu-se a fazer a circuncisão, que tendiam a ser mais jovens, mais instruídos e mais propensos a conhecer o seu estado HIV, que se oferecera para circumcison e tinha recebido educação, aconselhamento, triagem clínica, e preservativos gratuitos, e compararam suas taxas de novas infecções para os homens que se recusou a obter-se circuncidar, eram mais velhos, menos educados, menos provável que conheça o estado de HIV, tinha recebido menos ou nenhuma educação, aconselhamento, triagem clínica, ou preservativos gratuitos, basicamente, não participou em qualquer aspecto dos programas de intervenção.
A questão aqui é honesto científica quanto é que as variáveis: Idade, Educação Atitude, a circuncisão, aconselhamento, triagem clínica, Preservativos grátis, o conhecimento do estado serológico, e participação nos outros não-cirúrgico aspectos do programa de intervenção contribuir para diminuir infecções por HIV em comparação com o efeito da circuncisão??
No entanto, os pesquisadores circuncisão apresentar a diferença nas taxas de novas infecções como devido a circuncisão. Como desonesto e não-científica que é isso?
La malhonnêteté de la circoncision des chercheurs
La malhonnêteté de la circoncision n'a jamais chercheurs cesse de me surprendre, surtout quand ils présentent l'information comme un fait à un média crédules et public.
Plus récemment, dans un rapport de l'ONUSIDA dans les chercheurs circoncision de Rome a rapporté que les programmes de circoncision a été efficace dans la réduction des nouvelles infections à VIH de 55%.
Ce qu'ils comparés sont les hommes qui ont choisi de se faire circoncire, qui avaient tendance à être plus jeunes, mieux éduqués et plus susceptibles de connaître leur statut VIH, qui s'étaient portés volontaires pour circumcison et avait reçu l'éducation, le counseling, le dépistage clinique, et des préservatifs gratuits, et comparé leurs taux de nouvelles infections à des hommes qui ont refusé de se faire circoncire, étaient plus âgés, moins instruits, moins susceptibles de connaître le statut VIH, ont reçu moins ou pas d'éducation, le counseling, le dépistage clinique, des préservatifs gratuits ou, fondamentalement n'a pas participé à tous les aspects des programmes d'intervention.
La question ici est honnête scientifiques combien avez les variables suivantes: âge, éducation, attitude à la circoncision, de counselling, le dépistage clinique, des préservatifs gratuits, la connaissance du statut VIH, et la participation dans l'autre non-chirurgical des aspects du programme d'intervention contribuent à la baisse infections à VIH par rapport à l'effet de la circoncision???
Pourtant, les chercheurs de circoncision présenter la différence dans les taux de nouvelles infections en raison de la circoncision. Comment malhonnêtes et non scientifique est-ce?
Listen
Read phonetically
Dictionary
Нечестность обрезания исследователи
Нечестность обрезания исследователи никогда не перестает меня удивлять, особенно если они представляют информацию как факт, чтобы доверчивые СМИ и общественности.
Совсем недавно, в докладе ЮНЭЙДС в Риме Исследователи сообщили, что обрезание обрезание программы были эффективными в плане уменьшения числа новых ВИЧ-инфекций на 55%.
То, что они на самом деле по сравнению было людей, которые выбрали сами, чтобы сделать обрезание, который, как правило, моложе, лучше образованы и более вероятно, знают свой ВИЧ-статус, который добровольно circumcison и получил образование, консультирование, клиническая скрининга и бесплатные презервативы, а также по сравнению своих новых инфекций к мужчинам, которые отказались получить себе обрезание, были старше, менее образованы, менее вероятно, знаете ВИЧ-статуса, получил меньше или нет образования, консультирования, клинический скрининг, или бесплатные презервативы, в основном не участвовали в какой-либо аспект из программ вмешательства.
Честный научный вопрос здесь в том, сколько же переменные: возраст, образование, отношение к Обрезание, консультирование, клиническая Скрининг, бесплатные презервативы, знания о ВИЧ-статусе, а также участие в других не-хирургические аспекты вмешательства программы способствовать снижению ВИЧ-инфекции по сравнению с эффектом от обрезания??
Тем не менее исследователи обрезание настоящее разница в новых инфекций, как из-за обрезания. Как нечестные и ненаучным это?
Совсем недавно, в докладе ЮНЭЙДС в Риме Исследователи сообщили, что обрезание обрезание программы были эффективными в плане уменьшения числа новых ВИЧ-инфекций на 55%.
То, что они на самом деле по сравнению было людей, которые выбрали сами, чтобы сделать обрезание, который, как правило, моложе, лучше образованы и более вероятно, знают свой ВИЧ-статус, который добровольно circumcison и получил образование, консультирование, клиническая скрининга и бесплатные презервативы, а также по сравнению своих новых инфекций к мужчинам, которые отказались получить себе обрезание, были старше, менее образованы, менее вероятно, знаете ВИЧ-статуса, получил меньше или нет образования, консультирования, клинический скрининг, или бесплатные презервативы, в основном не участвовали в какой-либо аспект из программ вмешательства.
Честный научный вопрос здесь в том, сколько же переменные: возраст, образование, отношение к Обрезание, консультирование, клиническая Скрининг, бесплатные презервативы, знания о ВИЧ-статусе, а также участие в других не-хирургические аспекты вмешательства программы способствовать снижению ВИЧ-инфекции по сравнению с эффектом от обрезания??
Тем не менее исследователи обрезание настоящее разница в новых инфекций, как из-за обрезания. Как нечестные и ненаучным это?
割礼の研究者の不正行為
割礼の研究者の不誠実は、彼らはだまされやすいメディアや公衆に事実としての情報を提示する場合は特に、私を驚かせる停止はありません。
最近では、ローマの割礼の研究者のUNAIDSの報告書では割礼のプログラムが55％新たなHIV感染を減らすのに効果的であったことを報告した。
彼らは何を実際に比較して、若年層より良い教育を受けたとcircumcisonを志願していたと教育、カウンセリング、臨床スクリーニング、および無料のコンドームを受けた彼らのHIV感染状況を、知っている可能性が高くなる傾向割礼を得るために彼ら自身を選んだ男性は、であり、教育、カウンセリング、臨床スクリーニング、または無料のコンドームは、基本的にあらゆる側面に参加しなかった少ない受信またはnoをしていた、HIV感染の有無を知るために可能性が低く、、自身が割礼を取得することを拒否しない年齢が、低学歴の男性に彼らの新たな感染率を比較した介入プログラムの。
ここで正直な科学的な質問はの変数でしたどのくらいです：割礼の年齢、教育、態度を、カウンセリング、臨床スクリーニング、無料コンドーム、HIV感染の有無の知識、および介入プログラムの他の非外科的側面への参加は下げるために貢献するHIV感染は、割礼の効果と比較？
割礼が原因としてまだ割礼の研究者が新たな感染率の差を示す。それはどのように不正かつ非科学的でしょうか？
最近では、ローマの割礼の研究者のUNAIDSの報告書では割礼のプログラムが55％新たなHIV感染を減らすのに効果的であったことを報告した。
彼らは何を実際に比較して、若年層より良い教育を受けたとcircumcisonを志願していたと教育、カウンセリング、臨床スクリーニング、および無料のコンドームを受けた彼らのHIV感染状況を、知っている可能性が高くなる傾向割礼を得るために彼ら自身を選んだ男性は、であり、教育、カウンセリング、臨床スクリーニング、または無料のコンドームは、基本的にあらゆる側面に参加しなかった少ない受信またはnoをしていた、HIV感染の有無を知るために可能性が低く、、自身が割礼を取得することを拒否しない年齢が、低学歴の男性に彼らの新たな感染率を比較した介入プログラムの。
ここで正直な科学的な質問はの変数でしたどのくらいです：割礼の年齢、教育、態度を、カウンセリング、臨床スクリーニング、無料コンドーム、HIV感染の有無の知識、および介入プログラムの他の非外科的側面への参加は下げるために貢献するHIV感染は、割礼の効果と比較？
割礼が原因としてまだ割礼の研究者が新たな感染率の差を示す。それはどのように不正かつ非科学的でしょうか？
La falta de honradez de los investigadores circuncisión
La falta de honradez de los investigadores circuncisión nunca deja de sorprenderme, sobre todo cuando presentan la información como un hecho a los medios de comunicación y el público crédulo.
Más recientemente, en un informe de ONUSIDA, en Roma, los investigadores información sobre la circuncisión que los programas de circuncisión han sido eficaces en la reducción de nuevas infecciones por VIH en un 55%.
Lo que en realidad se comparó hombres que se optó por la circuncisión, que solían ser más jóvenes, mejor educados y más probabilidades de conocer su estado serológico, que se habían ofrecido para circumcison y había recibido la educación, el asesoramiento, la detección clínica, y condones gratuitos, y compararon sus tasas de nuevas infecciones a los hombres que se negaron a recibir ellos mismos la circuncisión, eran más viejos, menos educados, menos probabilidades de conocer el estado del VIH, había recibido menos o ninguna educación, consejería, la detección clínica, o preservativos gratuitos, básicamente no participar en ningún aspecto de los programas de intervención.
La pregunta científica honesta aquí es ¿hasta qué punto las variables: edad, educación, actitud hacia la circuncisión, Asesoramiento, Evaluación Clínica, condones gratis, conocimiento del estado serológico, y la participación en los otros no quirúrgicos aspectos del programa de intervención contribuirá a reducir los infecciones por VIH en comparación con el efecto de la circuncisión??
Sin embargo, los investigadores circuncisión actualidad, la diferencia en las tasas de infección por el nuevo debido a la circuncisión. ¿Cómo deshonesta y poco científico es eso?
Más recientemente, en un informe de ONUSIDA, en Roma, los investigadores información sobre la circuncisión que los programas de circuncisión han sido eficaces en la reducción de nuevas infecciones por VIH en un 55%.
Lo que en realidad se comparó hombres que se optó por la circuncisión, que solían ser más jóvenes, mejor educados y más probabilidades de conocer su estado serológico, que se habían ofrecido para circumcison y había recibido la educación, el asesoramiento, la detección clínica, y condones gratuitos, y compararon sus tasas de nuevas infecciones a los hombres que se negaron a recibir ellos mismos la circuncisión, eran más viejos, menos educados, menos probabilidades de conocer el estado del VIH, había recibido menos o ninguna educación, consejería, la detección clínica, o preservativos gratuitos, básicamente no participar en ningún aspecto de los programas de intervención.
La pregunta científica honesta aquí es ¿hasta qué punto las variables: edad, educación, actitud hacia la circuncisión, Asesoramiento, Evaluación Clínica, condones gratis, conocimiento del estado serológico, y la participación en los otros no quirúrgicos aspectos del programa de intervención contribuirá a reducir los infecciones por VIH en comparación con el efecto de la circuncisión??
Sin embargo, los investigadores circuncisión actualidad, la diferencia en las tasas de infección por el nuevo debido a la circuncisión. ¿Cómo deshonesta y poco científico es eso?
The Dishonesty of Circumcision Researchers
The dishonesty of circumcision researchers never ceases to amaze me, particularly when they present information as fact to a gullible media and public.
Most recently, In a report to UNAIDS in Rome Circumcision Researchers reported that circumcision programs had been effective in reducing new HIV infections by 55%.
What they actually compared was men who chose themselves to get circumcised, who tended to be younger, better educated and more likely to know their HIV status, who had volunteered for circumcison and had received education, counselling, clinical screening, and free condoms, and compared their new infection rates to men who refused to get themselves circumcised, were older, less educated, less likely to know HIV status, had recieved less or no education, counselling, clinical screening, or free condoms, basically did not participate in any aspect of the intervention programs.
The honest scientific question here is how much did the variables of : Age, Education, Attitude to Circumcision, Counselling, Clinical Screening, Free Condoms, knowledge of HIV status, and participation in the other non-surgical aspects of the intervention program contribute to lower HIV infections compared to the effect of circumcision???
Yet the circumcision researchers present the difference in new infection rates as if due solely to circumcision. How dishonest and unscientific is that?
Most recently, In a report to UNAIDS in Rome Circumcision Researchers reported that circumcision programs had been effective in reducing new HIV infections by 55%.
What they actually compared was men who chose themselves to get circumcised, who tended to be younger, better educated and more likely to know their HIV status, who had volunteered for circumcison and had received education, counselling, clinical screening, and free condoms, and compared their new infection rates to men who refused to get themselves circumcised, were older, less educated, less likely to know HIV status, had recieved less or no education, counselling, clinical screening, or free condoms, basically did not participate in any aspect of the intervention programs.
The honest scientific question here is how much did the variables of : Age, Education, Attitude to Circumcision, Counselling, Clinical Screening, Free Condoms, knowledge of HIV status, and participation in the other non-surgical aspects of the intervention program contribute to lower HIV infections compared to the effect of circumcision???
Yet the circumcision researchers present the difference in new infection rates as if due solely to circumcision. How dishonest and unscientific is that?
Friday, July 15, 2011
Why Circumcision doesnt work
Circumcision doesnt work for a number of reasons.
Lets start with Infants & UTI's, firstly UTI's predominatly occur because of kidney disease and abnormality of the urinary tract. REmoval of the foreskin does not address these issues. UTI's are uncommon in male babies and easily treated by anti-biotics, the harm of circumcision is far greater than an easily treated UTI infection. Therefore it is medically unethical to use a such an aggressive prophalactic method as a way of treating a rare occurance that is easily treated conservatively.
Lets next look at things like hygeine and STI/HIV infections.
Hygeine is easy just wash, enough said. Circumcised men still have to practice daily hygeine so makes no difference: you are either a clean/hygeinic man who washes daily or you are a dirty man foreskin or circumcised. The behaviour of the man is more important than his circumcision status. You cant force a circumcised man to wash, if he doesnt wash he becomes dirty man!
Hygeine is easy just wash, enough said. Circumcised men still have to practice daily hygeine so makes no difference: you are either a clean/hygeinic man who washes daily or you are a dirty man foreskin or circumcised. The behaviour of the man is more important than his circumcision status. You cant force a circumcised man to wash, if he doesnt wash he becomes dirty man!
HIV/STI infections are caused by human behavioural factors. Every research that has done an in-depth analysis of the causes has found the No.1 variable involved in STI infections is having sex with multiple sex partners. The next most important variable was the use or not of condoms. Unless these 2 variables are addressed which are behavioural in nature no progress will ever be made in reducing HIV/STI infections. It is why the USA with highest circumcision rates in the western world has the highest rates of HIV/STI infections in the western world. Advocates for Youth research found Americans had higher number of sex partners and used condoms less than their Non-Circumcised European peers. The false message that circumcision prevents HIV/STI's can have the negative consequence of encouraging men to continue having unprotected sex with multiple sex partners and lead to a public health disaster. Which seems to be happening in Africa with reports in press that Men circumcised in Africa are engaging in unprotected sex with multiple sex partner in the false belief that circumcision is like a condom! Who will take responsibility for this catastrophe?
Human anatomy and human behaviour. One argument for circumcision is that removing the foreskin reduces entry points for viruses. Well so would removing the female vulva but we dont advocate that. 2 of the most prominant ways viruses enter the human body is via dermal (skin) absorption/conduction, and via bodily fluids in particular when micro tears occur in the skin allowing blood exposure. Firstly in relation to skin absorption, well last time I looked a circumcised penis is still made of skin, so it is useless in preventing this method of infection. Secondly blood exposure, while the foreskin is susceptible to micro-tears, and removing it reduces blood exposure from micro-tears in the foreskin, circumcised men have less sensitive penises, and therefore have to increase friction to reach pleasure thresholds, therefore this increases the risk of micro-tears in remaining skin, and allowing blood exposures to occur.
Over a lifetime circumcision doesnt work and why Intact Europe has healthier men that live longer and have less STI/HIV than their circumcised peers in the USA. Men change their behaviour, and given behaviour is more important than circumcision status, over a lifetime circumcision is useless!!!
Friday, July 8, 2011
What I hate about Pro-Circumcision Propaganda
I hate the lies, that the foreskin is a useless piece of skin when in fact research has found it has 20,000 pleasure nerves, that it is rich in sensory pleasure, it has a gliding mechanism which facilitates intercourse for both males and females and compliments masturbation, that it keeps the glans moist and internal as nature intended it to be!
I hate the lies about the so called health benefits of circumcision, when in fact research has found intact men who have a natural foreskin are the healthiest men in the world, they live the longest, have the lowest infant mortality and lowest HIV/STI rates in the world. The truth is good health, hygeine, education, conservative medicine, and safe sex practices are the greatest determinants of male sexual/genital health, not the butchering the male sex organ.
I hate the avoidance about ethics. That no acknowledgement is given to the rights of the child to make a decision about an important part of their bodies, that culture and parental rights are given prominance over the individual human rights of the child.
I hate the way procircs misuse science and statistics to promote their propaganda!
I hate the way mainstream media never questions procirc propaganda and presents their garbage as fact!
I hate the way procirc's minimize and deny the facts that circumcision has many complications and babies die needlessly every year from the procedure.
I hate the lies about the so called health benefits of circumcision, when in fact research has found intact men who have a natural foreskin are the healthiest men in the world, they live the longest, have the lowest infant mortality and lowest HIV/STI rates in the world. The truth is good health, hygeine, education, conservative medicine, and safe sex practices are the greatest determinants of male sexual/genital health, not the butchering the male sex organ.
I hate the avoidance about ethics. That no acknowledgement is given to the rights of the child to make a decision about an important part of their bodies, that culture and parental rights are given prominance over the individual human rights of the child.
I hate the way procircs misuse science and statistics to promote their propaganda!
I hate the way mainstream media never questions procirc propaganda and presents their garbage as fact!
I hate the way procirc's minimize and deny the facts that circumcision has many complications and babies die needlessly every year from the procedure.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
La verdad acerca de la circuncisión femenina y Beneficios de Salud
En primer lugar, estoy totalmente en contra de toda forma de mutilación genital / circuncisión / mutilación genital de cualquier ser humano masculino o femenino que no pueden libre y voluntariamente su consentimiento para el procedimiento. Creo que la mutilación genital de menores, o de los hombres no quieren o hembras es moralmente y éticamente incorrecto.
Por lo tanto, la razón de este blog es para hacer frente en los hechos, y para disipar los mitos utilizados por la circuncisión masculina propagandista procirc que circ masculina es aceptable y legal bec tiene beneficios médicos que circ fem no está bien o jurídica bec no tiene médico beneficios. Bueno, esto está mal. Hay dos estudios documentados que demuestran que las mujeres que han sido circuncidados tienen menos infecciones por el VIH, de la siguiente manera:
"Stallings et al. (2009) informó de que, en las mujeres de Tanzania,el riesgo de VIH entre las mujeres que habían sido objeto de mutilación genital femeninafue aproximadamente la mitad de las mujeres que no habían; la asociaciónsiguió siendo significativa después de ajustar para la región, los hogaresla riqueza, la edad, los socios de toda la vida, el estado de la unión, y la úlcera reciente.
"Mujer circuncisión y la infección por VIH en Tanzania:para bien o para mal?(3 ª conferencia de la IAS sobre patogénesis y tratamiento del VIH) ".Sociedad Internacional del Sida.
Kanki et al. informó de que, en prostitutas de Senegal,mujeres que habían sufrido la MGF tenía una significativadisminución del riesgo de infección por VIH-2 en comparación conlos que no.
P Kanki, S M'Boup, Marlink R, et al. "La prevalencia y el riesgodeterminantes del tipo de virus de inmunodeficiencia humana 2(VIH-2) y la inmunodeficiencia humana tipo 1 del virusen un (VIH-1) prostitutas del África occidental ".De la mañana. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID
Ahora bien, aunque estos estudios muestran que la circuncisión femenina reduce el riesgo de infección por el VIH no tiene el procedimiento moralmente correcto. La mayoría de las circuncisiones femeninas se llevan a cabo en mujeres menores de edad que no puede dar su consentimiento para el procedimiento y hay métodos más eficaces de la enfermedad o la prevención de infecciones sexuales tales prácticas y seguro y los condones.
No es un genio para entender cómo la circuncisión masculina y femenina puede reducir las infecciones. Tanto la circuncisión masculina y femenina eliminar una proporción sustancial de la piel genital. La piel humana se ha demostrado ser un punto de entrada para las infecciones virales, y su eliminación reduce algunos puntos de entrada posibles. Los virus también entrar al cuerpo a través de los fluidos corporales y sangre, y la relación sexual vigorosa o prolongada puede producir micro desgarros en la piel genital, permitiendo que los virus de la entrada por la sangre. Las preguntas aquí por lo tanto necesitan ser contestadas 1. ¿Existen otros métodos que pueden prevenir la entrada del virus y son más effectice? Sí y Sí prácticas de sexo seguro puede prevenir y son más eficaces. ¿Existe una forma ética de usar la circuncisión para los hombres y las mujeres. Bueno, si son hombres y mujeres adultos, que estén plenamente informados, y voluntariamente su consentimiento para el procedimiento a continuación, se puede argumentar que podría ser ético en estas circunstancias. Otros pueden argumentar que todavía no sería ético para una variedad de razones.
En conclusión, el argumento de que circ masculina está bien bec tiene beneficios médicos, y circ fem no es aceptable y debe ser bec ilegal no tiene beneficios médicos es FALSO. Ambos están mal, es sólo la cultura que utiliza los valores sexistas y la ignorancia que los estados circ masculina está bien y fem circ no está bien.
Truth about Female Circumcision & Health Benefits
Firstly, I am totally against any form of genital cutting/circumcision/genital mutilation of any human being male or female that cannot freely and willingly consent to the procedure. I believe genital cutting of minors, or unwilling males or females is morally & ethically wrong.
Therefore, the reason for this blog is to deal in the facts, and to dispel the male circumcision myths used by procirc propagandist that male circ is ok & legal bec it has medical benefits whereas fem circ is not ok or legal bec it has no medical benefits. Well this is just wrong. There are two documented studies which demonstrate that women who have been circumcised have lower HIV infections, as follows:
"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer.
"Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania:
for better or for worse?
(3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)".
International AIDS Society.
Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes,
women who had undergone FGC had a significantly
decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to
those who had not.
Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. "Prevalence and risk
determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2
(HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1
(HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes".
Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID
Now while these studies show that female circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection it does not make the procedure morally right. Most female circumcisions are conducted on female minors who cannot consent to the procedure and there are more effective methods of disease/infection prevention such and safe sex practices and condoms.
Its not rocket science to understand how both male and female circumcision may reduce infections. Both male and female circumcision remove a substantial proportion of genital skin. Human skin has been proven to be a viral entry point for infections, and its removal reduces some potential entry sites. Viruses also enter the body through bodily fluids and blood, and vigourous or prolonged sexual intercourse can produce micro-tears in genital skin, allowing viruses to enter via blood. The questions here therefore need to be answered 1. Are there other methods that can prevent virus entry and are they more effectice? Yes & Yes Safe sex practices can prevent and are more effective. Is there an ethical way to use circumcision for both men and women. Well if they are male and female adults, they are fully informed, and willingly consent to the procedure then it may be argued that it could be ethical under these circumstances. Others may argue that it would still be unethical for a variety of reasons.
In conclusion, the argument that male circ is OK bec it has medical benefits, and fem circ is not ok and should be illegal bec it has no medical benefits is FALSE. They are both wrong, it is only culture that uses sexist values and ignorance that states male circ is OK and fem circ not OK.
Therefore, the reason for this blog is to deal in the facts, and to dispel the male circumcision myths used by procirc propagandist that male circ is ok & legal bec it has medical benefits whereas fem circ is not ok or legal bec it has no medical benefits. Well this is just wrong. There are two documented studies which demonstrate that women who have been circumcised have lower HIV infections, as follows:
"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer.
"Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania:
for better or for worse?
(3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)".
International AIDS Society.
Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes,
women who had undergone FGC had a significantly
decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to
those who had not.
Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. "Prevalence and risk
determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2
(HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1
(HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes".
Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID
Now while these studies show that female circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection it does not make the procedure morally right. Most female circumcisions are conducted on female minors who cannot consent to the procedure and there are more effective methods of disease/infection prevention such and safe sex practices and condoms.
Its not rocket science to understand how both male and female circumcision may reduce infections. Both male and female circumcision remove a substantial proportion of genital skin. Human skin has been proven to be a viral entry point for infections, and its removal reduces some potential entry sites. Viruses also enter the body through bodily fluids and blood, and vigourous or prolonged sexual intercourse can produce micro-tears in genital skin, allowing viruses to enter via blood. The questions here therefore need to be answered 1. Are there other methods that can prevent virus entry and are they more effectice? Yes & Yes Safe sex practices can prevent and are more effective. Is there an ethical way to use circumcision for both men and women. Well if they are male and female adults, they are fully informed, and willingly consent to the procedure then it may be argued that it could be ethical under these circumstances. Others may argue that it would still be unethical for a variety of reasons.
In conclusion, the argument that male circ is OK bec it has medical benefits, and fem circ is not ok and should be illegal bec it has no medical benefits is FALSE. They are both wrong, it is only culture that uses sexist values and ignorance that states male circ is OK and fem circ not OK.