Write a Comment
4 Comments
How curious that in Kenya the prevalence of HIV and AIDS rose n spite of an aggressive campaign to promote male circumcision as a strategy to reduce new infections in the region. Are the genital organs of the men of Kenya so different from those in SA? Or is the propaganda of the "circumcision campaign" having us believe this unbelievable nonsense is true. Cutting the genitals to "prevent disease" is old quackery, follow the money to figure out why.
In half of African nations it is the circumcised who have markedly higher HIV prevalence. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. Wawer / Gray 2009 showed that cutting Ugandan men made them MORE likely to infect their female partners with deadly HIV.
The main thing to be concerned about with these mass circumcisions is that they don't work. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. They also distract from efforts that do work. Since circumcision alter sex dramatically it's troubling that boys are being coerced to get circumcised before they can make a rational informed decision.
Jacob DLS
I'm concerned about these research numbers. With the circumcision campaign comes prevention education; I believe education alone would reduce transmission. Question "Does a circumcised penis increase male-to-female transmission?" This increased risk is highly likely as no foreskin increases friction, increased friction increases vaginal tears, increased vaginal tears equals increased HIV transmission to women from men. Does this research exist because Bill Gates is circumcised and HIV-?
September 18, 2013 • Ottawa, Ontario, Canada