Date:  Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:55:03 +0300
From:  Dr Makodingo
Subject:   Facts: HIV/AIDS and Cirrcumcision

From: http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#9
*HIV-AIDS and Circumcision*

The latest argument for circumcising normal male infants is that, even if
all the other reasons for circumcision have proven to be rubbish, at least
it will protect them from the AIDS virus. The claim is wrong because
circumcision does not protect against HIV infection, and it is irrelevant
because, even if it did, infants and boys are not at risk because they do
not have sex with carriers of the virus.

*On this page*

Introduction <http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#1>

African health crisis is not an argument for circumcision in developed
countries <http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#africa07>

HIV: It’s what you do, not what you have, that
counts<http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#2>

Dangers of introducing circumcision <http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#3>

A typical newspaper article, with critical
comments<http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#4>

Comment from an AIDS educator <http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#5>

HIV-AIDS: Many African cases not caused by sexual
contact<http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#6>

British study finds higher incidence of HIV in circumcised
men<http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#7>

Comparative studies show that education reduces HIV
infection<http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#8>

Why circumcision will not save the world from
AIDS<http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#9>

Further information <http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#9>
*Introduction*

Over the last ten years or so a small band of mostly American researchers
have been trying to convince the world that the male foreskin is the most
important risk factor for HIV infection and therefore that circumcision is
the most effective strategy against AIDS. There is nothing new in this sort
of argument. Whenever a horrible and incurable disease appears, people look
for scapegoats, and if it is a sexually transmitted disease they focus on
the genitals. In the nineteenth century it was claimed that circumcision
gave immunity to syphilis, and the claim that it will do the same for HIV is
pretty much a rerun of the same sad delusion.

Although they have received massive publicity in the media, these efforts
have not been very successful. The UNAIDS organization – the international
body responsible for coordinating the global response to the AIDS crisis –
has not been impressed, and it does not consider circumcision to be a useful
tactic. At the most recent world conference on AIDS (Bangkok, July 2004)
circumcision hardly got a look in, and the word does not appear in the UNAIDS
report for 2004 <http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/report.html>. Instead,
researchers have focused on African sexual behaviour, with its high level of
promiscuity and the frequency of prostitution. Even Roger Short is now
recommending lemon juice instead of the removal of normal body parts.

The approaches recommended are those which have been proven to be successful
in reducing the incidence of HIV infection. The most important of these is
safe sex education, since nobody is at risk of sexually-transmitted
infection with AIDS unless he or she engages in unsafe sex (usually
unprotected intercourse) with an infected person.

On top of this, recent research has shown that up to a third of African HIV
cases are not transmitted sexually at all, but by unsafe medical practices –
such as non-sterile instruments and needles. If this is true, circumcision
is likely to be spreading AIDS, not stopping it. Other studies suggest that
the epidemic level of HIV in Africa is due to genetic factors – that
Africans lack a resistance gene found in Europeans. This would explain a
major puzzle: why HIV infection is at a low level in Europe, where hardly
anybody is circumcised, but rages at pandemic levels in Africa, where about
a third of the population is traditionally circumcised as part of religious
or tribal customs. Logically, you would think that if circumcision made such
a big difference, AIDS would be a bigger problem in Europe than in Africa.

Although the claim that circumcision provides significant protection against
HIV infection has received a lot of publicity, it would not be relevant in a
developed country like Australia even if it was true.

   – In third world countries like Africa, AIDS is a disease affecting
   heterosexual people, and now more women than men. In Australia AIDS is a
   significant problem only within small communities, such as male homosexuals
   and intravenous drug users.

   – In Australia, people do not live in poverty without access to medical
   care or running water. Men do not commonly practise polygamy or have
   frequent unprotected intercourse with prostitutes. African women are likely
   to be under the patriarchal thumb; women in Australia can say, “If it’s not
   on, it’s not on”.

   – Australian children do not engage in the sort of sexual practices which
   put them at risk of HIV. Circumcision will not protect them from infection
   from dirty needles or contaminated blood should they need a transfusion.
   When a boy grows up and if he wants to engage in casual sex, he is old
   enough to know about safe sex and condoms.

   – Safe sex education in Australia has kept the level of HIV infection at
   a low level. If they are going to be sexually promiscuous, people know that
   they should use condoms, and they can buy them cheaply at any supermarket.

   – Sexual behaviour, possibly abetted by genes, not anatomy, is the
   explanation for the spread of AIDS. It is irrational and unscientific to
   blame normal body parts for the action of micro-organisms.
African health crisis is not an argument for circumcision in developed
countries

“Ex Africa semper aliquid novi”, said the ancient Romans, “always something
new out of Africa”. So it is today, when we hear nothing but bad news from
the dark continent – drought, disease, war, famine and now circumcision.

After many years of fruitless endeavour and an expenditure running into
hundreds of millions of dollars, evidence has finally come to light that in
Africa men who have unprotected intercourse with HIV positive partners are
less likely, or will take longer, to become infected with HIV if they have
been circumcised. The protective effect is estimated at 50 per cent, meaning
that if it takes an uncircumcised man eight sessions of unsafe sex to get
infected, it will take a circumcised man twelve sessions. How this rather
limited protection justifies talk of a “vaccine”, or authorises circumcision
of sexually inactive – and thus not at risk – infants and boys, is not at
all clear. The media hype surrounding the results of the clinical trials [1]
on which these conclusions are based have been out of all proportion to
their real significance.

The point to remember is that the developed world is not Africa, which faces
such a crisis situation (poverty, poor levels of health and education
services, very high levels of HIV infection and of prostitution etc) that
resort to desperate measures is understandable. There is no such crisis in
developed countries, where HIV has been successfully managed and is confined
to specific sub-cultures (homosexual men, especially those who take the
passive role in anal intercourse, to whom being circumcised will be no help
at all), intravenous drug users (ditto) and immigrants from … well, Africa.

You would not know it from the media coverage, but the World Health
Organisation/UNAIDS are not recommending indiscriminate circumcision, but
only that circumcision be offered as a preventive option to high risk groups
in Third World countries where other (more effective) means of protection
(such as safe sex education, fidelity, abstinence and condom use) seem to be
impossible to achieve).
Who is at risk?

Infants and children, especially in the developed world, are not an at-risk
population because they are not sexually active. You might argue that it is
better to take away a boy’s foreskin now than to see him contract AIDS at
some unknown date in the future – and who would disagree? But the argument
is valid only if circumcision were the only way to avoid AIDS and if it were
pretty certain that he would get AIDS if he were not circumcised. In fact,
the main risk factor for AIDS is not the foreskin, but unsafe sex; the best,
cheapest and most certain way to avoid this easily avoidable disease is not
to engage in unsafe sex practices and to avoid sex with partners likely to
be HIV positive, such as prostitutes, casual sex workers and the generally
promiscuous. There is plenty of time to get this message across to boys
before they become sexually active.
Prostitution a bigger problem than anatomy

The prevalence of prostitution is a major factor in the spread of
heterosexually transmitted AIDS, yet government agencies have been extremely
reluctant to regulate the sex industry or restrict the activities of the
prostitutes in any way because such action might infringe their civil or
human rights. At the same time, they have recommended widespread
circumcision of male infants and boys, whose own civil and human rights are
thus treated as non-existent or of no account. It is of interest that in
Senegal, one of the few African countries where the AIDS threat was faced
early on and efforts were made to regulate the sex industry and ensure that
prostitutes received regular health checks, the incidence of HIV infection
is only around 2 per cent, compared with 30 or 40 per cent in places such as
Tanzania or Botswana. (For Senegal, see Martin Meredith, The State of
Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence (London: Free Press, 2005),
p. 367.) The sad fact is that little boys are an easier target.

As Philip Setel has shown in A Plague of Paradoxes: AIDS, Culture and
Demography in Northern Tanzania (University of Chicago Press, 1999), there
is a very high incidence of prostitution, of various kinds, throughout
sub-Saharan Africa, and a very high incidence of HIV infection among the
prostitutes. (See review in Archives of Sexual
Behaviour<http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=76>,
Vol. 34, December 2005).
Africa is not Australia

In Africa the problem that circumcision is meant to address is
heterosexually acquired HIV through Female to Male transmission via
unprotected intercourse. in the West there is negligible F to M infection,
and most workers in the sex industry are insistent on safe sex and condoms.

In the West, the at risk populations are promiscuous male homosexuals [1]
and intravenous drug users. Circumcision will not affect HIV transmission in
these groups.

Western countries such as Australia have low rates of HIV infection because
our policies of safe sex education have been successful. What children need
to be taught is how to avoid this easily avoidable disease; they do not
need, and they do not deserve, to have their natural anatomy forcibly
altered.

The data from the Africa trials [2] say nothing about the effectiveness of
infant or child circumcision, since the trials were confined to sexually
active adult men who consented to the procedure.

Circumcision does not confer immunity to HIV infection. The level of risk
reduction shown (50 per cent) is not sufficient to warrant talk of a
vaccine. The protection is not lifelong, and it is far less than the 90 per
cent protection given by regular condom use and observation of other forms
of safe sex.

There is no evidence that circumcision later in life is more risky or
harmful than in infancy. On the contrary, all the evidence is that the
younger it is done the more harmful, risky and painful it is, because of the
tiny size of the organ, ignorance as to the eventual size of the penis and
length of foreskin at puberty, and the impossibility of safe and effective
anaesthetic. If those urging compulsory circumcision of children in
preference to optional circumcision of sexually active adult men believe
that circumcision in adulthood is so risky, why did they not raise concerns
about the dangers of the African circumcision trials, conducted as they were
on adults? (Is it the presence of consent that upsets them?)
History urges scepticism

In the days of the Roman Empire many African peoples already practised
circumcision (both male and female) as a cultural ritual. The arrival of
imperialism in the form of Roman soldiers and administrators meant that such
practices were discouraged as abhorrent to civilized people. Today western
medical imperialism is having the opposite effect, spreading circumcision
from circumcising to non-circumcising cultures, with the excuse that it is
the only measure that can stop the AIDS pandemic. Desperate fears produce
desperate reactions, but one wonders how much emotional baggage is bound up
in this massive effort. It is interesting to recall that in nineteenth
century United States respectable doctors demanded compulsory (legally
mandated) circumcision of American Negroes to control syphilis (the AIDS of
that era), and even to protect white women from sexual assault.

Further details on “Solving the Negro rape
problem”<http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=52>

Further information on ethical aspects of prophylactic surgery as a disease
control strategy on low income
countries<http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/27/6/DC1>
NOTES

1. Because AIDS is not a really serious public health issue in the developed
world, there is not much research on the difference in rates of HIV
infection between circumcised and uncircumcised men in developed countries,
but two significant studies (in Britain and the USA) both found a higher
incidence of HIV among circumcised men:

David Reid, Peter Weatherburn, Ford Hickson, Michael Stephens, Know the
score: Findings from the National Gay Men’s Sex
Survey<http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#gaysurvey>(London 2001)

Laumann, EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States:
Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual
Practice<http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/>.
Journal of the American Medical Association 1997;277(13):1052-7

2. The clinical trials are, in any case, a bit fishy for several reasons.
(1) They were not blind (as they should have been). (2) They were not
random, in that the men chose whether to be or not to be circumcised, thus
allowing the likelihood that the former group were more cautious than the
latter. (3) There is no reason to suppose that the two groups men then had
similar sexual experiences: more of the circumcised men might have had more
sex with negative partners than the other group, or they might have engaged
in less risky sexual practices, meaning that they were less exposed to risk;
in these cases you could not know whether it was the differing behaviour or
the altered anatomy that conferred the protection. (4) The trials were
terminated prematurely, allowing suspicions that the most favourable moment
for statistical purposes was chosen. (5) It is common for the early results
of clinical trials to be highly and misleadingly positive, inspiring
premature optimism. For an analysis of why this is so, see John P.A.
Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are
False”<http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124>,
Plos Medicine, Vol. 8, 2005, online at
*HIV: It’s what you do, not what you have, that counts*

It is sexual behaviour, not anatomy, which is the main factor determining
whether a person will become infected with STDs. This fact seems to elude
those naive but brutal researchers who think they have found a miracle
solution to the AIDS crisis in penile surgery. They might as well advocate
the pre-emptive excision of a lung so as to reduce the danger of SARS, or
cauterisation of the nasal and throat passages so as to block the many
common infections which get in that way. To say nothing of what might be
done to women to reduce the area of their susceptible (“treacherous”)
genital mucosa.

It’s interesting that arguments about cultural autonomy does not seem to
carry much weight here. It seems to work only one way. According to many
defenders of traditional tribal practices, who tend to be romantically
anti-western and anti-modern in their tenderness for the exotic and the
primitive, we are not allowed to discourage circumcising cultures from
dropping the practice. But it’s fine and commendable for American medical
bodies to try to foist circumcision on non-circumcising cultures in Africa,
and even India, as a supposedly valuable tactic in the fight against AIDS.
One would have thought that such a blatant example of medico-cultural
imperialism, and from the USA at that, would have sent those who value the
specificity of other cultures up in arms. Isn’t it an example of racist
stereotyping for Americans to assume that sex-crazed black men will never be
able to direct their sex drive into safe channels, but must be forced to
have their penises surgically altered?

The idea that pre-emptive surgery is the miracle-working answer to the AIDS
crisis should be treated very sceptically. The evidence for it is on a par
with the abundant evidence in nineteenth century medical journals that
masturbation caused tuberculosis, madness, pimples and premature decay (et
tutti quanti), and the equally promoted delusion that circumcision provided
immunity to syphilis. Whenever an incurable illness turns up, desperate
people try to find scapegoats: in the Black Death it was witches and Jews.
In the nineteenth century, when sexuality was seen as the root of most evil,
doctors blamed “sexual excess” for many diseases, the foreskin for premature
sexual arousal, masturbation, epilepsy and a host of other illnesses, and
the clitoris for hysteria, catalepsy and other nervous complaints. American
medicine has a particularly fine record in this area. In 1896 the Medical
Record listed the following indications for male circumcision:

Hygienic indications: phimosis, paraphimosis, redundancy (where the prepuce
more than covers the glans), adhesions, papillomata, eczema, oedema,
chancre, chancroid, cicatrices, inflammatory thickening, elephantiasis,
naevus, epithelioma, gangrene, tuberculosis, preputial calculi, hip-joint
disease, hernia. Systemic indications: onanism, seminal emissions, enuresis
(Bed wetting), dysuria, retention [of urine], general nervousness,
impotence, convulsions, hystero-epilepsy. (Medical record, Vol. 49, 1896, p.
430).
*Dangers of introducing circumcision*

For those who wish to read further than hysterical and misleading media
beat-ups (the main source of the delusion that forcible mass circumcision is
the answer to the AIDS crisis), the following thoughts by Professor Greg
Boyle may be of interest.

G.J. Boyle
Bond University
Issues associated with the introduction of circumcision into a
non-circumcising society
Sexually Transmitted Infections, Vol. 79, 2003, pp. 427-428

A team lead by Kebaabetswe propose the introduction of infant circumcision
in Botswana, based on:

   – a survey of its acceptability to Batswana (people of Botswana);
   – its practice in certain Western nations;
   – its alleged value in preventing HIV infection.

There are several medical, psychological, sexual, social, ethical, and legal
problems with this proposal.

Full article here: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/boyle-sti/
Nocirc USA, Position Statement on the Use of Male Circumcision to Limit HIV
Infection <http://www.nocirc.org/statements/hiv2003.html>
*A typical newspaper article, with critical comments*

*Circumcision shown to deter HIV spread*
Washington Times, April 25, 2003, p. A16

Circumcised men are at least 50 percent less likely to contract the virus
that causes AIDS during unprotected sex than uncircumcised men, according to
a soon-to-be released report by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID).

Based on a systematic review of 28 scientific studies published by the
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the USAID report “found that
circumcised males are less than half as likely to be infected by HIV as
uncircumcised men.”

“A sub analysis of 10 African studies found a 71 percent reduction among
higher risk men,” said the report obtained by The Washington Times.

[These studies have since been rejected as misleading and inconclusive by
the Cochrane Review <http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/cochrane2003/>
.]

“There is really an incredible preponderance of evidence. There is really a
strong association,” between circumcision and HIV protection, Dr. Anne
Peterson, assistant administrator for global health at USAID, said yesterday
in an interview.

[All that has been found is a correlation: the studies reveal nothing about
causation. Since they have a narrow focus on tying to prove the connection
between the foreskin and HIV infection, they simply ignore dozens of
cultural, behavioural and biological factors which may be relevant.]

According to the scientific studies, the skin on the inside of the male
foreskin is “mucosal,” similar to the skin found on the inside of the mouth
or nose. This mucosal skin has a high number of Langerhan cells, which are
HIV target cells, or doorway cells for HIV.

[The female genitals are full of Langerhans cells as well: that’s what the
body is made of in mucosal areas. Presumably something will also have to be
done about the vulnerable mucosal tissue in the mouth, urethra and all other
areas where it is found. If the tissue of the foreskin is like that of the
mouth, how come there are no reliable reports of oral infection with HIV? It
is well known that oral sex is safe (or at least safer) sex.]

The rest of the skin on the penis is more like the outer skin on the rest of
the body, a barrier that protects against germs.

[How many germs get into the body through the mucosa of the mouth? Very few,
unless there is a cut or abrasion.]

“HIV looks for target cells, like the Langerhans; it’s a lock and key,” said
Edward G. Green, senior researcher at Harvard University, who has been
looking at circumcision and HIV in Africa for 10 years. “The rest of the
skin on the penis is armorlike.”

[I am not sure that anybody would want the skin of his or her genitals to be
like armour. This rather proves the point about circumcision reducing sexual
responsiveness. Doctors used to cauterise tissue to destroy the nerves and
make it impervious – but that was nineteenth century medicine. The idea is
like the Victorian practice of squirting the urethral tract with silver
nitrate to control gonorrhoea.]

He said that it is better to be circumcised as a baby, rather than as a
teenager in “rite-of-passage” ceremony, because many teenage boys in Africa
are already sexually active.

[American scientists want to change traditional African cultural practices
so that they are uniform with hospital American practice. The claim about
“already sexually active is untrue”: where circumcision is prevalent, women
shun uncircumcised men as “boys” who are not yet allowed to have sex with
women. What he really means is, “We have to get them before they’ve enjoyed
sex with a whole penis, or they’ll never submit to it.”]

Mr. Green said that if all males in Africa were circumcised, the HIV/AIDS
prevalence rate could be reduced from 20 percent in some regions to below 5
percent.

[Wild speculation.]

In addition, circumcision reduces the transmission of other sexually
transmitted diseases, is more hygienic, reduces infections associated with
poor hygiene and makes it easier to use a condom, Mr. Green said.

[Too many advantages make this sound like the claims of a nineteenth century
quack like Dr P.C. Remondino. Studies in Australia by Donovan et al have
shown that circumcised men actually find it harder to use a condom, and they
have fewer options for safe sex owing to the reduced capabilities of their
penis.]

“This is something the tribal healers, the herbalists, faith healers and
witch doctors have known for years,” he said.

[Interesting to see the convergence of American scientific gurus and tribal
witchdoctors.]

The 60-page USAID report is based on presentations given at a USAID
conference in September, and will be available on the USAID Web site “soon,”
Dr. Peterson said.

She said that while the information “looks profound and wonderful,” she
cautioned there may be other factors that reduce HIV transmission in
circumcised men.

[Desperate times induce unrealistic hopes: it’s the ancient idea that if you
sacrifice something to the gods, they will spare you from affliction. The
claim that a surgical operation which still causes deaths and serious
infections in American hospitals could be done safely in the primitive and
unhygienic conditions of poverty-stricken African villages is absurd.
USAID’s efforts would be better directed at securing supplies of clean
running water so that people could wash.]

She said clinical trials in Kenya and Uganda, under the auspices of the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), Johns Hopkins University and the Gates
Foundation, would give a clearer picture. Until then, she said USAID would
move cautiously to educate and promote male circumcision.

Dr. Peterson said there is no evidence the female circumcision, sometimes
called genital mutilation, offers any benefit whatsoever.

In fact, the scarring produced in the procedure may enhance the transmission
of disease, she said. “We are adamantly opposed to female circumcision.”

[Notice the culturally determined sexual double standard. It is logically
impossible that female circumcision would not have exactly the same effects
in reducing the vulnerability of women to HIV infection as circumcision in
men. If the genital mucosa is the trojan horse, then it should be removed
equally from both males and females. Why should it be only men who get the
benefit of armour-plated genitals? It may well be that the lower rates of
HIV in regions of Africa where circumcision is common is due to female
circumcision, not male, and that this is what USAID should be promoting.
Western culture finds that idea abhorrent, however, and would not even
investigate the possibility. Also, if female circumcision transmits AIDS, as
western anti-FGM activists insist (and they are probably right), it follows
that male circumcision will do likewise; no doubt the same instruments are
frequently used for both surgeries.]

Another concern is that by promoting circumcision, circumcised men may
mistakenly believe they are invulnerable to HIV. They are not, said Dr.
Peterson.

“It reduces your risk. It does not protect you outright,” said Dr. Peterson.
“People who are circumcised still get HIV. It is still better to abstain, be
faithful in marriage, or use condoms”, she said.

[In that case, why circumcise at all?]
*Comment from an AIDS educator*

The danger of newspaper headlines about circumcision providing immunity to
AIDS is that circumcised men start to think they are safe and stop using
condoms. AIDS educators are concerned that the enormous publicity this
theory has attracted is the main reason why cases of HIV in Australia are
rising at the moment, as circumcised men drop safe sex and stop using
condoms, saying, “Oh well, apparently if you’re cut you can’t get infected.”
They can and do get infected.

The following comment was from a Canadian AIDS educator on the H-Hist-Sex
discussion list.

The literature from which the report on circumcision and HIV transmission
was based came from 27 studies in Africa. Science is not my field, but from
what I remember, for a scientific study to support a hypothesis such as
foreskins affect the rate of HIV transmission, then the study needs to be
replicated elsewhere, or are African foreskins different than other
foreskins?

Considering all the research done on gay men in North America, isn’t it
strange that, after 20 years, no one has found that, say, more gay Muslims
and gay Jews don’t/do contract the virus than, say, gay Catholics? (Maybe
the transmission has nothing to do with the foreskin, but that the HIV virus
has a strong religious bias.)

Does this type of research truly stop the transmission of HIV, or is it just
a means to start/stop circumcisions? You cannot transmit the virus, with or
without a foreskin, unless you have the virus. You can not get the virus,
with or without a foreskin, unless you are involved in unsafe practices with
someone who has the virus. More skin, whether penile or vaginal, creates a
higher probability, but the salient word in the study was “unprotected” sex.
You have a higher probability to be bit by playing with two rabid pit-bulls
than with one, but you won’t get bit at all if you put muzzles on them
beforehand.

How will information such as the one on foreskins and HIV be perceived by
the general public? Anyone who has been involved in the HIV community since
the beginning will remember all the crazy beliefs people had to protect
themselves from the virus, many based on “scientific research”, instead of
just not sharing blood or sperm. Why won’t this study be used the same way,
as the author of the study by the US Agency for International Development
worries? When I was a teenager, I heard guys saying that they couldn’t get
VD because they had a hood. I heard men saying their wives couldn’t get
ovarian cancer because they were Jewish (read: circumcised). I can see
straight teenagers (the group with the largest increase of HIV transmission)
now having sex without condoms because they are circumcised. (And let’s not
forget about all those who share uncircumcised needles.)

It is easier to find something/someone to blame (“Patient Zero”, gays, loss
of religious beliefs, the media’s constant promotion of sex, the West,
Democrats, foreskins) than to work hard at changing one’s activities,
regardless of countries or traditions. Education has been shown to be the
best way to prevent HIV transmission. With such a small amount of money
going into HIV/AIDS research – particularly on women and HIV- and money for
medication for people living with HIV/AIDS, isn’t focusing on the
[uncondomed] penis (the favorite activity for all men) side-stepping the
real issues of HIV transmission?

Full discussion available here:
http://www.h-net.org/~histsex/<http://www.h-net.org/%7Ehistsex/>
*HIV-AIDS: Most African cases not caused by sexual contact: Dirty doctors,
not dicks, to blame*

*1. African HIV linked to poor medical care, not lack of circumcision*

African HIV is spread more by contaminated implements than by sexual
intercourse, say three new medical articles. Transmission includes doctors
and nurses in clinics and hospitals as well as traditional healers and
circumcisers using unsterile instruments.

Experts have assumed that heterosexual sex transmitted 90% of HIV in Africa.
HIV in Africa is associated with urban living, having a good education, and
having a higher income; people who visit their doctor more often.

These articles point out that all 13 of the previous studies, which
purported to prove HIV can be prevented by circumcision, failed to consider
this stunning 2/3 versus 1/3 fact. The end result is this, whether a man is
circumcised or not is inconsequential. Ironically, circumcisions – whether
done in a village ceremony or in a city hospital – are probably spreading
HIV because of unclean instruments.

This new research, based on hundreds of studies, suggests only about a third
of HIV infections in Africa are sexually transmitted. Specifically, HIV is
not transmitted by “sex”, but only by specific high-risk practices.

*2. Sex may not be behind Africa’s Aids problem*

Poor medical practice may be to blame for the spread of Aids through Africa.
New research based on hundreds of studies suggests only about a third of HIV
infections in Africa are sexually transmitted. The authors suggest
contaminated medical injections make up the biggest risk.

They said their findings have “major ramifications for current and future
HIV control in Africa, whose focus has been almost exclusively on sexual
risk reduction and condom use”.

The study is in today’s International Journal of STD and AIDS, published by
the Royal Society of Medicine. The research team is led by Pennsylvania
anthropologist Dr David Gisselquist.

They say HIV cases in Africa have not followed the pattern of most types of
sexually transmitted disease. Many studies reported young children infected
with HIV even though their mothers were not.

Typically STDs are associated with being poor and uneducated but HIV in
Africa is linked with urban living, having a good education and higher
income.

Avanova on-line news, Thursday 20 February 2003

*3. Unsafe healthcare “drives spread of African HIV”*

Since the 1980s most experts have assumed that heterosexual sex transmitted
90% of HIV in Africa. In the March International Journal of STD and AIDS, an
international team of HIV specialists presents groundbreaking evidence to
challenge this consensus, with “profound implications” for public health in
Africa.

In a series of articles, Dr David Gisselquist, Mr John Potterat and
colleagues argue that the spread of HIV infections in Africa is closely
linked to medical care. In their unique study of existing data from across
the continent they estimate that only about a third of HIV infections are
sexually transmitted. Their evidence suggests that “health care exposures
caused more HIV than sexual transmission”, with contaminated medical
injections being the biggest risk.

*Sexual behaviour*

*HIV and STDs:* According to the authors’ data, African HIV did not follow
the pattern of sexually transmitted disease (STD). In Zimbabwe in the 1990s
HIV increased by 12% a year, while overall STDs declined by 25% and condom
use actually increased among high-risk groups.

*Infection rate:* HIV spread very fast in many countries in Africa. For the
increase to have been all via heterosexual sex, the study claims, it would
have to be as easy to get HIV from sex as from a blood transfusion. In fact,
HIV is much more difficult than most STDs to transmit via penile-vaginal
sex.

*Risky sex?:* Several general behaviour surveys suggest that sexual activity
in Africa is not much different from that in North America and Europe. In
fact, places with the highest level of risky sexual behaviour, such as
Yaounde in Cameroon, have low and stable rates of HIV infection.
“Information…from the general population shows most HIV in sexually less
active adults” .

*Did medical care spread HIV?*

*Children and injections:* Many studies report young children infected with
HIV with mothers who are not infected. One study in Kinshasa kept track of
the injections given to infants under two. In one study, nearly 40% of HIV+
infants had mothers who tested negative. These children averaged 44
injections in their lifetimes compared with only 23 for uninfected children.
*Good access to medical care:* Countries like Zimbabwe, with the best access
to medical care, have the highest rates of HIV transmission. “High rates [of
HIV] in South Africa have paralleled aggressive efforts to deliver health
care to rural populations”.

*Riskier to be rich:* Most STDs are associated with being poor and
uneducated. HIV in Africa is associated with urban living, having a good
education, and having a higher income. In one hospital in 1984, the rate of
HIV in the senior administrators was 9.2%, compared with the average
employee rate of 6.4%.

“People often see what they wish to see.”

The authors suggest several reasons why evidence has been ignored until now,
including the West’s preconceptions about African sexuality, the fear that
people might lose trust in healthcare, and simple disbelief that medical
practices could be so unsafe.

They conclude: “a growing body of evidence points to unsafe injections and
other medical exposures to contaminated blood” as an explanation for the
majority of the spread of the epidemic. “This finding has major
ramifications for current and future HIV control programmes in Africa”.

*4. Further information*

These articles are available here.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

George Denniston and George Hill
HIV and circumcision: new factors to consider
Sexually Transmitted Infections, Vol. 79, 2003, pp. 495-6
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/hill-denniston1/
*British study finds higher incidence of HIV in circumcised men*

If circumcised men are less likely to acquire HIV than men with foreskins,
then we should expect fewer of the circumcised men to have tested positive
than the men with a foreskin. However, more of the circumcised men had
tested positive for HIV (6.1%) than had those with a foreskin (5.0%). This
small but significant difference is in the opposite direction than predicted
if foreskins are contributing to transmission, and was observed in all
ethnic groups and across the age range.

Know the score. Findings from the National Gay Men’s Sex Survey 2001

The full report can be downloaded from
http://www.sigmaresearch.org.uk/downloads/report02d.pdf
*Comparative studies show that education reduces HIV infection*

A recent comparative study in Kenya and Uganda found that in Uganda, where
efforts were put into safe sex education, the rate of HIV infection was
falling far more significantly than in neighbouring Kenya, where such
efforts were much weaker. Circumcision was found not to be a significant
influence.

Moore D, and Hogg R, Trends in antenatal human immunodeficiency virus
prevalence in western Kenya and eastern Uganda: Evidence of differences in
health policies?, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 33, 2004, pp.
542-8 <http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/moore1/>
*WHY CIRCUMCISION WILLL NOT SAVE THE WORLD FROM AIDS* *Introduction*

The scare over HIV-AIDS is the main reason why circumcision is on the rise
in Australia and elsewhere. Advocates of the operation are making strident
and widely reported claims that the destruction of supposedly vulnerable
genital tissue provides significant protection against the deadly virus, and
some people are frightened enough by the spectre of this terrible and
incurable disease to be willing to try anything: doing something, no matter
how harmful or ineffective, seems to be better than nothing.

Lies, damned lies and statistics <http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#lies>

Table 1: Incidence of HIV infection and male circumcision in selected
countries <http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#inc>

Voodoo science and primitive magic <http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#voodoo>

References <http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#ref>

What if uncut men are more susceptible to
HIV-AIDS?<http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#what>

Further information <http://www.circinfo.org/hiv.html#info>
*In the industrial world:*
Lies, damned lies and statistics

A glance at the rates of HIV-infection and circumcision in selected western
(developed) countries, however, suggests that there is no correlation at all
between having a foreskin and greater susceptibility to HIV-AIDS. On the
contrary, the country with one of the highest proportions of circumcised
males (the USA with 75 per cent) also has the second highest rate of HIV
infection (61 cases per 100,000). The countries with the lowest incidence of
HIV infection are Finland and Japan, which also have the world’s lowest
proportion of circumcised males. In between, patterns are hard to find.
Israel, with 95 per cent of the male population circumcised, has a similar
rate of HIV infection as that found in Norway, where not more than 2 or 3
per cent of the male population is circumcised.

In other countries with low rates of circumcision the incidence of HIV
infection varies wildly, and it is impossible to offer explanations without
knowing the proportions represented by homosexual men, heterosexual men and
women, intravenous drug users and others. At first sight it seems to be
higher in predominantly Catholic countries (Spain, Italy, France, Austria)
than in northern Europe (Britain, Germany, Scandinavia), suggesting that
opposition to the use of condoms by the Catholic Church could be a more
relevant factor than the prepuce. Ireland and Switzerland are puzzling
departures from this pattern. Other important reasons may be the speed with
which governments took action (since delay gives the virus a head start) and
inadequate resources devoted to safe sex education.
 *Incidence of HIV infection and male circumcision in selected countries*
  *Country * *Estimated proportion of adult male population(15-49)
circumcised (%)* *HIV prevalence, adult population (M & F, 15-49), cases per
100,000*  *Industrialised world*      Australia
 55 15  Austria <5 23  Belgium <5 15  Canada 45 30  Czech Republic <5
4  Denmark
<5 17  Finland <2 5  France 10 44  Germany <5 10  Ireland <10 10  Israel 95
8  Italy <5 35  Japan <2 2  Netherlands <5 19  New Zealand 45 6
Norway 2 7  Portugal
<5 74  Slovakia <5 1  Spain 10 58  Sweden <2 8  Switzerland <5 46  United
Kingdom 15 11  United States 75 61         *Developing world: Sub-Saharan
Africa* 65
 857  Botswana
 50 3580  Guinea ? 154  Kenya 65 1395  Madagascar ? 15  Nigeria 70 506  South
Africa 70 1994  Tanzania 65 809  Zimbabwe 65 2506         *Developing world:
Other*
    Bahrain
 90 15  China <5 7  Kuwait 90 12  Malaysia 75 42  Mauritius 10 8  Sudan 70
99  Thailand <10 215  United Arab Emirates 90 18

Source: UNAIDS data for 2000. No official statistics on circumcision rates
are published; the estimates here are approximate.

Australia has a fairly high proportion of circumcised, sexually active
males, but a very low incidence of HIV infection. This is almost certainly a
result of the rapidity with which Australian government health authorities
acted when the danger first became apparent in the 1980s, and it indicates
the great success of the consultative approach, the safe sex education
campaign and extensive use of condoms. (This triumph of good sense and
rational science in public health has received international acclaim, yet it
has been won in the teeth of continual sabotage attempts by assorted
moralising reactionaries who seem to think that using a condom when having
sex is a greater sin than infecting another person with a fatal and
incurable disease).

In South America, where hardly anybody is circumcised, the incidence of HIV
infection varies from 10 per 100,000 in Bolivia to 301 in Guyana, strongly
suggesting that national differences are far more important than the
foreskin. Figures from Asia show that puritanical Muslim societies with a
very high rate of circumcision, such as Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab
Emirates, have much the same rate of HIV infection as a liberal society like
Australia, while an authoritarian regime like Malaysia boasts an incidence
nearly three times greater. The high rate of HIV infection in Thailand (most
males not circumcised) is most probably a consequence of widespread
sex-tourism.

The most important point to note is that the main reasons for the spread of
AIDS are social and cultural in nature, not anatomical or physiological –
which is why the professors’ carry-on about Langerhans cells and all the
rest of it is largely irrelevant to the real problem and a distraction from
effective action. The strategy followed in places like Germany, Britain, New
Zealand and Australia has been effective, and did not involve waging war on
the male genitals. The UNAIDS
organisation<http://www.unaids.org/en/default.asp>has a sensible
discussion of this issue.

The lack of correlation between high proportion of males circumcised and a
low rate of HIV infection, and vice versa, suggests that mass circumcision
will not be effective as a public health measure. Instead of attacking the
innocent foreskin, campaigners for AIDS control would be better advised to
direct their impressive polemical talents towards safe sex education and
against the opponents of condom use.
*In the Third World:*
Voodoo science and primitive magic

Whenever the medical profession finds itself confronted with a problem it is
unable to solve it seems to respond in the same way as primitive man:
sacrifice something valuable to appease the angry gods. The concept of a
propitiatory sacrifice to ward off or achieve recovery from illness was
common among pre-scientific peoples. In Homer’s Iliad, when plague strikes
their camp the Greeks learn that the only way to halt it is by returning the
beautiful Chryseis to her father and sacrificing 100 bulls to Apollo. At the
height of the Black Death in fourteenth century Germany many people took up
vigorous self-flagellation; and when that failed they started murdering
Jews, whose relative resistance to the plague (the result of being
quarantined in ghettoes) seemed proof of their responsibility for its
spread. As soon as AIDS appeared in the USA, long-standing circumcision
advocates pushed their favourite surgery as the panacea, a claim requiring
some gall in view of the fact that the US then had the highest proportion of
circumcised, sexually active men in the developed world.

It is a similar story in Africa today, where the AIDS crisis is fuelling an
international push for universal (yes, every boy and man everywhere)
circumcision as a preventive health strategy. The leaders of this campaign
include a powerful array of US and British professors, supported by an
Australian veterinary scientist and expert in reproductive physiology (Dr
Roger Short <http://www.zoology.unimelb.edu.au/staff/short.htm>) and a
recent medical graduate (Dr Robert Szabo). Professor Short made a big splash
in a TV documentary last year, urging universal infant circumcision as an
essential part of any strategy to control AIDS. They claim to have evidence
that non-circumcising African tribes have a rate of HIV infection two to
eight times greater than tribes which cut it off.
Out of Africa

There are many problems with this sort of statistical analysis: as every
schoolchild knows, correlation is not causation. One obvious problem is the
complexity of African social life. Circumcision is a cultural tradition,
performed by most Moslems and about half the non-Moslem tribes, each of
which has its own cultural/religious practices and different standards of
sexual behaviour. Without far more detailed research than Short, Szabo and
Co have done there is no way of knowing whether a lower rate of HIV
infection is the result of behavioural rather than anatomical differences,
or of other factors that ignorant westerners have never thought about.

Another problem is that Africa already has a very high incidence of
circumcision. Out of a total male population of 767 million, about 311
million are Moslems, most of which are probably circumcised as a religious
rule. Of the remaining 456 million it is estimated that between 40 and 50
per cent are circumcised as a tribal initiation ritual. Assuming that 90 per
cent of the Moslems and 45 per cent of the others are cut, it means that
about two thirds of the population is already circumcised. South Africa,
with about 70 per cent of the adult male population circumcised, has an HIV
infection rate of nearly 20 per cent. If circumcision was such an effective
tactic against HIV infection you would expect the AIDS crisis to be less
severe, and it is difficult to believe that circumcising the unscathed
minority will make much difference.
Why don’t we learn from history?

In the nineteenth century English doctors keen to introduce circumcision
assured people that it provided protection against syphilis – then as
incurable and deadly as AIDS is now. Instead of innocent Africans they used
innocent Jews to prove their case, claiming that Jewish men were highly
resistant to syphilis (if not immune) because their foreskins had been
removed. A physician named Jonathan Hutchinson recorded the incidence of
venereal cases among his Jewish and non-Jewish patients during 1854 and came
up with the following table, published in the Medical Times and Gazette in
1855:

*Venereal cases* *Gonorrhoea* *Syphilis*  *Non-Jews* 272 107 (39.3%) 165
(60.6%)  *Jews* 58 47 (81%) 11 (19%)

On the basis of these figures he claimed he had demonstrated a conclusion
“long entertained by many surgeons of experience”: that “the circumcised Jew
is … very much less liable to contract syphilis than an uncircumcised
person”, and the reason was obvious: circumcision rendered “the delicate
mucous membrane of the glans hard and skin-like”. Hutchinson provided no
elaboration of his reasoning as to why a damaged (“hard and skin-like”)
glans should provide this protection, nor what non-injurious alternatives
might be recommended if it really did, but he showed no reticence at all
when it came to the clinical implications, and urged the speedy adoption of
routine infant circumcision.

It was a flimsy foundation on which to erect such an ambitious therapeutic
edifice. All his observations showed is that, while non-Jewish venereal
cases had more syphilis than gonorrhoea (60.6 to 39.3 per cent), Jewish
cases had more gonorrhoea than syphilis (81 to 19 per cent). Although
Hutchinson insisted that the high level of gonorrhoea among the Jews proved
that less promiscuity could not have been the reason for the difference, the
statistics revealed nothing about the relative susceptibility of cut and
normal men to venereal infection, and could as well be cited to show that
circumcision increased the likelihood of getting gonorrhoea. If you compare
these figures with the Jewish and non-Jewish populations of London at that
time, you actually find that Jews had a higher rate of syphilis than others.
Myths of syphilis

This did not stop doctors from claiming that circumcision could provide
immunity to syphilis. For the next century Hutchinson’s shonky stats were
regarded as the “hard data” needed to prove the health-giving value of
pre-emptive foreskin amputation. In 1900 E. Harding Freeland cited them to
prove that “circumcision of every male in infancy” would reduce the
incidence of syphilis by 49 per cent. In 1914 Abraham Wolbarst relied on
them to support his call for “Universal circumcision as a sanitary measure”
in the Journal of the American Medical Association. As late as 1947 Newsweek
praised Hutchinson as the first to discover that “syphilis and gonorrhoea
were uncommon among Jewish people” and asserted that circumcised men “are
not likely to contract venereal disease”. The myth had become a media truth.

Gradually it was realised that any reduced incidence of VD among Jews was
the result of cultural and lifestyle factors: the quarantine effect of
segregation and a low level of promiscuity and other sexual adventurism. It
was also realised (as even Hutchinson had admitted) that the operation, in
the days before aseptic surgery, actually infected many babies and children
with syphilis, tuberculosis and other diseases, not to mention ordinary
gangrene. Circumcision played no role in the eventual conquest of syphilis,
which was controlled by growing use of condoms, Metchnikoff’s ointment and
Salvarsan, and defeated in the 1940s by penicillin.

The story with AIDS is not likely to be much different. Where it has been
controlled, as in Australia, success has been the result of a non-moralistic
sex education campaign, and promotion of safe sex and condom use. Little
else can be done until a vaccine is developed. But medical researchers don’t
like non-medical approaches to disease control because it seems to devalue
their expertise; they want a medical and ideally a surgical response in
which they, rather than social workers, can play the starring role.
Female circumcision complicates picture

The possibility of a simple link between circumcision and vulnerability to
HIV infection is made more remote by the fact that many of the African
cultures which practise male circumcision also practise various forms of
female circumcision. (This may include excision of the clitoral hood (i.e.
prepuce), clitoris, labia minora or more, and sometimes sewing up the
vaginal orifice.) How can western researchers know that the reportedly lower
incidence of HIV infection among circumcising populations is not the result,
or as much the result, of doing it to girls? If, as Szabo and Short assert,
the genital mucosa (specialised skin, especially on the inner foreskin) is
the Trojan horse, why wouldn’t the mucosa of the clitoral hood, clitoris and
labia, not to mention lips, vagina and anus, be just as treacherous? And
their amputation just as protective?

It’s difficult to amputate the lips and anus, but if it were shown that
excision of the clitoral hood or labia made women two to eight times less
likely to contract HIV, would Dr Short and others advocate the universal
circumcision of girls?
The limits of scientific neutrality

This is where the researchers’ claim to neutral scientific objectivity
breaks down and a cultural double standard asserts itself. The West has no
tradition of circumcising women, which most westerners regard with horror as
an unacceptable mutilation, whether it offered health benefits or not.
Western experts like Dr Short are not interested in amputating part of the
female genitals, so it would never occur to them even to research the
question. It is a different story in the Islamic and other traditional
cultures which practise female circumcision, the defenders of which parrot
western medical experts’ claims about the value of male circumcision, but
also insist on the many benefits from the equivalent procedure on women,
including improved hygiene and reduced susceptibility to STDs, genital warts
and AIDS.(1)

An Egyptian cleric who overturned a government ban on female circumcision in
1997 not only thanked God for preserving a religious requirement handed down
by mothers and grandmothers for fourteen centuries, but stated that the
operation protected the nation from AIDS by reducing promiscuity (Los
Angeles Times, 25 June 1997). In explaining the link between circumcision
and AIDS control in behavioural rather than anatomical terms, the priest
showed a better understanding of the epidemiology of STDs than many medical
researchers. Widespread (hetero)sexual promiscuity, especially with
prostitutes and without condoms, in conditions of poverty and lack of
education, is certainly the main reason for the African AIDS crisis.
Confused messages from the experts

Africans must be getting very confused by the contradictory messages they
are receiving from western health experts. One group tells them they must
stop circumcising women to improve their health; another group tells them
they must circumcise more boys. Either argument might be valid, but it is
unlikely that both could be right at the same time. For the reasons
mentioned above, reduction of female genital mucosa is likely to be just as
effective in combating AIDS as reduction of male genital mucosa – but of
course not culturally or ethically acceptable.

Opponents of female circumcision correctly point out that it is harmful as
well as cruel and probably spreads AIDS, either via the operation itself
(dirty hands, knives, razor blades etc) or because the scars from the
operation bleed during intercourse. But these comments are just as
applicable to the circumcision of boys. As the New York Times reported last
year, “In a country where … 1 in 10 are HIV positive even many boys who
emerge seemingly unscathed from [ritual circumcision] face the risk of
having contracted the virus … from the surgeons’ use of unsterilized
scalpels or spears” (6 August 2001 p. A6)

It is equally true that circumcision scars on the penis can bleed during
sex, and it is not unusual for boys who have been cut tightly to suffer
splits and tears in the remaining skin when they have erections.
Circumcision also kills African boys

Circumcision, often carried out in unhygienic settings as part of tribal
initiation ordeal, is itself a significant cause of death among African
boys. According to recent reports:

   – Boy bleeds to death after ritual circumcision in South Africa (African
   News Service, 26 June 2001)
   – Death toll for Northern Provinces initiations reaches eight
(http://allafrica.com/stories,
   12 July 2001 <http://allafrica.com/stories,%2012%20July%202001>)
   – Death toll from South African initiations reaches 20, plus 160 boys in
   hospital with serious injuries (Infobeat, 19 July 2001 – Reporter: Ravi
   Nessman)
   – At least 35 South African boys die from circumcision injuries, and many
   more hospitalised with “horribly injured genitals” (New York Times, 6 August
   2001, p. A6).
   – 25 boys admitted to hospital with gangrenous penises following
   circumcision (South African Press Association, 22 December 2001).
   – 7 boys die after circumcision in Kenya. “It is feared the total could
   be as high as ten” (The Nation (Nairobi), 27 December 2001).

These reports may only be the tip of the iceberg. Stopping the circumcision
of African boys would save more lives than encouraging the practice.
Hard to identify real causes: Infant mortality in the nineteenth century

It is always difficult to establish causality in complex, multi-causal
situations and very easy for interested parties, with their own prior
agenda, to assume that their particular barrow is the key to a problem. A
good example is infant mortality in nineteenth century Britain, which
decreased very little as the century advanced, even though adult mortality
fell steadily. Several doctors and health officials who happened to believe
that women’s place was in the home noticed that infant mortality was
particularly high in many places where there was also a high incidence of
women working, and they instantly concluded that the problem was maternal
neglect. They pressured parliament on the issue, and in 1891 it passed a law
restricting employment opportunities for nursing mothers. It was not
rigorously enforced and would have made no difference even if it had been.
(It might have made the situation worse by reducing household income when it
was most needed.)

The largest single cause of infant deaths at that time were
diarrhoea-related diseases, which were caught from contaminated food, water,
utensils, toys and all the other things babies were always picking up and
putting in their mouths. The areas with the highest incidence of working
mothers were also the poorest areas and thus the ones with the worst hygiene
(dirty and overcrowded living conditions, contaminated food and water, poor
drainage, no sewerage etc) and thus offering the most opportunity for
contracting the viruses and bacteria, as the babies rolled around in the
accumulated filth.(2)

As with HPV and AIDS in Africa, the most important factor in the high rate
of infant mortality was poverty, and after that lack of clean water and
ignorance of elementary hygiene. In Africa the problem is made worse by the
fact that traditional sex practices also discourage condom use. Because
western medical experts can’t do anything about Third World poverty they
attack Third World penises, the only thing many Africans can call their own.
Why not put more effort into safe sex education?

In countries where AIDS has been controlled (Australia, New Zealand,
Germany, Britain), success has been the result of safe sex education and
widespread use of condoms. Why don’t Short and Co suggest that more effort
be put into an educational strategy to alter adult sexual behaviour? This
approach seems to have worked in their own cases: it is reported that
neither Professor Short nor Dr Szabo is circumcised, and they are not
planning to have it done, yet they feel competent to manage their own sex
lives in such a way as to avoid contracting fatal diseases without having to
give up their foreskins. Perhaps they feel that dumb and sex-crazed Africans
cannot be trusted to modify their behaviour the same extent as smart
Europeans. Or perhaps they just lack faith in their own prescriptions or
feel the sacrifice would not be worth the advantages they urge for others.
Boys’ foreskins easier target than opponents of condom use

In focusing on anatomical alterations rather than education, Short and his
colleagues seem to be saying is that in Third World countries a boy’s
foreskin is a softer target than opponents of condom use: traditional tribal
custom and male preference, the hostile attitude of many African leaders
until very recently and the policy of the Catholic Church have all made it
more difficult to educate Africans to use condoms. HIV could be brought
under control if condoms were widely used, especially with prostitutes, but
it seems to be much harder to make adult men use condoms than to force
babies and little boys to be circumcised.

Setting aside the issue of medical ethics and civil rights (amputations
performed on non-consenting children showing no signs of injury or disease),
what about efficiency and effectiveness? Ensuring that all circumcisions
were carried out in proper hygienic conditions and in accordance with the
rules of modern surgery would probably be harder and more expensive than
educating men to adopt safe sex practices. If a 15-year old boy were shown a
condom and a gomco clamp <http://www.infocirc.org/methods.htm> side by side
there will not be much doubt as to which he would choose. Whatever he
decided, giving him the right to choose is the ethical approach.(3)
Puritanical moral agenda

Those targeting the foreskin rather than advocating education do seem to
have an agenda to promote circumcision as an alternative to naughty condoms
and the sexual promiscuity inevitably associated with them. That Christian
churches in the Philippines
<http://www.circumstitions.com/Philippines.html>have tolerated the
Islamic-derived custom whereby mobs of older males set
upon boys and circumcise them in the street suggests that they have no
dogmatic doctrinal objection to bodily mutilation, despite the judgement of
Thomas Aquinas and the decision of the Council of
Florence<http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/councilflorence>.
Non-procreative sex, however, especially if it involves devices associated
with contraception, seems to be a different matter.

Despite the pleas of some bishops to relax the ban on condoms (notably Kevin
Dowling, Bishop of Rustenburg), the Catholic Church in southern Africa
condemns their use as “immoral and misguided” and actually claims that
condoms “fuel the AIDS epidemic” by facilitating promiscuity. A conference
of bishops in August 2001 stated that the Christian way to overcome AIDS was
to “abstain and be faithful” (Age, 1 August 2001). Until recently many
African political leaders took much the same line. Conservative politicians
and clerics, both Christian and Islamic, can recommend chastity and strict
monogamy till the cows come home, but humans are a randy and promiscuous
species, and if you want to be scientific (or even practical) there is no
point fighting the fact.

Can using a condom when having sex really be a greater sin than infecting
another person with a deadly disease? Are the medical experts supporting
religious doctrine by promoting circumcision as an alternative to condoms?
Been there, done that

There is a direct historical parallel in the work of the puritanical
Jonathan Hutchinson, whose shonky statistics on the protection which
circumcision provided against syphilis cost thousands of boys their
foreskins and saved nobody from syphilis. He was the principal nineteenth
century British crusader for routine circumcision, particularly as a
preventive of masturbation, but he also played the syphilis card. In 1900 he
wrote: (4)

“Most other measures [to control syphilis], such as the inspection of
prostitutes, have a collateral influence prejudicial to morality.
Professedly making irregular sexual intercourse less dangerous, they
possibly increase its amount to an extent which more than counterbalances
their supposed advantages. They are also injurious to the sense of decency,
to say nothing of modesty, and detrimental to the moral conscience of a
community. It is no so with circumcision. Effected in early infancy, and
with other avowed objects [that is, curbing masturbation] it would silently
become the means of preventing on a large scale the prevalence of a
loathsome and misery-producing disease. The extent to which this diminution
of risk might tend to increase sexual folly would probably be
infinitesimal.”

In other words, in controlling syphilis circumcision was preferable to
condoms or health checks because it would discourage pre- and extra-marital
sex. Thus western medical scientists who want male circumcision, Islamic
clerics who demand female circumcision and Catholic bishops who favour
chastity find they have more in common than anyone suspected.

The medical profession took humanity down this blind alley once before.
There’s no need to make the same mistake again.
*References*

1. David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history of the world’s most controversial
surgery, New York, Basic Books, 2000, Chap. 8, esp. p. 199; Sami A. Aldeeb
Abu-Sahlieh, Male and female circumcision among Jews, Christians and
Muslims: Religious, medical, social and legal debate, (Warren PA, Shangri-La
Publications, 2001) pp. 185-7
2. Anthony S. Wohl, Endangered lives: Public health in Victorian Britain
(London 1983) pp. 27-32
3. F.M. Hodges, J.S. Svoboda, R.S. van Howe, “Prophylactic interventions in
children: Balancing human rights with public health”, Journal of Medical
Ethics, Vol. 28, 2002
4. Jonathan Hutchinson, “The advantages of circumcision”, Medical Review,
Vol. 3, 1900, p. 641
*What if uncut men are more susceptible to HIV-AIDS?*

Let’s assume that uncut men are more susceptible to HIV infection. Does that
mean all boys should be circumcised long before they are old enough to
provide informed consent, and even before they are sexually active?
Obviously not.

   – Even if circumcision did reduce risk, it does not confer anything like
   immunity; but a slight reduction in risk is not adequate compensation for
   the loss of a significant genital feature. The comparison between
   circumcision and vaccination is not
valid<http://www.circinfo.org/case.html#three>.
   – Even if circumcision did reduce risk, the benefit claimed from Short et
   al’s studies applies only to men taking the active role in heterosexual
   intercourse without a condom. Circumcision has no impact on the risk of
   contracting HIV as a result of any other form of exposure, such as
   intravenous drug use, blood transfusions, injuries, accidents or taking the
   passive role in homosexual intercourse.
   – If uncut men are more at risk, they just need to take greater
   precautions. No boy is at risk at all until he becomes sexually active (late
   teens), and by then he is sufficiently mature to understand the safe sex
   message and to modify his behaviour to minimise risk. Doctors should protect
   boys, not attack their genitals.
   – If a mature male wishes to embark on a wildly promiscuous sex life and
   does not want to use condoms he is perfectly at liberty to have himself
   circumcised if he thinks that will help. That is no reason for doing it to
   everybody. Others may wish to be monogamous, only practise safe sex, or not
   engage in sex at all. It’s a person’s right to choose.

   – Circumcision reduces the options for safe sex by stripping down the
   penis to a less complex and less responsive member, significantly reducing
   sensitivity and leaving less to play with. Circumcised men are abandoning
   condoms because they can’t get no satisfaction through the latex. Uncut men
   have greater sensitivity and find condoms easier to use and sex more
   satisfying. Partners agree <http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/>. Since
   their penis comes fully equipped with exciting features, they and their
   partners have more enjoyable options with which to pleasure and amuse
   themselves.

   – It is not the proper role of doctors to perform pre-emptive
   amputations. Their job is to protect the body from harm and that means all
   parts of the body, not just the parts they consider essential for survival.

   – If parents and doctors agree that it is not their right to decide who
   their son marries, what sexual practices he engages in or what his sexual
   orientation is, how could it be their right to have him circumcised?
   Compulsory circumcision arose in a period of arranged marriages and sexual
   repression, when authoritarian adults did claim these rights, but times have
   changed. Children are no longer their parents’ property.

   – The cheapest, easiest, least harmful and most effective way of
   protecting yourself against HIV infection is by using condoms.

—
Regards,

Dr MAKODINGO Washington,
Registered Pharmacist.
“If you go through life thinking about all the bad things that could happen,
you soon talk yourself into doing nothing at all!”

Dear All

To circumcise or not to circumcise is and could be a personal decision for Raila and anyone who do want to. The issue is not circumcision. The issue is who Raila is to the luos? Why is he so much glued to making sure that circumcision is absolutely necessary for the luos in particular? Is this circumcision a political move for Raila in particular and luos in general? Is Raila doing this because he is concerned about HIV related deaths in luoland in essence is this a medical issue?

Ladies and gentlemen I must say in advance that I am a strong supporter of Raila. I am quite convinced that Raila is the only bull in luoland; the other representatives are cows as at the time I am writing this piece. In other words, the luos will be lost without Rail especially now. Indeed God forbid something happens to him, we will be like sheep without a shepherd.

In the bible, after God used Moses to free the Jews from Egypt, he denied him entry into the promised land because he himself disobeyed God’s instructions about how to retrieve water from a stone. Moses still remained the leader but not for the sole purpose for which he was appointed. God appointed Joshua to take over. David, a humble man was appointed by God to be the king of Israel but he later became arrogant to an extent that he took an army commandant wife and killed him. God relieved him of his duties and that was the beginning of disintegration of Israel as a nation. However, in these stories whether real or made up, God was the checkpoint. The question is who is the checkpoint for Raila when he says or does something that is detrimental to luoland? I know that a few will counter this point by informing me that Raila is not a luo leader. Oh! he is a nationalist and a PM of Kenya as a nation. My answer is, if it were so, then he would have no business emphasizing this to the luos. He can make this a national issue.

The fact that Raila has been a strong leader is not in question. But the fact that lately he has taken a route that sounds he is loosing his calling is becoming clearer and clearer, especially when he has trivialized his position to this circumcision thing. While some say, Raila knows his way to promised land and that he is completely in control and knows what he is doing, it is also ok for some people including me to constantly pause the question “is this the way?” or “are we there yet” . It is ok to tell the king that he is naked. Because, ladies and gentlemen, it is very possible that the king is indeed naked but no one has the guts to tell him lest him suffer the wrath of the sycophants. The problem the luos have today, is that there is not a “Joshua” and Raila is not interested in grooming one. There also minimal interaction between the king and the council of elders to tell the king that he is naked. Many around Raila including our MPS are so indebted to him so much that it is impossible for them to voice discent. Indeed some MPs and even leaders who have questioned the validity of our direction have been pushed to the periphery and do not matter on the decision table. Woo to the luos if this trend continues.

Culture is something built over years. At some point, some are discarded while others are added. Indeed change of culture is normally by individual action that eventually translate into massive change. However, sometimes culture change may be abrupt but this must be instituted by an abrupt natural calamity or by abrupt invasion of one culture by another culture. In the argument of the prime minister, the luos must change. They must be educated to circumcise now because aids may wipe them out. In other words, the prime Minister is warning of a natural calamity that must abruptly change the luo culture. To me the food the PM is offering is full of maggots underneath and I am unwilling to eat it. There is no adequate data supporting circumcision as a real mechanism to limiting or eradication of HIV as I previously indicated in my last article. What I read in PMs position is that he fears for his future position in terms of capturing the top seat and would like to fit. The PM is possibly attempting to avoid being denied the presidency because of the perception that the luos are not circumcised and by extension he is not and hence he is considered a boy by other communities. In other words, Raila is fertilizing the soil for easy ploughing in 2012. My position is that there is an easier solution to this rather if he believes that this is what blocks him from presidency

1. Raila can declare to the public that he is indeed circumcised

2. Raila can tell the media the day he wants to be circumcised and makes sure it is fully captured.

I give these two suggestions with shear sadness because Raila does not need none of the above. All he needs is to find away of keeping Ruto, Ngilu, Nyaga, Mudavadi, and Balala. The rest of the flies will be coming to the trap. The sad thing is that he has decided to possibly drop some of these people and therefore he is left to grapple for new alliances. I say so because the pentagon members have begun to avoid meetings where Raila meets the new alliances. One of the demands for this new alliance could be this circumcision thing. In simple terms, this change of culture Raila is suggesting will be an invasion of the Luo culture by another culture under the disguise of a medical calamity. This is an invasion of a culture without a battle. I am saddened that the luo leaders, the MPs, are not talking about this. Where are Tuju, Ochuodho, Limumba, and Okundi? Why is Anyang Nyongo quiet? Where is Orengo on this? Why have they never summoned Raila on this or is he above the questioning by the luo leadership. May be they think this is a flimsy issue. Flimsy yes but this could be the very issue that may decide the 2012 support form luoland. For this issue even the toughest Raila diehards have been broken. Some are asking, how dare he? While others are saying that they have given too much for very little. The days of using the luos as a simple bargaining chip or a business entity may be over. There are times when a person can act as an individual while there is a time when people act as a group. If this issue divides the luos, Raila Amollo Odinga will have to bear the blame. He shall have just ruined the dynasty that his father built for years. Indeed he shall have single handedly destroyed chances for the luos to recover from over 40 years of government instituted poverty in Kenya, swindled luo culture and finished the luo nation as we know it.

Dr. Barack Abonyo

– – –
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:20:22 +0000
From: barack abonyo
Subject: Raila and the circumcision issue