Circumcision Is Recommended to Fight HIV says WHO and UNAIDS - Page 2

[mamakay]

Yeah. I've just been ignoring Schoen for the past few years, thinking the world sees him for the fanatic he is. Bad idea. He's all up in the UNAIDS stuff. His research is being cited by the decision makers as legitimate science. He's just been putting all his ducks in a row quitely for a while, and now they're just waiting on the folks at the top to give the "go".
And it's going to happen.

Gawd...this is so sick and sad.

[Daisyuk]

I just hope they get their well deserved come-uppance when it has no effect at all.

Presumably that's why they're telling everyone it will take a few years for there to be any effect (although they thought there was enough of an effect in those studies over ONE year..., by the time it's clear that the epidemic is still going strong, they will all have forgotten, or never knew, what it was like to have a foreskin. In the meantime, how many babies will have died because they were cut up in less than sanitary conditions in the bush?

The people promoting this are the lowest scum imaginable.

[Daisyuk]

Gloating and out in the open at last:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG5LOTIV21.DTL

Robert Bailey, a medical anthropologist at the University of Illinois in Chicago who carried out one of the three African studies, called the WHO recommendations a strong endorsement. "It's a great day,'' he said. "It is something I have been working toward for 12 years.''

Bailey cautioned that it is essential that a large-scale circumcision program in Africa be done safely. Although his experiment in Kenya had a complication rate of 1 percent, he also conducted a survey of 1,000 men who had their foreskins removed by traditional circumcisers or rural health clinics. The results were disturbing: a 35 percent complication rate among the clients of traditional circumcisers, and 11 percent in health clinics.

Well, if that doesn't say it all. He says that's unacceptable, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

[mamakay]

This was in the Lancet the same week as the RCTs were released...

http://www.globalhealth.harvard.edu/...603237.pdf.pdf

AIDS Policy Development
Center, UCLA Program in Global
Health, Division of Infectious
Diseases

Communicating the benefi ts of male circumcision
The benefi t from male circumcision is relative, not
absolute, and the challenge will be to devise
communication strategies to reinforce this point clearly.
The recent developments in male circumcision present
an opportunity to develop new and innovative prevention
messaging, and especially to reinforce the need for
combination prevention that encourages people to use all
of the prevention tools available to them. Furthermore,
we now have an opportunity to re-engage with
policymakers and programme planners about the new
opportunities that male circumcision presents for
widespread invigoration of prevention.

The results of the clinical trials present the opportunity
to re-examine national and professional policies on infant
circumcision. Neonatal circumcision is considerably
safer and substantially less expensive than adolescent or
adult circumcisions.14,16,33–38 If male circumcision proves
eff ective and is only rolled out to neonates, it would take
at least a generation before a population-level eff ect
occurs. An adult intervention raises important questions
regarding the capabilities of existing health systems,
increased complexity of the procedure, higher
complication rates, and greater expense. Managing
complications and the associated costs in resource-poor
settings also raises concerns.

In that last paragraph, they cite Schoen studies 4 times. Ugh.

[Quirky]

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

Of course abstinence is much easier if you have a desensitised penis and your partner isn't that keen on dry painful sex, it's about exporting American cultural practises and imposing them on Africans who don't know any better.

SICKOS

Although I agree with you on most things, you have to be aware that one of the confounding factors that they didn't take into account in the African studies is the PREFERENCE of many African men for dry sex. Women in Africa often apply drying herbs and other substances to their vaginas to dry up their fluids, because men prefer dry, not lubricated, sex.

E.g., http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/baleta1/

A traditional southern African sexual practice—dry sex—aimed at pleasing men, could promote the spread of HIV-1, researchers warn.

Many women in the region willingly insert herbal aphrodisiacs, household detergents, and antiseptics into their vaginas before sex, to ensure they are "hot, tight, and dry". This is the way their men like them, they say. The agents increase friction during sex and although painful for women, they are prepared to forego their own pleasure to ensure their partners return to them.

South Africa has one of the fastest growing rates of HIV-1 infection in the world, prompting Deputy Presidend Thabo Mebeki's address to the nation on October 9, when he launched a multisectorial anti-AIDS campaign. In the live broadcast, Mbeki said that more than 3 million people are infected with HIV-1 in South Africa and 1500 people are infected each day.

Neetha Morar (Medical Research Council, Durban) says dry sex has been reported in many countries. Zairean women reports the use of traditional substances to tighten the vagina before intercourse. A study in Zambia found that 86% of women interviewed practices dry sex.

Phillip Kubukeli, President of the Herbalists and Spiritual Healers Association in the Western Cape, says the use of dry sex is most prevalent in Kwazulu-Natal, which has the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS.

In the first descriptive study of its kind in South Africa, Norar found dry sex to be prevalent among prostitutes in the midlands of Kwazulu-Natal. At least 80% of a group of 150 prostitutes aged between 15 and 45 years who work at truck stops favour high, tight, and dry sex. Competition is tough and it is imperative the men return to them for economic reasons. One woman explains: "men do not like loose vaginas. If sex is wet the man thinks that I have had sex with someone else and then he won't pay me."

Morar say the substances used by the women could cause disruption of membranes lining the vaginal and uterine wall. In addition, excessive drying could lead to abrasive trauma during sexual intercourse. She says the study indicates the need for urgent public-health intervention in the women who use drying techniques, especially since the effective use of condoms may be compromised by intravaginal substance use.

Granted, circumcision is going to make the situation worse and not better, but the dry sex tradition is not something that Americans promote. These are not cultural practices we are exporting.

[KA29]

Honestly, I don't get it. If circ reduces AIDS, then shouldn't that be reflected in lower AIDS rates in the US than in countries where routine infant circ hasn't been practiced for years? Why is that never addressed?

[Romana]

What about the recent research on Langerhans cells? It would seem to directly contradict the circ research. At least it provides a strong rationale for not hurrying to cut off foreskins to prevent HIV infections.

Julia
dd 1 year old

[MommytoB]

Why can't they see this recommendation will lead to a increase into the HIV statistics!

I think we are selves need to find circ'ed males with HIV's and tell them to "write to them to the goverment " tell them that they 'are circ'ed & have aids/HIV etc have actual proof from men who are circumcized who have gotten aids because we need to get that out there before more ppl try to treat this as invisible condom pratice exposing the rest of the world to deadly Hiv exposure!

[pdx.mothernurture]

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

Of course they're going to invest in it, it's the US neocons are paying and the US is not interested in providing condoms (they actually cut off the flow of condoms) because condom availability encourages fornication. They're interested in genital mutilation and abstinence.

Exactly. Because pleasure=lust=sex & masturbation=condoms=less negative (deadly) consequences=sexual freedom=less easy to control & convert=less dependence.

Jen

[mamasophy]

Circ'd women have lower HIV rate too!

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

The above link is to the Stallings study, that showed that circ'd women have lower rates of HIV infection. Is this where the UN is heading with their policy rec's?? Because if you can remove a healthy body part to prevent future problems, why stop at male circ? or circ at all? Why not infant mastectomy to "cure" breast cancer? Partial castration to prevent testicular cancer??:

[A&A]

Originally Posted by kvilbig

Crazy sad world we live in.

Yes.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by mamasophy

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

The above link is to the Stallings study, that showed that circ'd women have lower rates of HIV infection. Is this where the UN is heading with their policy rec's?? Because if you can remove a healthy body part to prevent future problems, why stop at male circ? or circ at all? Why not infant mastectomy to "cure" breast cancer? Partial castration to prevent testicular cancer??:

Yeah, I know.
In theory, you could do a lot of weird surgical sh*t to babies and reduce the chances of X.
But MGM is "ok" and everything else is "absurd".

[eepster]

Originally Posted by kvilbig

Circumcision is not the answer to AIDS - science is just throwing the epidemic a bandaid. What social implications will this have on a culture steeped in war and genocide - cut the innocent, ignore life's fragility? I think the scientific community needs to consider more than just the science. The ethical and social implications of their recommendation are just as important (if not more so).

to MDC.

Actually if they considered the actual science they would see the many obvious flaws in this study.

Here are some I pionted out in this thread http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=630910&highlight=hiv+study

Originally Posted by eepster

The randomized study only lasted 2 years, so the first reason would be that the circ'd men will have abstained from sex for several months while recovering. Then if you look at that at the end of the study they decided to offer circ to all partipants (preventing long term follow ups) only 80% of the non-circ group decided to go for it you can reason that a similar 20% of the originally randomly selected to be circ'd group dropped out of the study and that they were likely to be the 20% who cared the least about safe sex (basically it wasn't really random.)

[pdx.mothernurture]

: : :Puke

[Blarg]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I read another article from some newspaper called the national post (or something like that) that was linked on google news. It claimed that the Canadian Pediatric Society was relooking at their circumcision policy becuase of the HIV studies :

That just doesn't make any sense from any standpoint. Even if we pretend that these studies are accurate and that condoms don't exist, it would still only provide a meaningful benefit to men who live in countries where HIV is epidemic. And last time I checked, Canada isn't exactly going through an HIV epidemic.

Someone please whack the world over the head with an anti-stupid mallet...

[HerthElde]

So . . . my brother is an economics major, and just did a report on the economic impact of AIDS in 3rd world countries (I can't remember if he was focusing on Africa) - did you all know the AIDS epidemic increases GDP in developed countries (I think that's the right term) translated, overall our governments are making money on the AIDS epidemic. Nice, huh? Not sure how/if that ties in, but I've got conspiracy theories running around in my head.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by HerthElde

So . . . my brother is an economics major, and just did a report on the economic impact of AIDS in 3rd world countries (I can't remember if he was focusing on Africa) - did you all know the AIDS epidemic increases GDP in developed countries (I think that's the right term) translated, overall our governments are making money on the AIDS epidemic. Nice, huh? Not sure how/if that ties in, but I've got conspiracy theories running around in my head.

Do you remember how AIDS in the developing world is profitable for developed countries?

[HerthElde]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Do you remember how AIDS in the developing world is profitable for developed countries?

He said it has something to do with research and drug costs. We were all talking about his presentation at supper last night, but little ones inevitably distracted us from the conversation, so we didn't get much more indepth than that. No real surprise though, Pharma's got her finger in every pot.

[Daisyuk]

Of COURSE it's going to be profitable for developed countries, just think of all the "information packs", the "sterile circ" packs, the instruments, they are going to sell these nations and the oh-so-kind foreskin tissue disposal system, which is so profitable...

HIV is worth a fortune, and when they get circ underway, it will be worth even more. It's a pity there aren't people around that can warn those poor people what UNAIDS and USAIDS are up to, and the history of the perverts who are targetting them.