W.H.O. Urges Circumcision to Reduce AIDS

[Yulia_R]

That is SO very bad. I'm sooo upset right now ...................

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/he...=1&oref=slogin

[Daisyuk]

YEP, the WHO are a bunch of hypocrites, who frown on female genital mutilation (where's the follow up studies on that then? Since it has also been shown to lower the chances of getting HIV), but consider men's anatomy to be expendable.

HOW DARE THEY?

Why do they consider men to be expendable and their genitals to be of no consequence? Sexist and racist, since it seems to be Africa that they consider to be so uneducatable they won't fund either sufficient education or condoms.

It's disgusting and shameful. The US can fund genital mutilation, but not condoms.

There are no words sufficient to describe how nauseating and sickening this is.

I hope that Halperin, Bailey, Morris, Auvert, Schoen et al, burn in HELL for all eternity for the carnage they're about to unleash on those poor people, for their own twisted ends.

[myfairbabies]

uh, :

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

YEP, the WHO are a bunch of hypocrites, who frown on female genital mutilation (where's the follow up studies on that then? Since it has also been shown to lower the chances of getting HIV), but consider men's anatomy to be expendable.

HOW DARE THEY?

Why do they consider men to be expendable and their genitals to be of no consequence? Sexist and racist, since it seems to be Africa that they consider to be so uneducatable they won't fund either sufficient education or condoms.

It's disgusting and shameful. The US can fund genital mutilation, but not condoms.

There are no words sufficient to describe how nauseating and sickening this is.

I hope that Halperin, Bailey, Morris, Auvert et al, burn in HELL for all eternity for the carnage they're about to unleash on those poor people, for their own twisted ends.

All I can say is...I feel ya'.

And don't forget Schoen, mastermind behind the "Do the Babies! They're the cheapest!" "scientific research".

:Puke

[mamakay]

Ugh...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16822094

Using country level data on HIV prevalence and MC, we estimate the impact of increasing MC coverage on HIV incidence, HIV prevalence, and HIV-related deaths over the next ten, twenty, and thirty years in sub-Saharan Africa. Assuming that full coverage of MC is achieved over the next ten years, we consider three scenarios in which the reduction in transmission is given by the best estimate and the upper and lower 95% confidence limits of the reduction in transmission observed in the RCT. MC could avert 2.0 (1.1-3.8) million new HIV infections and 0.3 (0.1-0.5) million deaths over the next ten years in sub-Saharan Africa.

You can't get 100% compliance without
1) getting all the babies
2) getting all the children
3) getting all the men
4) using ruthless, one-sided "communications" (aka, fearmongering) to get people to go along with it.

[phatchristy]

This is just crazy...and of course there is NO information on what male circumcision does to female aquisition of HIV. Whatever. The media in this country is going to hop all over this as of course the media is mainly made up of circumcised men.

They psychologically "need something" to make themselves feel good apparently about what was done to them at birth. Sigh.

[mamakay]

Where is the outcry from European pediatricians?

[mamakay]

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html

Maximizing public health benefit

A significant public health impact is likely to occur most rapidly if male circumcision services are first provided where the incidence of heterosexually acquired HIV infection is high. It was therefore recommended that countries with high prevalence, generalized heterosexual HIV epidemics that currently have low rates of male circumcision consider urgently scaling up access to male circumcision services. A more rapid public health benefit will be achieved if age groups at highest risk of acquiring HIV are prioritized, although providing male circumcision services to younger age groups will also have public health impact over the longer term. Modelling studies suggest that male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa could prevent 5.7 million new cases of HIV infection and 3 million deaths over 20 years.

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Where is the outcry from European pediatricians?

These articles are all quite onesided....where is the outcry/response?


Some people I know from overseas who are all intact sort of laugh it off...the idea that their country would ever adopt such a thing. Because they know that sub-saharan Africa is a completely insane and out of control climate for HIV and that they will do anything in an effort to make a dent. So, they really take the info with a grain of salt.

But, of course, they are completely shocked when I tell them that people in the US are using this stuff to justify having little babies cut here. They don't get how that can happen.

[mamakay]

http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/infopack_en_3.pdf

The safety of male circumcision clearly depends on the setting and expertise of the provider. When
circumcision is performed in a clinical setting, under aseptic conditions, by well trained, adequately
equipped health care personnel the level of risk is low. Among adults the operation is more
complex and the complication rates for clinical circumcision are between 2 and 4 per 100 procedures.
Few of these complications are serious. Neonatal circumcision is a relatively simple, quick
procedure; fewer than 1 in 500 procedures results in complications and these are usually minor.

Coz meatal stenosis either doesn't exist or doesn't matter to these people.

[Daisyuk]

The only possible good thing to come out of this is that they are hyping it up SO much, that they are heading for a MASSIVE crash when it all goes wrong.

In 10 years time, when they have mutilated every man, child and baby they can get their filthy hands on, caused god knows how many deaths, and botches from the actual circs, and it STILL hasn't helped the epidemic, I hope all the guilty will be held to account, in person, by the people they have made to suffer for nothing.

[Daisyuk]

Omg They're Actually Lying.

I had no idea that the WHO would stoop that far.

That info-pack is just a whole load of misinformation.

That's beyond DISGUSTING AND UNETHICAL.

There aren't words to describe it. HOW THE HELL DID THEY MANAGE TO PRODUCE THAT RUBBISH????

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

I had no idea that the WHO would stoop that far.

That info-pack is just a whole load of misinformation.

That's beyond DISGUSTING AND UNETHICAL.

There aren't words to describe it. HOW THE HELL DID THEY MANAGE TO PRODUCE THAT RUBBISH????

I know...I know...

It just takes your breath away, doesn't it?

And let's be real clear on what these "scientists" are ultimately after...

http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/77/3/258

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/118/1/385

They are freakin' winning. They finally found their "in".

[Daisyuk]

Oh yes, King Pervert in action.

He was moaning that Europeans took no notice of him. Well they have foreskins, and yes they know what they would be missing and that they don't have any medical problems with them.

It would take a lot more than his drivel to make any normal man over here part with his foreskin.

[phatchristy]

What I am more concerned about is that the intact men won't have a problem letting it be done to their sons though....

I have met a man (through a woman I know) who IS intact, and went and had all three sons cut. And, I asked him why he had it done...he said the docs told him it was better when they were born.

Then, I talk to him and ask him the obvious question..."so why didn't you get yourself done with the same logic"...

Of course, he said he's 'very happy with his, and has no problem down there.'

What I don't get is why he couldn't assume that his sons would be happy with their natural penises the SAME way : .

He completely agreed with me too with nearly everything I said with regards to sensitivity. He told me that before he was married he got around enough to know that...apparently women always told him he was very special and uniquely talented during intercourse. He of course, probably never assumed it had anything to do with having a foreskin. :

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by Daisyuk

It would take a lot more than his drivel to make any normal man over here part with his foreskin.

Yep....and like in my past post I know an intact man with circumcised sons...and HE won't even part with his foreskin. :

It's a ludicrous thing to say to an intact man. Seriously. It's just as foreign as asking one of us women if we'd voluntarily give up our clitoral hood. It's just a bizarre question...asking someone to voluntarily CUT OFF sensitive genital tissue. :