Bio not provided
@Mare54 In all of your comments you have made one emotional assertion after the other. Not a single shred of evidence. So if you know the CDC has written articles that "outline plans to cut babies because it would be easier" - publish links to them. In the light of the WHO's statement on the matter - that would indeed be an outrageous statement for the CDC to make.
Your feelings on the matter are clear, and there's nothing wrong with having strong feelings. What is wrong is asserting those feelings as matters of fact - unless you have the evidence to support it. Show me the evidence.
9 months, 1 week ago on Circumcision: Human Rights Make No Anatomical Distinctions – By Maria Bangs
@Mare54 I live in South Africa. In a country with one of the highest incidence of HIV and AIDS. Through men's groups, I engage with men in communities in Khayelitsha here in Cape Town.The Treatment Action Campaign has been at the forefront of fighting the SA Government's hypocrisy and denial-ism about AIDS treatment. They have been actively interested and involved in the trials being run in SA, and have firmly come down on the side the MCC as an option - where practical. Your views are parochial, and misguided. Please engage with the facts and not emotional responses that misrepresent what is actually happening on the ground. http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.5.399
9 months, 2 weeks ago on Circumcision: Human Rights Make No Anatomical Distinctions – By Maria Bangs
@Mare54 Don't set up straw-men. No-one is suggesting that circumcision is a magic bullet. No-one is suggesting that the USA is an area with low MMC and high HIV incidence - so there would be absolutely no reason for the CDC to suggest MMC as a solution.
Your description of HIV transmission is ridiculous - access to clean water and better nutrition have nothing to do with it. HIV is transmitted through exposure to infected blood - the likelihood of sanitation being involved is extremely unlikely.
Your assertion (without evidence) that 'African men will pay the ultimate price' is ridiculous. The studies, and their recent follow-up, show no reduction in condom usage, and no increase in risky-behaviour. As an adjunct to an ABC program (which has not had massive success on its own) MCC is a reasonable approach when following the WHO guideline:
Your panning of the Gates' foundation efforts and vapid 'follow the money' jibe is a plainly ridiculous and irrational response to philanthropic efforts to get a reasonable message and treatment opportunities to areas which have neither.
@LucidWombat Do you have any evidence of the "lot of lobbying by some very vocal jewish doctors"? I find that quite distasteful and dismissive of a large number of talented and dedicated medical researches working hard to reduce the number of deaths due to HIV/AIDS.
I have no evidence that the composition of the trial researchers "in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence" are of any particular race or religion. Do you?
Your conflation of the two indicates something less than lucidity, and I can see how easily that can happen. My own anger at having been circumcised as an infant for no obvious reason sometimes gets in the way of rational thought on the subject.
@LucidWombat Green's article http://www.davidwilton.com/files/ajpmgreenetal2010-pub1.pdf) repeats the same arguments he made in 2008 - for which the FutureMedicine article referenced on the QuackDown site remains a reasonable rebuttal (http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.5.399). The editorial also adds nothing new to the argument.
The Quackdown article also refers (poorly linked) to this http://pag.ias2011.org/Abstracts.aspx?SID=43&AID=4792%20 where the same Auvert & Taljaard (et al) say:
"Without the intervention, if no men were circumcised, HIV prevalence among all men aged 15 to 49 would have been 25.1% (95%CI: 13.1%−39.1%) higher, and HIV incidence among all men aged 15 to 34, 61.0% (95%CI: 23.0%−152%) higher. Conclusion: This study shows for the first time that the roll-out of MMC in Southern and Eastern Africa, can, if successfully promoted, markedly decrease the spread of HIV in endemic communities."
@LucidWombat Your assertion without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. When you can provide argument/evidence about the trials which is not refuted by the content at the link I provided - I may consider your opinion.
@Mare54 So you are saying that the evidence from current trials in near-poverty situations in Africa makes no sense because the number of HIV deaths among men with very different lifestyle-choices in the USA in the early 80's consisted primarily of circumcised males? Try harder. The men dying of AIDS in the early 80s were born during the period of the highest rate of circumcision in the USA. http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/USA. The likelihood of them not being circumcised is minimal.
@mariaRB Let me make this clear - ethically, I believe circumcision without informed and understood consent is criminal mutilation. Most 'medical benefits' from the past have been spouted with no evidence.
However - we live in an age where we can study these things. And I live in South Africa, which has one of the highest incidences of HIV and AIDS.
I think you dismiss the studies too simply. After all the WHO stance is very different "WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence." http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
There are plenty of rebuttals to the points above - but Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Campaign, and a fellow sceptic of medical claims, does a good job here:
It isn't clear to me how you propose the mechanism by which it is understood that circumcision to reduce HIV infection in circumcised men would be expected to work in women?
Thank you for a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece. Very useful argument against those claiming it to be nowhere near as bad as FGM. This is a sensitive subject for many.
You have sort-of dismissed the health issues - there is positive feedback from African trials; strong correlation between circumcision and reduction in HIV infections. None of which suggests that infant circumcision is permissible though - it should be delayed to adolescence when the man can be given an informed choice.