Tell UNAIDS and WHO: Circumcision does not prevent AIDS (petition)

The conference is now underway in Rome and the IntactAmerica team is there trying to counter the lies spread by the likes of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who seem determined to inflict the equivalent of the Windows operating system on every penis in Africa.

If the "first world" really wants to do something to improve the health of Africans, they should be drilling wells and creating other infrastructure to provide clean water to the population. Studies have shown that one of the best ways to prevent the spread of STDs is washing the hands and genitals with a mild soap solution after potential exposure. Of course, clean drinking water reduces the threat of water-borne diseases and parasites for the entire population.

To almost nobody's surprise, the African circumcision campaigns have moved from voluntary surgeries on adult men to forced surgeries on boys who are not capable of providing informed consent, using scare tactics and misinformation propaganda similar to those used in the U.S. and other English-speaking countries in the early to mid-20th century.

And just as expected by the anti-circ crowd, male circumcision is proving to be a disaster in preventing sexually-transmitted HIV. Here's a very readable summary:
https://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/...event-hiv.html

While you are at it, check out Circumcision is child abuse: a picture essay (a very viewable and readable summary).

Last but not least, here is the action alert from IntactAmerica:

"Key policy makers from around the world are convening THIS WEEK in Rome for the International AIDS Society's annual conference. Thanks to the generosity of Intact America’s supporters, we are there, calling upon the governing bodies of the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS to acknowledge the truth: circumcision does not prevent AIDS.

It’s critical that UNAIDS and the WHO stop supporting mass circumcisions, and accept the fact that there are other, better ways to fight the HIV epidemic. We’ve created a petition to help them get that message.

Will you make your voice heard, and sign our petition today?

We know that safe sexual practices and abstinence—not circumcision—prevent HIV. But the practice of mass circumcision persists. That’s why we’ll be on the ground in Rome, talking with health professionals and community activists, and telling them the truth about circumcision:

• Circumcision is NOT a vaccine
• Other effective means exist to prevent HIV transmission
• Male circumcision puts women at risk
• Mass circumcision campaigns squander limited resources

We need your help to make sure that UNAIDS and the World Health Organization get the message that the mass practice of circumcision is an unethical and dangerous distraction in the battle against HIV and AIDS."

The ensuing discussion has been split of to: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...n-prevent-AIDS

Looking at those links - I'm not finding any scientific explanation as to why or why not circumcision would or would not reduce HIV transmission. I posted the scientifically determined process by which the foreskin is found to encourage HIV transmission. The actual biological process.

The articles stating statistical studies such as "In Malawi, 20% of the male population is circumcised. The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 13.2 vs 9.5." are not demonstrating whether or not circumcision changes HIV infection probability.

As one of the other articles pointed out, men who were circumcised were far more likely to engage in risky behaviors.

The articles are describing the effects of behavior, not circumcision. You know, kinda like some men rape virgin girls because they were convinced that's the way to cure their HIV. Guess what that does to the HIV transmission rate?

I am looking for scientific analysis of the biological processes of HIV infection and how those processes are affected by circumcision. I already posted the results of one biological study.

Infection rates are skewed by behaviors, therefore not reliable.

Here's the biological information again:

The Scientific American article describes the study showing the great effectiveness of circumcision and provides detail as to WHY it works:
"It was striking that the trials were in very different settings, but yielded consistent results," says Ronald Gray, study leader for the Uganda trial and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. "This was the largest protective effect ever seen next to condom use," adds Sten Vermund, director of the Institute for Global Health at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. But the question remained: Why?


Microscopic examination of the foreskin yielded important clues for unraveling the benefits of circumcision. Normally, the skin provides a thick protective barrier stemming from keratin—a tough structural protein also found in hair and fingernails. But on the inner surface of the foreskin, the keratin layer is much thinner, resembling the inner lining of the mouth or eyelid more than the palm of the hand.


In uncircumcised men Langerhans cells—immune cells that are primary targets for HIV transmission—"are more richly concentrated near the surface of the foreskin," says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md. Without the keratin barrier, HIV can easily access these cells in the foreskin. Following infection, Langerhans cells not only serve as reservoirs for replicating virus, but also transport the virus to nearby lymph nodes where HIV spreads to other immune cells.


In fact, the foreskin's anatomical function actually amplifies the risks. In uncircumcised men the foreskin covers and protects the tip of the penis, paradoxically making the skin there more delicate and prone to microscopic abrasions. These tiny injuries promote inflammation, Fauci says, allowing the virus to come into closer contact with target immune cells. The moist environment that forms under the foreskin also enhances the growth of microbes on the penis's tip, Fauci adds, further stimulating immune responses near the skin's surface.

perhaps your belief is correct s2t, suppose being cut does reduce the ease of hiv transmission, difficult to design experiments to really test this theory, unless our primate relatives have similar foreskins? but for a thought experiment lets assume...

what else do you assume is true? you seem to think your own penile status make no difference in your life. what if you accept the theory that your own sensation is 1/4 of what it would be uncut? plenty of logical scientific explaination to support this. would you still want your son circumcised? its easy to say what is best for others, what would you do?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Looking at those links - I'm not finding any scientific explanation as to why or why not circumcision would or would not reduce HIV transmission. I posted the scientifically determined process by which the foreskin is found to encourage HIV transmission. The actual biological process.

The articles stating statistical studies such as "In Malawi, 20% of the male population is circumcised. The ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 13.2 vs 9.5." are not demonstrating whether or not circumcision changes HIV infection probability.

As one of the other articles pointed out, men who were circumcised were far more likely to engage in risky behaviors.

The articles are describing the effects of behavior, not circumcision. You know, kinda like some men rape virgin girls because they were convinced that's the way to cure their HIV. Guess what that does to the HIV transmission rate?

I am looking for scientific analysis of the biological processes of HIV infection and how those processes are affected by circumcision. I already posted the results of one biological study.

Infection rates are skewed by behaviors, therefore not reliable.

Here's the biological information again:

The Scientific American article describes the study showing the great effectiveness of circumcision and provides detail as to WHY it works:
"It was striking that the trials were in very different settings, but yielded consistent results," says Ronald Gray, study leader for the Uganda trial and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. "This was the largest protective effect ever seen next to condom use," adds Sten Vermund, director of the Institute for Global Health at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. But the question remained: Why?


Microscopic examination of the foreskin yielded important clues for unraveling the benefits of circumcision. Normally, the skin provides a thick protective barrier stemming from keratin—a tough structural protein also found in hair and fingernails. But on the inner surface of the foreskin, the keratin layer is much thinner, resembling the inner lining of the mouth or eyelid more than the palm of the hand.


In uncircumcised men Langerhans cells—immune cells that are primary targets for HIV transmission—"are more richly concentrated near the surface of the foreskin," says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md. Without the keratin barrier, HIV can easily access these cells in the foreskin. Following infection, Langerhans cells not only serve as reservoirs for replicating virus, but also transport the virus to nearby lymph nodes where HIV spreads to other immune cells.


In fact, the foreskin's anatomical function actually amplifies the risks. In uncircumcised men the foreskin covers and protects the tip of the penis, paradoxically making the skin there more delicate and prone to microscopic abrasions. These tiny injuries promote inflammation, Fauci says, allowing the virus to come into closer contact with target immune cells. The moist environment that forms under the foreskin also enhances the growth of microbes on the penis's tip, Fauci adds, further stimulating immune responses near the skin's surface.

---