Comments on: Four major misconceptions about the global HIV/AIDS epidemic Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: ethan90 Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:45:32 +0000 I found there will be a strong push to increase funding for HIV/AIDS, along with calls to focus more on prevention of it.

By: JLC981 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:19:57 +0000 Seriously, IntactNYC. Right along with his partner Robert Bailey. Aesop’s “The Fox Without a Tail” teaches us to be wary of interested advice.

Both Halperin and Bailey were advocates of male circumcision before hopping onto the HIV/AIDS gravy train. Bailey is a known long-standing advocate for male circumcision, particularly INFANT circumcision. Look up his track record and you’ll realize he’s been trying to make “universal circumcision” his legacy. Halperin is on record saying he wants to make his grandfather proud (his grandfather was a mohel).

So we have some researchers that have a vested interest in legitimizing circumcision. They set out to “study” to see if “circumcision reduced the risk of HIV.” Is it any wonder that this is PRECISELY WHAT THEY FOUND?

What would we think of “resarchers” who were trying to legitimize FEMALE circumcision? What would we think of them if they were proposing governments take up “mass female circumcision” campaigns? I think they would be immediately dismissed. One needs to wonder HOW anyone up at the WHO could let this happen. What are they smoking? How much were they paid?

We need to put professional medical organizations and medical journals to task; the “study” of trying to connect male circumcision to the “prevention” of whatever disease has been raging on since it was first introduced into western medicine over 100 years ago. I think it’s time we ended the “study” of trying to vilify a perfectly healthy and normal part of the human body.

Medical “research” that focuses on seeking to necessitate a destructive procedure is backwards. Imagine “research” that focuses on finding the “benefits” blood-letting and trephination. The time has come we have treated circumcision “research” accordingly.

By: IntactNYC Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:53:25 +0000 “Male circumcision, for example, is not as effective as condoms in reducing risk for each sex act but it lowers lifetime risk by at least 60%.” That is a LIE. Based on what, other than the author’s own bias? The flawed studies showed a reduction over a short period of time, due in part to the men injured from circumcision not being able to have sex. There has been NO proof of any value over a man’s lifetime. FACT CHECK PLEASE.


Last, how about a Conflict of Interest disclosure? Halperin, the author, is a major backer of circumcision as AIDS prevention method, and his reputation depends on propogating this garbage science.

By: JLC981 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:32:55 +0000 Usually, medical studies tend to study how to preserve the human body, not vilify it and justify its destruction. For example, the study of cancer is a tedious one, and usually researchers are trying to find ways to avoid the loss of organs, such as the testicles, the prostate, and/or the mammary glands. Circumcision “studies” are unique. They’re the only ones of their kind that seek to preserve a procedure, and not the human body.

Has there been any research for alternatives for HIV/STD prevention WITHOUT having to circumcise? Is the WHO or UNAIDS doing anything to eventually move past circumcision? Is there research looking for ways in which men don’t have to consider circumcision anymore, and is the WHO considering it?

Let’s get real here. Circumcision, for all intents and purposes, is the mutilation of a person’s healthy genitals. The WHO and others are promoting male genital mutilation and HIV/AIDS “prevention” is the pretext. It should strike the reader as odd that these “researchers” are fixated on trying to legitimize a particular surgical procedure, male circumcision of all things. Recommending female circumcision would NEVER fly, no matter how much “research” the WHO or UNAIDS presented.

How is it we’ve let male circumcision go as far as promoting “mass circumcision campaigns” for it? Would we ever endorse the “mass circumcision” of women? What if “studies” showed conclusively that female circumcision cut down the risk of AIDS transmission by 100%? Why is there all this “research” surrounding male circumcision, but not female circumcision? You gotta wonder what it is they’re smokin’ up there at the WHO.

By: JLC981 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:27:40 +0000 The studies being used to promote circumcision fail to correlate with a few harsh realities:

In America, for example, 80% of men are already circumcised from birth. The rates of infant circumcision are dropping, but at large, the population remains circumcised. These rates are at their highest in the East Coast, where cities such as Philadelphia and Washington DC rival HIV hotspots in South Africa. In the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic first hit, the rate of circumcised men in America was at 90%. One needs to question how something that never worked here in our own country is suddenly going to start working wonders in Africa.

In other countries, the “protection” remains to be seen as well. AIDS is a rising problem in Israel, where the majority of the male population is already circumcised. On Wednesday, July 7th, two weeks ago, Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan announced that than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims (in other words CIRCUMCISED). The Muslim, circumcised population accounts for 70% of the incidence of HIV, but only 60% of the population, which would mean that the circumcised population is getting HIV at a much higher rate than the non-circumcised population.