This is medical malpractice on an epic scale. Not only is there proof positive that there is no proof that circumcision prevents HIV infection. There is proof that in various countries there is a higher instance of circumcised men testing positive than uncircumcised men testing positive. Of course the difference is so small that it is very close to or within the statistical error range.
The evidence for this entire campaign is based on three random clinical trials held within 2 years of eachother - in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa.
Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial.
Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial.
However, with the full backing of population control enthusiasts like Bill Gates, they now want to implement mass circumcision in Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa, if not more countries.
I am still looking what their angle is with regards to population control. Is it psychological, in that they are preparing people's minds of the idea of a massively intrusive government? Is it intimidation? Look at what we were able to do to you just by making it policy?
They must know by now that there is no scientific evidence that circumcision prevents HIV infection, or even lowers the risks. In fact in various countries there are higher numbers of HIV positives among circumcised men than among uncicumsized men.
And yet they are doubling down, and want to circumcise all newborns in Zimbabwe.
" Boyle and Hill said: “What does the frequently claimed ‘60 percent relative reduction’ in HIV infections actually mean?
" “Across all the three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18 percent) became HIV positive while among the 5,497 controls 137 (2.49 percent) became HIV positive.
" “So the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31 percent, which is statistically not significant.” "
This is what the claim of 60% reduction in HIV transmission is based on. Lies and deception.
On the general proof that circumcision means reduced HIV infection, they state:
Yet, they march on in the campaign to get every newborn circumcised:
(NEWZIMBABWE) Newly-born babies to be circumcised
by Phyllis Mbanje
"The project will start in Harare and Bulawayo," Ncube said adding that, gradually, all maternity sites across the country would be circumcising newly born babies by 2014. "
Question: how are they going to get informed consent, knowing that the data do not support the idea that circumcision prevents or even reduces HIV infection?
Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review.
Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, Burns KE, Eggert CH, Briel M, Lacchetti C, Leung TW, Darling E, Bryant DM, Bucher HC, Schünemann HJ, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Erwin PJ, Sood A, Sood R, Lo B, Thompson CA, Zhou Q, Mills E, Guyatt GH.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
RCTs stopped early for benefit are becoming more common, often fail to adequately report relevant information about the decision to stop early, and show implausibly large treatment effects, particularly when the number of events is small. These findings suggest clinicians should view the results of such trials with skepticism.
Stephanie Murphy wrote on the CDC's intent to see universal circumcision, read her article here.