Mass Circumcision Drive In Africa - And A Hospital Near You Soon

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

7 posts / 0 new

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 men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial.

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.

(NEWZIMBWE, REUTERS) Impact of male circumcision on HIV doubted

" Researchers Gregory J. Boyle and Gregory Hill claimed the 60 percent reduction in transmission was only relative with the absolute reduction rate actually no more than 1.3 percent.

" 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:

" “In Malawi, the HIV prevalence rate is 13.2 percent among circumcised men and 9.5 percent among those who are intact. (Again) in Cameroon prevalence among those circumcised is 5.1 percent compare to 1.5 percent for those who are intact. "

Yet, they march on in the campaign to get every newborn circumcised:

(NEWZIMBABWE) Newly-born babies to be circumcised
19/07/2012 00:00:00
by Phyllis Mbanje

" The ministry’s AIDS and TB unit co-ordinator, Getrude Ncube, said a pilot project targeting babies between one and 28 days old would be launched before year end with the full programme likely to be rolled out in 2014. "

"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?

Also see:

(NYASATIMES) Malawi promises to raise contraceptive prevalence rate to 60% – VP

(NYASATIMES) Britain committed to helping Malawi in family planning.

Also interesting:

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.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am


On these studies. Notice that the lead 'researchers' were already enthusiasts of universal circumcision. And presto, their 'trials' show that circumcision works on preventing HIV infection. They wanted to find something and then they stopped looking when they did.

From Canada's National Review of Medicine, Jan. 30 2007:

Circumcision/HIV trials disputed

WHO studies looked only at rarer female-to-male transmission
By Peter Woodford

Circumcision "is, in fact, the real-world equivalent of an AIDS vaccine," trumpeted a January 14 New York Times editorial. The bold proclamation came in reaction to two recent clinical trials in Africa investigating circumcision's protective effects against HIV. The trials were halted early due to the procedure's apparent success in protecting men against contracting HIV from women. The Times opinion piece was typical of the ebullient international news media's reaction, but not everyone is convinced that ridding the world of prepuces will do much to diminish the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The Seattle-based group Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) released a statement condemning the early termination of the trials, which the investigators say was done on ethical grounds: "If the studies had continued for their scheduled time, it is probable that there would have been little difference between the circumcised group and the non-circumcised group."

Dr Stephen Moses, of University of Manitoba, was the principal investigator for the CIHR-funded Kenyan trial (the other study was in Uganda). He's quick to note that this particular trial did not look at man-to-woman transmission. "Our study only looked at the protection afforded to HIV uninfected men who are exposed to HIV through sex with HIV infected women," he said. "Circumcision reduced their risk of acquiring HIV by 53%."

The DOC statement also expressed concern that, despite the fact that rates of heterosexual woman-to-man transmission of HIV are low in developed countries, this trial might be used as an argument for routine neonatal circumcision in the US and Canada. Dr Moses, who favours routine neonatal circumcision, agrees.

"I think that it would be in order for the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) to revisit the issue of routine male circumcision, not just in the light of the findings of reduced risk for HIV infection, but in relation to other health benefits which have come to light in recent years," he told NRM.


Dr Robin Walker, Vice-President Medicine at the IWK in Halifax and a former president of the CPS, says that the CPS's official opposition to non-religious routine infant circumcision, based on years of study, isn't likely to change quickly.

"In this case there is growing evidence of a partial protective effect of circumcision on rates of transmission of HIV," he says. "But when our expert committee reviews the evidence it will not only have to determine if there is enough science of high enough quality to use for a recommendation, but also whether circumcising every male is justified by the degree of protection conferred."

"HIV is already preventable by other means that do not involve surgery, let alone surgery on every male," he stresses.

And indeed, besides condoms and safer sex, simply washing the penis after sex might help reduce the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission among uncircumcised men.

The CDC's fact sheet on circumcision trials noted the following: "The micro-environment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival." It follows that improving access to clean water in endemic AIDS areas would be a good start.

This is where they enter la-la land. The 'dry sex myth' has been used to rationalize the defective UNAIDS statistics for 30 years now. It is a form of special pleading, of which there is no more proof than there is of circumcision preventing HIV infection. - MrK


Understanding local customs can also help when interpreting the results of the circumcision studies. For instance, in Kenya and other sub-Saharan African countries, a pervasive practice called "dry sex" is a major factor in heterosexual HIV transmission. In dry sex, women use a desiccant prior to intercourse to remove natural vaginal lubrication, which is often associated with promiscuity and uncleanliness. A 2000 Pulitzer Prize-winning report in the Village Voice described how drying agents like mutendo wegudo — soil with baboon urine — were widely used by women in Zimbabwe and Kenya prior to sex. Dry sex tends to cause vaginal lacerations and the inherent friction often shreds condoms.

When asked about the potential for dry sex to affect the results in the circumcision trials Dr Moses notes that this is indeed something that requires study. "We did ask the men questions about dry sex," he says. "But have not analysed those data yet. This will be done over the coming months."

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

COMMENT - I think it is now pretty clear that the African trials that were supposed to investigate whether circumcision prevents HIV infection, were in fact intended to find a positive finding, to give credence to the agendas of the researchers. The researchers have been long term proponents of universal circumcision, and their agenda was to find that fewer circumcised men caught HIV from women than uncircumcised men. To do this, they stopped the trials when they had the results they wanted. This is what the planned mass circumcision in Africa is based on, is another example of colonialism, and shows how undemocratic and disconnected rule by NGO is. Also see: (YOUTUBE) UN HIV Circumcision Study A Fraud - The Atheist Experience #603

From Doctors Opposing Circumcision:

The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection
A statement by Doctors Opposing Circumcision

Introduction. There have been a number of exaggerated claims made for the alleged efficacy of male circumcision in preventing female-to-male infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) This statement examines those claims and puts them in proper perspective.

History. The theory that male circumcision may be protective against HIV infection was invented and developed in North America. According to Professor Valiere Alcena, MD, he originated the theory that removing the foreskin can prevent HIV infection in an article1 in August 1986.2 The late Aaron J. Fink, MD, a noted North American advocate of male circumcision, then promoted Alcena's theory in letters to medical journals.3-5 North American Gerald N. Weiss, MD, who operates a website to promote circumcision, and others contributed to the development of the theory through a paper, which was published in Israel (1993), identifying the prepuce as a possible entry point for HIV.6 North American circumcision enthusiasts have further promoted male circumcision with opinion pieces in medical journals.7,8 Stephen Moses, Daniel T. Halperin, and Robert C. Bailey are other well known North American promoters of male circumcision.8,9

Numerous observational studies were carried out in Africa, but the evidence-based Cochrane Review (2003) found insufficient evidence to advocate a circumcision intervention to prevent HIV infection.10

Randomized controlled trials. After the failure of observational studies to show a clear protective effect, circumcision advocates obtained funding from the United States National Institutes of Health to conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Africa. Three RCTs to study the value of male circumcision in reducing HIV infection have been conducted in Africa since the publication of the Cochrane Review. The studies were intended to find out if circumcision is an effective intervention to prevent female-to-male HIV infection. A RCT under the supervision of Bertran Auvert, French circumcision proponent, was carried out in Orange Farm, South Africa;11 a RCT was carried out in Kenya under the supervision of North American circumcision proponent Robert C. Bailey and Stephen Moses;12 and a RCT was carried out in Uganda under the supervision of North American circumcision proponent Ronald H. Gray.13 Dr. Auvert has been a circumcision proponent since at least 2003.14 Professor Moses has been an advocate of circumcision at least since 1994.9 Professor Bailey has been a circumcision advocate since at least 1998.15

All three studies found that non-circumcised males contract HIV infection more quickly than circumcised males.11-13 This may be because the circumcised males required a period of abstinence after their circumcision. All three studies were terminated early, before the incidence of infection in circumcised males caught up with the incidence of infection in the non-circumcised males. If the studies had continued for their scheduled time, it is probable that there would have been little difference between the circumcised group and the non-circumcised group. Mills & Siegfried point out that early termination of such studies cause the benefits to be exaggerated.16 Dowsett & Couch (2007), even after publication of the RCTs, found insufficient evidence exists to support a program of circumcision to prevent HIV infection.17

Cultural bias. When studying circumcision, cultural bias must be considered:

Circumcision practices are largely culturally determined and as a result there are strong beliefs and opinions surrounding its practice. It is important to acknowledge that researchers' personal biases and the dominant circumcision practices of their respective countries may influence their interpretation of findings.10

More than 50 percent of infant boys in North America still are subjected to non-therapeutic circumcision. There is a well known cultural bias in favor of circumcision in North America,18-21 which may influence doctors at the National Institutes of Health as well as those directing the studies. Doctors conducting these studies may not possess the necessary attributes of neutrality and objectivity. Ideally, researchers from circumcising cultures, circumcised themselves, would recuse themselves from considering the data.

Risks, complications, and drawbacks. The reported complication rate of 1.7 percent seems unreasonably low. Williams & Kapila estimated the incidence of complications at 2-10 percent;22 In the survey by Kim & Pang, 48 percent reported decreased masturbatory pleasure, 63 percent reported increased masturbatory difficulty, and 20 percent reported a worsened sex life after circumcision.23

Effectiveness. Circumcision does not prevent HIV infection. The Auvert study in South Africa reported 20 infections in circumcised males.11 A study in Kenya reported 22 infections in circumcised males. Brewer & found higher rates of HIV infection in circumcised virgins and adolescents.24 The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.

There are many methods of HIV transmission, including:

* mother-to-child infection,
* transfusion of tainted blood25
* infection with non-sterile needles used in health care,25
* infection by homosexual and heterosexual anal intercourse,26
* infection by needle sharing to inject illegal drugs,
* traditional African scarring practices,
* tribal (ritual) circumcision,24
* female circumcision,27
* male-to-female heterosexual transmission, and
* female-to-male heterosexual transmission.

Male circumcision might only reduce infection by the last method, so the overall influence on the HIV epidemic in Africa, at best, would be likely to be slight, however, the risk of male-to-female transmission is much higher than that of female-to-male transmission,

[Comment - this is why a generalized heterosexual HIV epidemic is impossible.]

so a means of partial prevention that targets only the second means at the expense of the first would be counterproductive.

There is no indication that male circumcision would protect women. Viral load is the chief predictor of the risk of HIV transmission.28 Malaria infection increases viral loads, so enhances infectivity.29 Male circumcision would not reduce viral loads and would not reduce infectivity to the female partner. One study, however, has shown female circumcision to be strongly protective.30

Condom usage. Condoms have been shown to be effective at preventing HIV transmission.31 The use of condoms is necessary to prevent infection whether or not the male is circumcised.

Effect on condom use. Male circumcision removes nerves from the penis32 and causes significant loss of sexual sensitivity and function.33 For this reason, many circumcised men are reluctant to use condoms. A program of mass circumcision may reduce condom usage and have an adverse effect on the overall HIV infection incidence.

Vaginal abrasion. "Dry sex" is practiced in sub-Saharan Africa.10 34 Women place various drying agents in their vagina to absorb vaginal lubication. This practice may itself cause abrasion and fissures that provide a portal for the HIV virus.10 28 Circumcision also reduces vaginal lubrication, curtails the gliding action, increases friction and vaginal abrasions,35 so, when combined with "dry sex", may increase the risk of female HIV infection through abrasions. The combination of dry sex and circumcision appears to sharply increase the risk of male-to-female transmission of HIV. A recent preliminary report found that the female partners of circumcised males experience higher rates of HIV infection.36

Relevance to developed nations. These African studies were carried out in HIV “hot-spots”—places where the incidence of HIV infection in the population is high and where the method of transmission is heterosexual intercourse. They are not relevant to developed nations, such as the United States, where the incidence of infection is low and where the predominant methods of transmission are through homosexual anal intercourse or through needle-sharing by drug addicts.37

Circumcision of children. These RCTs, which studied HIV transmission among adults in Africa, cannot be used to support the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of children. Infant boys do not engage in sexual intercourse so they are not subject to sexually-transmitted HIV infection. They, however, are subject to various complications of circumcision, including infection through an open circumcision wound with various pathogens, such as deadly CA-MRSA.38,39 Other risks include hemorrhage, exsanguination, and death;40 and various surgical accidents, including urethral fistula,41 penile denudation,42 and traumatic amputation of the glans penis.43 By the time today’s newborn boys became sexually active, HIV vaccine is likely to be available so circumcision today, in an attempt to prevent HIV infection in the distant future, is contraindicated.

The high infant mortality rate in the African countries hardest hit by the HIV epidemic means many childen will die before they become sexually active, further vitiating any protective effect of infant circumcision. The time, effort and money would be better spent on community health measures that would preserve their lives and those of their parents.

Because of their minority, children cannot grant consent, so any non-therapeutic circumcision of a child is a human rights violation44 and ethically inappropriate.45

Discussion. Effective methods of reducing HIV infection include education and behavior change.46 Abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage offer men and women the greatest protection in avoiding HIV/AIDS transmission.

Men who have been circumcised may consider themselves immune to HIV and at no risk to their female partner. That, however, is not the case. Circumcised men may still contract HIV and pass it on to their next partner.

The reported complication rate of 1.7 percent seems unreasonably low. Williams & Kapila estimated the incidence of complications at 2-10 percent;22 In the survey by Kim & Pang (2006), 48 percent reported decreased masturbatory pleasure, 63 percent reported increased masturbatory difficulty and 20 percent reported a worsened sex life after circumcision.33

The authors of the RCTs have engaged in the promotion of circumcision.47,48 Van Howe and colleagues argue that their true motivation may be the introduction of universal male circumcision, using fear of HIV as the tool with which to accomplish their goals.46

Social problems. The introduction of male circumcision into a non-circumcising society may present problems such as:

* adverse psychological and sexual effects caused by the diminishment and desensitization of the penis,49
* increased antisocial behavior,49
* violations of human rights,49
* violations of laws that protect children,49 and
* inability to discontinue male circumcision when the need for it no longer exists.49

Politics. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is quite severe in several African nations. In some areas, a high percentage of the population is HIV+. Public health organizations are under intense pressure to solve the problem. The use of male circumcision to prevent HIV infection is akin to a drowning man grasping at a straw. Although male circumcision is likely to be proposed for political reasons, it is likely to have little effect on the overall incidence of HIV infection and may cause later problems. According to Ntozi:

It is important that, while circumcision interventions are being planned, several points must be considered carefully. If the experiment fails, Africans are likely to feel abused and exploited by scientists who recommended the circumcision policy. In a region highly sensitive to previous colonial exploitation and suspicious of the biological warfare origin of the virus, failure of circumcision is likely to be a big issue. Those recommending it should know how to handle the political implications.50

Opposing evidence. Both the public and the medical community must guard against being overwhelmed by the hyperbolic promotion of male circumcision and must receive these new studies with extreme caution. There is contradictory evidence that male circumcision is not as effective as proponents claim. One study found that male circumcision had no protective effect for women51 and another study found that male circumcision increased risk for women.52 Grosskurth found more HIV infection in circumcised men.53 Barongo et al. found no evidence that lack of circumcision is a risk factor for HIV infection.54 A study from India found little difference between circumcised and non-circumcised men in the conjugal relationship.55 A study carried out in South Africa found that male circumcision offered only a slight protective effect.56 A study carried out among American naval personnel found no difference in the incidence of HIV infection between non-circumcised and circumcised men.57

The future. The development of a vaccine is the best hope for the solution to the HIV epidemic.58 Several teams of scientists are working to develop vaccines that will prevent infection with HIV and other vaccines that will treat those already infected.59 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has contributed $287 million to 16 research groups for development of a vaccine.60

Conclusion. Male circumcision is a highly emotive operation that generates strong feelings in many men,10 especially those who have been circumcised,61 as have most North Americans. The trauma associated with the operation may generate a desire to repeat or reenact the trauma.62 Other men may feel a need to justify their own circumcision by the generation of claims of health benefits.61 The medical literature is full of protective claims for various diseases, such as sexually transmitted disease (formerly called venereal disease),63 male and female cancers, and urinary tract infection.64 All such claims have been disproved.

The RCTs on which the current claims are based have been carried out by men who have a previous history of promoting circumcision. DOC has little confidence in such studies, especially since contradictory evidence exists.

Male circumcision may increase male-to-female transmission of HIV and mitigate any reduction in female-to-male transmission. A preliminary report confirms the increased risk to women.65

Instituting a program of male circumcision is of dubious value. It will divert resources from proven methods of epidemic control and it may generate a false sense of security in males who have been circumcised. The desensitization of the penis that frequently results from male circumcision is likely to make men less willing to use condoms. A program of male circumcision very likely may worsen the epidemic.

The epidemic in Africa may have little to do with lack of circumcision and everything to do with the percentage of the female population engaged in female sex work.

Actually, it has everything to do with how statistics are gathered, as this example should have given the doctors a hint of.

Talbot (2007) has established a correlation between the number of female sex workers in the population and the level of HIV infection.66

Calls are being heard for the circumcision of children although (assuming that male circumcision is effective at controlling female-to-male infection) this could not be helpful until the child becomes sexually active. As previously stated, the non-therapeutic excision of healthy body parts from non-consenting children is a violation of human rights44 and medically unethical.45 Therefore, the true motivation of the circumcision proponents must be questioned.46 It may be perpetuation of neonatal circumcision, not control of HIV.

DOC believes that more emphasis on education, behavior change—such as abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage, provision of condoms, treatment of other sexually transmitted diseases, treatment of genital ulcer disease, control of malaria, and provision of safe healthcare would be more likely to produce beneficial results. The ultimate answer is likely to be one or more of the vaccines now in development.


1. Alcena V. AIDS in third world countries. N Y State J Med 1986;86(8):446.
2. Alcena V. AIDS in third world countries. (letter) PloS Med 2006;October 16. [Full Text]
3. Fink AJ. A possible explanation for heterosexual male infection with AIDS [letter]. N Engl J Med 1986;315:1167.
4. Fink AJ. Newborn circumcision: a long-term strategy for AIDS prevention. J R Soc Med 1989;82(11):695.
5. Fink AJ. Newborn circumcision: a long-term strategy for AIDS prevention. J R Soc Med 1990;83(10):673.
6. Weiss GN, Sanders M, Westbrook KC. The distribution and density of Langerhans cells in the human prepuce: site of a diminished immune response? Isr J Med Sci 1993;29(1):42-3.
7. Cameron DW, Simonsen JN, D'Costa LJ et al. Female-to-male transmission of HIV-1: risk factors for seroconversion in men. Lancet 1989, ii:403-7.
8. Halperin DT, Bailey RC. Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting. Lancet 1999;354(9192):1813-5.
9. Moses S., Plummer FA, Bradley, JE, Ndinya-Achola, JO, Nagelkerke NJ, and Ronald AR. The association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological data. Sex Transm Dis 1994;21:201-10.
10. Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, Deeks J, Egger M, Low N, Weiss H, Walker S, Williamson P. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2003. Oxford: Update Software. [Full Text]
11. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, et al. (2005) Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Med 2:e298. [Full Text]
12. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369:643-56.
13. Gray RH. Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 2007;369:557-66.
14. Rain-Taljaard RC, Lagarde E, Taljaard DJ, Campbell C, MacPhail C, Williams B, Auvert B. Potential for an intervention based on male circumcision in a South African town with high levels of HIV infection. Aids Care 2003;15(3):315-27. [PubMed]
15. Moses S, Bailey RC, Ronald AR. Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks. Sex Transm Infect 1998;74(5):368-73.
16. Mills J, Siegfried N. Cautious optimism for new HIV prevention strategies. Lancet 2006;368:1236.
17. Dowsett GW, Couch M. Male circumcision and HIV prevention: is there really enough of the right kind of evidence? Reprod Health Matters 2007;15(29):33-44. [Full Text]
18. Paige KE. The ritual of circumcision. Human Nature 1978;1(5):40-8. [Full Text]
19. Riner R. Circumcision: a riddle of american culture. Presented at the First International Symposium on Circumcision, Anaheim, California, March 1-2, 1989. [Full Text]
20. Miller GP. Circumcision: cultural-legal analysis. 9 Va. J. Social Policy & the Law 2002;9:497-585. [Full Text]
21. Waldeck SE. Using male circumcision to understand social norms as multipliers. University of Cincinnati L Rev 2003;72:455-526. [Full Text]
22. Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. Brit J Surg 1993;80:1231-6. [Full Text]
23. Kim D, Pang M. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU Int 2006 Published on line ahead of print. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x [Abstract]
24. Brewer DD, Potterat JJ, Roberts Jr JM. Male and female circumcision associated with prevalent HIV infection in virgins and adolescents in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania. Ann Epidemiol 2007;17:217–26. [Abstract]
25. Brewer DD, Brody S, Drucker E, et al. Mounting anomalies in the epidemiology of HIV in Africa: cry the beloved paradigm. Int J STD AIDS 2003;14:144-147. [Full Text]
26. Grulich, AE, Hendry O, Clark E, et al. Circumcision and male-to-male sexual transmission of HIV. AIDS 2001; 15(9):1188-9. [Full Text]
27. Brady M. Female genital mutilation: complications and risk of HIV transmission. Aids Patient Care STDS 1999;13(12):709-16. [Full Text]
28. Quinn TC, Wawer MJ, Sewankambo N, al., for the Rakai Project Study Group. Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodefficiency virus type 1. N Engl J Med 2000;1342:921-29. [Abstract]
29. Abu-Raddad LJ, Patnaik P, Kublin JG. Dual infection with HIV and Malaria fuels the spread of both diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. Science 2006;314(5805):1603-6. [Abstract]
30. Stallings RY, Karugendo E. Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? Presented at the Third Annual International Aids Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment, Rio de Janeiro, 24-27 July 2005. [Abstract]
31. De Vincenzi I. A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners. N Engl J Med 1994;331(6):341-6. [Abstract]
32. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291-5. [Full Text]
33. Kim D, Pang M. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJU Int 2006 Published on line ahead of print. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x [Abstract]
34. Baleta A. Concern voiced over "dry sex" practices in South Africa. Lancet 1998;352:1292. [Full Text]
35. Warren J, Bigelow J. The case against circumcision. Br J Sex Med 1994; Sept/Oct: 6-8. [Full Text]
36. Circumcision protects men from AIDS but might increase risk to women, early results suggest.International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, 6 March 2007. [Full Text]
37. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC HIV/AIDS Science Facts: Male Circumcision and Risk of HIV Infection: Implications for the United States. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. August 23, 2006. (PDF) [Full Text]
38. Bratu S, Eramo A, Kopec R, Coughlin E, Ghitan M, Yost R, et al. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospital nursery and maternity units. Emerg Infect Dis 2005; Jun. Available from [Full Text]
39. Epidemic Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus: Dramatically Increased Risk for Circumcised Newborn Boys. Seattle: Doctors Opposing Circumcision, 2005. [Full Text]
40. Newell TEC. Judgement of inquiry into the death of McWillis, Ryleigh Roman Bryan. Burnaby, B.C.: British Columbia Coroner's Service, Monday, 19 January 2004. [Full Text]
41. Limaye RD, Hancock RA. Penile urethral fistual as a complication of circumcision. J Pediatr 1968; 72(1):105-6. [Full Text]
42. Sotolongo JR, Hoffman S, Gribetz ME. Penile denudation injuries after circumcision. J Urol 1985;133:102-3. [Full Text]
43. Gluckman GR, Stoller ML, Jacobs MM, Kogan BA. Newborn penile glans amputation during circumcision and successful reattachment. J Urol 1995 133(3) Part 1 :778-779. [Full Text]
44. International Human Rights Law and the Circumcision of Children. Seattle: Doctors Opposing Circumcision, 2006. [Full Text]
45. Medical Ethics and the Circumcision of Children. Seattle: Doctors Opposing Circumcision, 2006. [Full Text]
46. Moore DM, Hogg RS. Trends in antenatal human immunodeficiency virus prevalence in Western Kenya and Eastern Uganda: evidence of differences in health policies? Int J Epidemiol 2004;33(3):542-8. [Full Text]
47. Van Howe RS, Svoboda JS, Hodges FM. HIV Infection and circumcision: cutting through the hyperbole. J R Soc Health 2005;125(6):259-65. [Full Text]
48. Garenne M. Male circumcision and HIV control in Africa. PLoS Med 2006;3(1):e78. [Full Text]
49. Boyle GJ. Issues associated with the introduction of circumcision into a non-circumcising society. Sex Trans Inf 2003;79:427-8. [Full Text]
50. Ntozi JPM. Using circumcision to prevent HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: the view of an African. In: Health Transit Rev (Australia) 1997; 7 Supplement: 97-100. [Full Text]
51. Carael M, Van de Perre PH, Lepage PH, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus transmission among heterosexual couples in Central Africa. AIDS 1988;2(3):201-5. [PubMed]
52. Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, et al. Risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23(2):371-80. [Abstract]
53. Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact of improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in rural Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9(8):927-34. [PubMed]
54. Barongo LR, Borgdorff MW, Mosha FF, et al. The epidemiology of HIV-1 infection in urban areas, roadside settlements and rural villages in Mwanza Region, Tanzania. AIDS 1992;6(12):1521-8. [PubMed]
55. Changedia SM, Gilada IS. Role of male circumcision in HIV transmission insignificant in conjugal relationship (abstract no. ThPeC7420). Presented at the Fourteenth International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, Spain, July 7-12, 2002. [Abstract]
56. Connolly CA, Shishana O, Simbayi L, Colvin M. HIV and circumcision in South Africa (Abstract No. MoPeC3491). Presented at the 15th International AIDS Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, July 11-16, 2004. [Abstract]
57. Thomas AG, Bakhireva LN, Brodine SK, Shaffer RA. Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV and sexually transmitted infections in a U.S. navy population (Abstract no. TuPeC4861). Presented at the 15th International AIDS Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, July 11-16, 2004. [Abstract]
58. Singh V. No vaccine against HIV yet—are we not perfectly equipped? Virol J 2006;3:60. [Full Text].
59. Spearman P. Current progress in the development of HIV vaccines. Curr Pharm Des 2006;12(9):1147-67. [PubMed]
60. Gates Foundation pledges $287M For HIV vaccine research. Medical News Today, 24 July 2006; [Full Text]
61. Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl. 1:93-103. [Full Text]
62. van der Kolk BA. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1989;12(2):389-411. [Full Text]
63. Darby RJL. A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005: pp. 260-84. (ISBN 0-226-13645-0)
64. Glick LB. Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005: pp. 179-214. (ISBN 0-19-517674-X)
65. Anonymous. Circumcision protects men from AIDS but might increase risk to women, early results suggest. International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, 6 March 2007. [Full Text]
66. Talbott JR. Size matters: the number of prostitutes and the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. PLoS ONE 2007;2(6): e543. [Full Text]

Doctors Opposing Circumcision
Suite 42
2442 NW Market Street
Seattle, Washington 98107-4137
(Revised March 2007)
(Revised January 2008)

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

DRY SEX!? Uhhhh....who is that supposed to be good for? With or without a foreskin, that sounds uncomfortable. Instead of shipping them bibles, we should send them lubricated condoms.

D_NATURED's picture
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

DRY SEX!? Uhhhh....who is that supposed to be good for? With or without a foreskin, that sounds uncomfortable. Instead of shipping them bibles, we should send them lubricated condoms.

Dry sex is the Sasquatch of HIV/AIDS myths. It is a form of 'special pleading', where they can't explain the data, and try to find something that is exceptional and credit that with their data.

The fact is that all projections made by UNAID$ and even the US Census Bureau show that if you have 20% to 30% national HIV infection rates, you cannot also have population growth. Population censuses consistently show between 2.5% and 3% population growth per year. Therefore, there is no deadly HIV/AIDS epidemic that affects 20% to 30% of the population. HIV/AIDS in Africa is completely or nearly completely statistically generated.

Wherever you look with UNAID$, you find nothing but cans of worms.

Which brings me to these RCT circumcision trials.


The scientists put their foot on the scales. They are decade long advocates of universal circumcision, and that alone should have been cause for them to recuse themselves from heading these trials.

On the contrary, they stopped the trials as soon as they found the data they wanted in advance, and then claimed that it would be 'unethical' to continue them, seeing that they were so successful.

This is FRAUD. It is fraud to obtain money under false pretenses. By claiming that circumcision protects against HIV infection by 60%, they knew that a) this is only relative between the percentages and the real difference was only 1.3%, b) they had stopped the trial as soon as they had the data they wanted and did not let the trials run their full course, c) they did not recuse themselves even though they are longtime advocates of the pro-circumcision viewpoint.

And now they are about to circumcise hundreds of thousands of children. We are talking about billions of dollars. In Zambia alone, they spent $257 million, and this is going on in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, etc.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

A transcript of a caller to a program, who claims to have knowledge of how the trials were not only stopped before they had run their course, but were stacked on purpose because the researchers found that not being circumcised makes it less likely that you catch HIV (or just test positive on these tests). My guess it is just a random who tests positive in both groups, but the point is that the researchers found the opposite of what they wanted to find and cooked the books.

(YOUTUBE) UN HIV Circumcision Study A Fraud - The Atheist Experience #603

Russ in San Antonio: I've got a little story for you that you guys are going to love. I called my best friend, because it's his story, but he totally refused and he said no way. And we grew up together, I actually introduced him to his wife. So he wouldn't lie to me about something big. I have no reason to doubt him, is what I am saying.

Ehmm, he's a doctor, ok, he's a very well known doctor, and a few years ago I go upset because he actually went to Africa for a couple of months to take part in a medical study.

And I didn't know what it was at the time, until I saw the pictures when he came back. And he told me they specifically went to East Africa to determine that circumcision can reduce HIV transmission. Not that they went to see, he said they went to determine that. In other words, he swears to this day that it is a completely dishonest study.

He said they got 1/3 way through the study, and their results were not favorable in their eyes. In other words, they determined that anyone who has smegma is less likely to contract HIV. That would be any man with foreskin and any woman with a labia. So apparently they stopped everything 1/3 of the way through the study, and switched the whole process. And what they did was basically take about 1000 uncircumcised Kenyans who were about 70% HIV positive, 1000 circumcised Kenyans who were 20% HIV positive and put them in a room.

And when the European fact checkers came along, they said "Wow, 70% of the uncircumcised Kenyans are HIV positive." OK so they took this to the UN, they took this to the World Health Organisation, which basically bought it up. They said basically the next day, the UN now advocates circumcising Africans.

But the thing is, they never completed their study. They even admit that in their writings. They also said that it would be unethical for anyone to try to disprove them. It would be unethical. In other words, if you went to try to disprove them in East Africa and did a similar study, you would be scorned in the medical community.

Well he told me there are 4 ways in which you can know that this is a lie.

Number one, you look at the history. Every twenty years physicians come up with a new excuse for circumcision. And within a decade it is always disproven. HIV is the latest one. I would recommend that you guys don't buy into this right away.

Number two, they don't want anyone else to do a similar study. That's proof that they're lying.

Number three, most other legitimate medical organisations are contesting and challenging the WHO now. Like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which basically won't put it in their yearly literature, saying it's bs, and they don't want it to be used as an excuse to circumcise American infants. And

number four, the WHO said it so you have to question it.

And you know I didn't believe this at first, but when I googled

hiv circumcision fraud
hiv circumcision debunked

there's apparently a lot of doctors, there's a lot of doctors in this study, a lot of them totally disagree with the findings.

This is interesting fodder for real investigative journalists. There are people who are willing to talk.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

It might have a subliminal religious motivation behind it. Muslims don't circumcise, jews have to, christians do in america. Circumcise all the kids then tell them islam doesn't want them, but jesus does.

douglaslee's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There's a 1 in 20 Chance of the Apocalypse. Shouldn't We Act Now?

A new study published in Science argues that we as a civilization need to move "rapidly" -- as in almost immediately -- towards a carbon emissions free future if we are to have any chance of holding off runaway global warming:

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system