Circumcision rates not dropping worldwide.....?!

Also other Information about stopping circumcisions in Malawi Africa because circumcision does not stop HIV infection.

"Malawi will not officially promote male circumcision as an HIV-prevention strategy, two officials said Wednesday, citing a lack of evidence to support the practice.

"We have no scientific evidence that circumcision is a sure way of slowing down the spread of Aids," said Dr Mary Shaba, a top HIV/Aids official in Malawi."

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-09-16-m…

Oh wow ONE random article.
We all know how something can't possibly be false if it's put in an article so it MUST be true.

Seriously if you are a doctor you should be well aware that it doesn't matter what one resource says about something. Plus I've never heard anyone on here claim that rates are dropping world wide. I have however seen many times how the circumcision rate in the US is drastically lowering, which it is.

-Connor

Im not sure how it could actually be dropping as in many countries esp middle eastern arab and other muslim parts of the world it is religious practice to have circumcision and also jews . so that's a very large proportion of the worlds population who do definitely do it

Well this will backfire.

it is drooping in the west. But growing in the world mainly due to the spread of Islam. Altho cirucmisers may have you think countless African men are lining up to to be circumcised this number is exaggerated. I have been preparing a statement for HIV but i really can not fit it in here.

this link however sums up my criticisms pretty accurately.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

I would first like to say i have no problem with consenting adults getting circumcised. My problem is the fact that these people are not getting objective research to guide them in their decision making.

any way surveys have already shown the moral hazard this has already started to create. If i know any thing after reading hundreds of studies on std's its that behaviour effects your risk more then any thing else.

circumcision has always been a solution in search of a problem. The diseases it prevents and cures are always updated to play on contemporary fears and anxiety's.

Circumcision has been claimed to cure epilepsy, convulsions,? paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, insanity, strabismus, hydrocephalus, clubfoot, cancer, STD’s, UTI’s, ect.(13) Doctors were eager to claim that they could cure many of these aliments,conditions and diseases because there were no treatments available then. Even though all of these claims have been throughly discredited, circumcision has remained a solution in search of a problem ever since.

Nothing is different to day the WHO is eager to find a solution to this problem and they have turned a blind eye to the flaws in these new studies which have been produced by Jewish Americans with a known history of promoting circumcision since the 90's and they have failed to provide rigorous research on how male circumcision affects female acquisition.Female acquisition is already always higher then male acquisition therefore it is extremely important to see how this affects women. Some theorize that without the non abrasive gliding action of the foreskin, micro fissures can open in the vaginal lining and allow a good entry point for HIV.

O, and it is very important not to forget this study.

"17 (18%) women in the intervention group and eight (12%) women in the control group acquired HIV during follow-up (p=0·36)"(1)

this study was halted early because it was not getting the results that bias researches wanted to see.

The sooner we develop HIV treatments and a vaccine the sooner cirucmsisers will not be able to manipulate our fears for this any more.

I wish i could explain why that 60% number is over stated but i can not fit my criticisms in here, here is some of them however.

1)The time needed for healing for those circumcised before the trial was initiated means less exposure time.
2)Rates of exposure for each group with in their separate communities. In these particular places circumcised men have less exposure to HIV due to separation their respective communities experience.
3)Dry sex is A practice that is common in many of these communities. It entails drying the vagina with dirt, sand, dried leaves, corn meal, or powders to absorb lubrication. This practice is unsanitary and causes lesions and other entry points that increase risk for STD transmission.(18)
4)Genital warts and ulcers re-occurrence, how they were treated, the final efficacy of that particular treatment (Excision or chemical). And the irresponsible sexual behavior on both men(19) and prostitutes while afflicted with genital ulcer disease(GID)(20). GUD is an endemic in parts of Africa.
5)Female circumcision: where male circumcision exists female circumcision usually exists as well.
6)Anal sex
7)Homosexual sex
8)The accuracy of the tests to determine rates of false or negative determinations
9)The time needed to manifest all seroconversions
10)In the case of these new RCT’s any chance of a follow-up was lost because the test was stopped early and all subjects were circumcised. A snap shot of the data was taken before the results could turn on the researchers.
11)Equal amount of "safe-sex counseling" for both groups

(18) Runganga A, Pitts M, McMaster J. The use of herbal and other agents to enhance sexual experience. Soc Sci Med 1992 Oct;35 (8):1037-42.
(19) Peoin J, Quigley M, Todd J, Gaye I, Janneh M Van DyckE, Piot,P, Whittle H. Association between HIV-2 infection and genital ulcer diseases among male sexually transmitted diseases patients in the Gambia. AIDS 1992 May;6(5):489-93.
(20)Kaul R, kimani J, Nagelkerke NJ, Plummer FA, Bwayo JJ, Brunham RC, Ngugi EN, Ronald A. Risk factors for genital ulcerations in Kenyan sex workers: the role of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. Sex Transm Dis 1997 Aug;24(7):387-92

(1)Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in? Rakai, Uganda: a randomized controlled trial. The Lancet, Volume 374, Issue 9685, Pages 229 - 237, 18 July 2009

(13) F. A. Hodges, "Short ?History of the Institutionalization of Involuntary Sexual Mutilation in the United States," in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 35.

Among developed countries, the circumcision rate is declining quite rapidly as people are realizing that unnecessary, risky surgery on non-consenting babies is unethical and not medically justified.

But in Africa, you're right, the circumcision rate is increasing.

That doesn't necessarily mean the rates are increasing worldwide though...


"one of the most effective - methods - for avoiding infection with the syndrome."
HAHAHAH!! I find it hilarious how desperate the WHO is. They know full well that circumcision won't do anything to reduce HIV rates, but they want people to think that they have the HIV issue under control. That's why they're going on and on about this magic new cure - omg circumcision! - when really, if anything, it'll heighten the HIV rates because circumcised men will feel that they are protected against HIV (be less likely to wear a condom).
The most effective (realistic) method of preventing HIV is condoms. And condoms are less risky, less invasive, and more cost-effective than circumcision. It's by far the better option.

"reflect on the benefits of this method, which reduces the danger of infection by 60 percent."
Again, that's BS. The study that claimed this was highly flawed. The circumcised men were given safe sex education, and the intact men were NOT. Then the study ended early before the circumcised men showed as many cases of HIV as the intact men.

And here's more info on why circumcision as a method of HIV prevention is NOT effective. Even if the claims that it reduces infection by 60% are true - they're not - circumcision would still offer NO protection to women and gay men, according to the study. It would also do nothing for HIV passed through needles, breast milk, or giving birth.

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/1…

What BS. Hey doc, you do realize that worldwide almost no one does this. It has been done a bit in Africa and the US, but not much otherwise.

So you put a lot into the Africa studies done by people trying to push cutting of baby boy penis parts in the US?

In the US there has been NO observed link between cutting off penis parts and HIV. Also none in EU and JP. What gets my attention is the places they are pushing this in Africa also have no link betwen HIV and removal of penis parts. There are six African countries with HIGHER rates of AIDS among circumcised men than intact men. Studies throughout Europe show no reduction in STDs due to circumcision. Some of the most widespread epidemics of STDs occurs in the USA, a country who's men are still mostly circumcised. Dr Wawer's research (according to the Lancet) has already shown that circumcising men may INCREASE the risk of HIV transmission to women, but the study was cut short before this could be confirmed. The real reason HIV has been brought up so many times is it is a useful tool for doctors to use to intimidate mothers (who have been abandoning circumcision in the USA in droves) to have their sons mutilated. Hopefully, America's parents will see through the cynical greedy ploys of these "scientists", and end male genital mutilation once and for all...

Male circumcision is a huge waste of resoures as all real world data indicates there is no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence. Let us stop wasting resources on people trying so hard to find a reeason to cut off parts of a man/boys penis.

Many have pointed to the high circ rate and high HIV rate in the US compared to the low circ rate and LOW HIV rate in EU and JP. However, few mention that within the US, there is no HIV (nor HPV , STD) advantage to missing parts of the penis. What has gotten my attention is that in many of the countries that have started a circumcision campaign, the % of cut men with HIV is much higher than natural penis men with HIV. In Swaziland the infection rate for circumcised males is at 22 per cent while for those with a natural penis it is 20 per cent. IN Kenya they just did a study of a group and circumcision status was not associated with HIV or HSV-2 seroprevalence or current genital ulceration. The US sponsored DHS Comparative Reports No. 22 showed that in Africa there appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence. In 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men.

I think there is a need to reconsider male circumcision as an HIV prevention method. The WHO and many in Africa will take the US money that is being thrown at them by circumcision proponents eager to keep the practice going in the US. However, as this has not been shown to be effective in the real world, the money is most likely wasted. These people need water/water treatment, information and condoms, not removal of genital parts. This shows desperation on the part of Africans to try anything (to do something)as to the HIV crisis. However, it also shows that American circumcision pushers like Bill Gates are so so eager to justify the mutilation practice even though the real data indicates that keeping all of ones penis does not put one at risk.

There has been a push to circumcise African males, using HIV prevention as an excuse.

Circumcision does not prevent any diseases or infections; the only things circumcision prevents are complete, natural and normal sexual feeling, function and ability.

In Swaziland, circumcised males have a slightly HIGHER rate of HIV infection.

In the USA, when 85% of males were circumcised, the HIV rates were invariably higher than in areas of Europe, Scandinavia, South America and most of Asia, where circumcision of males is rare.

Circumcision rates have dropped in most of the civilized world. The UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and most notably the USA. An article in the New York Times published on August 16, 2010 stated that as of 2009 only about 32.5% of American males were having circumcision forced on them.

The push to circumcise African males is being led by several individuals, whose religious background obviously makes them biased for circumcision. They're hardly objective about the issue.

Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax.

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

ERIC

Your point (whatever that is, is actually irrelevant). You are not trying to INFORM anybody of anything. What you are doing is trying to confuse the issue of WHY the rate in the US is dropping and convince people that they should still be performing circumcisions. YOU are skewing things with your agenda (a doctors who probably does circumcisions, or at least endorses it in opposition to most other pediatricians). Circumcision rates in nearly every DEVELOPED country is very low. The only exception to that being the United States. And even thought the rate of neonatal circumcisions done in hospitals (according to the CDC) has gone down to 33%, that is still way higher than in any other industrialized nation. What is happening in Tanzania is irrelevant since that is NOT a developed country. The WHO has already made gross and transparent errors with their recommendation (due to the many obvious flaws already exposed), so you pointing this out serves no purpose but to SKEW the facts! So either you are a very IGNORANT "doctor" who is only pretending to know facts that you really don't, or you are a very BIASED and unethical doctor by skewing facts in favor of circumcision (something largely rejected by most pediatricians), or you aren't really doctor at all. Either way, your post is a fail and anyone with half a brain and one ounce of motivation can easily see that. So congratulations on wasting everyones time!