Skip to main content

Circumcised what?

To understand the 'circumcised Aids prevention strategy', one has to understand the politics behind it. This American government wouldn't pay for Africa's condoms. Using Condoms goes against the principles of sex laid out in the holy scriptures.

Bush stopped efforts by the Senate and House to increase funding for AIDS in Africa. When he talks big about AIDS in Africa he doesn't tell you he made sure one third of the money must be used for abstinence-only programs -- a complete waste of 300 million dollars. And none will go to any agencies offering family planning.

And because Bush does not trust the Global AIDS Fund he wants the money to be given out by his State Department -- which knows absolutely nothing about HIV and chose 14 African countries for funds based on politics not their ability to use the money.

Countries that have spent years planning and developing treatment programs that are left out of Bush's list are outraged.

In the U.S. the story is similar. Scientists are told not to apply for research funds to study safer sex or which use the words condoms or anal sex among others. And money for HIV treatment is shortchanged for people Bush feels are sinners -- gays, addicts and sex workers.

The circumcised Aids policy is based on a 'research work' - Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting by Daniel T Halperin and Robert C Bailey.

Who is this Daniel T Halperin? Who funded his research project?
Daniel T. Halperin, an AIDS expert for the U.S. Agency for International Development based in Swaziland, who in speeches and private presentations pointed to dozens of studies showing that condom promotion campaigns were having little impact and that it would be more effective to target the multiple, concurrent sexual relationships that fuel high rates of HIV.
Halperin is one who believes Circumcision provides more protection against HIV than a Condom! Bush should honour Halperin and Bailey.

Another research document, "Male circumcision: a role in HIV prevention?" addresses some serious issues.
It has been suggested that following circumcision, the surface epithelium of the glans develops a protective keratin layer, a form of natural condom. Thus, circumcision could reduce the HIV incidence by directly decreasing the susceptibility of uninfected men to HIV.
Damn! The entire project circumcised Aids prevention is to create a myth that people shouldn't use condoms.

Here is a comment I saw in Washington Post:
Circumcision has not worked in America where at least 85 of males are circumcised and yet they have the highest rate of HIV in the developed world. In South Africa Xhosas do circumcise and Zulus don't, yet both are dying as fast from AIDS. HIV does not seem to have a fetish for foreskins as proposed.

Most of Europe is intact with very low HIV rates. National health policy cannot be based on ONE biased and flawed study that conveniently ignored the most comprehensive meta-analysis yet conducted on this issue - the Cochrane Review.

Why is USAIDS and the Kaiser Foundation funding this research on circumcision and funding clinics in the developing countries when circumcision clearly has not worked in America to curb HIV infection? Why are they not promoting HIV vaccine research preferentially?
No thick-skinned glans helps in protecting you from HIV. Condoms do - as HIV is passed on through body fluids.

Again, the entire circumcision champions are only worried about men. If a man, carrying HIV, has unprotected sex - he is bound to pass on the virus to the woman. Isn't it better to protect the woman?

As a man, whether you are cut or uncut - if you wear a condom - you are reducing the risk by a BIG margin. If you don't wear a condom, the risk factor remains VERY HIGH - cut or uncut.

HIV prevention is not about MEN alone, it is about protecting WOMEN as well. If we unleash these circumcised morons, who believe they are free to have unprotected sex (that they have this keratinised skin protecting them!), HIV will be the winner.

If you want to live healthy, be smart. Don't buy this circum crap.


Popular posts from this blog

Arundhati Roy: The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture

The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture delivered by Arundhati Roy, at the Seymour Theatre Centre, University of Sydney.

Peace & The New Corporate Liberation Theology

It's official now. The Sydney Peace Foundation is neck deep in the business of gambling and calculated risk. Last year, very courageously, it chose Dr Hanan Ashrawi of Palestine for the Sydney Peace Prize. And, as if that were not enough, this year - of all the people in the world - it goes and chooses me!

However I'd like to make a complaint. My sources inform me that Dr Ashrawi had a picket all to herself. This is discriminatory. I demand equal treatment for all Peace Prizees. May I formally request the Foundation to organize a picket against me after the lecture? From what I've heard, it shouldn't be hard to organize. If this is insufficient notice, then tomorrow will suit me just as well.

When this year's Sydney Peace Prize was announced, I was subjected to some pretty arch remarks from those who k…

Decorporatising Jawaharlal Nehru University campus

Dear friends,

Kindly mail the text that follows to these email addresses:;;;;;;;

+++++++++++++ snip +++++++++

I support Students' Solidarity and the larger collective, Forum Against Corporatisation, in their fight to reclaim their campus space from big corporations like Nestle and to hand it over to more deserving local entrepreneurs.

Previously local entrepreneurs and those from the socially deprived sections of the society were given preferential access to campus space, but increasingly small businesses are being driven out, and larger corporations welcomed in. Nestle is only one particularly bad example: the company has violated workers' rights and supported the violent suppression of workers' unions in countries like Colombia, Philippines and Thailand; acquired cocoa for its cho…