Does Circumcision Protect You From HIV? No, And Here is Why
C.J Ahmed-15.05.2023
Male circumcision is often associated with protection from sexually transmitted disease. This false propaganda has been pushed by famous billionaire such as Bill Gates who is also a proponent of circumcision (but the funny side is, that he himself isn’t circumcised). Circumcision surgery itself is a pseudo-scientific surgery and is a fraud.
The false argument that circumcision prevents sexual transmitted diseases such as AIDS is based on flawed research evidences that have been contested by eminent scientists and doctors. George hill executive secretary and George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H. of "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" said the following,
"This idea originated in the 1980s when the late Aaron J. Fink, M.D., proposed that circumcision could prevent HIV infection. Dr. Fink was a noted proponent of male circumcision. There seems to have been little science and a lot of promotion of male circumcision behind his claim.
Several early studies seemed to indicate that male circumcision had a protective effect against HIV infection. Later, the Rakai project identified viral load and genital ulcers as the primary determining factors in HIV infection. In addition to other previously identified methodological flaws, the early studies did not control for viral load, they cannot be considered to be scientifically valid.
Circumcision proponents have published several opinion pieces that argue that male circumcision prevents HIV infection. The authors, however, have been unsuccessful in convincing medical authorities of the value of circumcision in reducing HIV transmission/reception. The Council on Scientific Affairs of American Medical Association calls male circumcision a "non-therapeutic procedure" and said that "circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as 'protecting' against such infections."7 UNAIDS says that relying on male circumcision is "like playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the gun instead of three.
The origin of the hypothesis that circumcision prevents HIV infection9,10 suggests that the true motivation of circumcision advocates may be the preservation of the outmoded practice of non-therapeutic male neonatal circumcision in North America, not the prevention of HIV infection in Africa and elsewhere.
Recent evidence shows male circumcision to be of no value in preventing HIV transmission reception in both heterosexual and homosexual contacts. The medical evidence now indicates that the statement, "male circumcision prevents HIV infection" should be regarded as a medical myth."
(BMJ 2002; 324 doi -Published 26 January 2002 Link https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/circumcision-prevents-hiv-infection-medical-myth)
The researches done in some parts of the word such as Africa to measure the prevalence of HIV among cut and uncut men is a flawed study which cannot be used to prove that circumcision helps in reducing AIDS let alone any sexually transmitted disease. There is scientific evidence suggesting the contrary. A research published by Carlos D. Rodrigueza and published in the journal of sexual medicine (VOLUME 9, ISSUE 11, P2933-2937, NOVEMBER 01, 2012-Link https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)33809-1/fulltext) found that men who were circumcised had a higher prevalence of getting sexually transmitted infections than uncircumcised hence debunking the pro circumcision argument on its whole.
Female Circumcision Vs Episiotomy-Hypocrisy in the western world.
With all the human rights campaigns carried out in the western world, it is unfortunate to see how hypocritical westerners view the issue of circumcision. Female circumcision has many forms. From cutting or pricking the clitoris to the complete removal of tissue from the external genitalia and stitching it with a small opening to only urinate, forced female circumcision is widely spread in many parts of the world and is a heinous crime similar to male circumcision. If you are a fair minded human being, you would find no difference in condemning circumcision irrespective of it is done to males or females but the shear hypocrisy of the western world is appalling. Lets take the example of the world health organization which has condemned any form of female circumcision as genital mutilation and claiming that a tiny "nick" of a girl violates the human rights as well as the fundamental rights but has shamelessly published a 132 page instruction manual on how to circumcise boys stating that male circumcision helps fight sexually transmitted infections (which is a blatant lie). The double standards is clear like day and night. It is very evident that female circumcision is consensually performed on patients due to cosmetic reasons. female circumcision was banned in the united states in the year 1997 but it is performed by cosmetic surgeons by various names. Labiaplasty is one such procedure where the labia majora or labia minora size is reduced for mainly aesthetic reasons. If female circumcision is banned then why are labiaplasty's being performed? The western world's ignorance is so severe they differentiate between consent and non consent. The other surgery that is widely performed on women and often with out her consent is known as "episiotomy". An episiotomy is a deep incision made between the vagina and the anal area to facilitate the birth of an infant. Episiotomy is also a form of genital cutting which could disfigure and scar the vaginal exterior as well as the area surrounding the anus as well. Episiotomies are common and are sometimes unnecessarily performed with out any consent. This procedure is also a form of genital mutilation if the western standards are applied but then why is it performed on unsuspecting pregnant women?. The biggest joke is that the WHO recommends episiotomies and gives a rate of 10% for the total deliveries. How come female circumcision of any form be genital mutilation but not an episiotomy?
It is high time that male circumcision is outlawed just like female circumcision because force is what is definitely used when circumcising young children. If being,sexual assault of children of children is child abuse, then how come forced circumcision of little boys isn’t? . Let us take away the colored lenses and see the blatant hypocrisy so that routine male circumcision is banned as soon as possible.
Male circumcision is often associated with protection from sexually transmitted disease. This false propaganda has been pushed by famous billionaire such as Bill Gates who is also a proponent of circumcision (but the funny side is, that he himself isn’t circumcised). Circumcision surgery itself is a pseudo-scientific surgery and is a fraud.
The false argument that circumcision prevents sexual transmitted diseases such as AIDS is based on flawed research evidences that have been contested by eminent scientists and doctors. George hill executive secretary and George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H. of "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" said the following,
"This idea originated in the 1980s when the late Aaron J. Fink, M.D., proposed that circumcision could prevent HIV infection. Dr. Fink was a noted proponent of male circumcision. There seems to have been little science and a lot of promotion of male circumcision behind his claim.
Several early studies seemed to indicate that male circumcision had a protective effect against HIV infection. Later, the Rakai project identified viral load and genital ulcers as the primary determining factors in HIV infection. In addition to other previously identified methodological flaws, the early studies did not control for viral load, they cannot be considered to be scientifically valid.
Circumcision proponents have published several opinion pieces that argue that male circumcision prevents HIV infection. The authors, however, have been unsuccessful in convincing medical authorities of the value of circumcision in reducing HIV transmission/reception. The Council on Scientific Affairs of American Medical Association calls male circumcision a "non-therapeutic procedure" and said that "circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as 'protecting' against such infections."7 UNAIDS says that relying on male circumcision is "like playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the gun instead of three.
The origin of the hypothesis that circumcision prevents HIV infection9,10 suggests that the true motivation of circumcision advocates may be the preservation of the outmoded practice of non-therapeutic male neonatal circumcision in North America, not the prevention of HIV infection in Africa and elsewhere.
Recent evidence shows male circumcision to be of no value in preventing HIV transmission reception in both heterosexual and homosexual contacts. The medical evidence now indicates that the statement, "male circumcision prevents HIV infection" should be regarded as a medical myth."
(BMJ 2002; 324 doi -Published 26 January 2002 Link https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/circumcision-prevents-hiv-infection-medical-myth)
The researches done in some parts of the word such as Africa to measure the prevalence of HIV among cut and uncut men is a flawed study which cannot be used to prove that circumcision helps in reducing AIDS let alone any sexually transmitted disease. There is scientific evidence suggesting the contrary. A research published by Carlos D. Rodrigueza and published in the journal of sexual medicine (VOLUME 9, ISSUE 11, P2933-2937, NOVEMBER 01, 2012-Link https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)33809-1/fulltext) found that men who were circumcised had a higher prevalence of getting sexually transmitted infections than uncircumcised hence debunking the pro circumcision argument on its whole.
Female Circumcision Vs Episiotomy-Hypocrisy in the western world.
With all the human rights campaigns carried out in the western world, it is unfortunate to see how hypocritical westerners view the issue of circumcision. Female circumcision has many forms. From cutting or pricking the clitoris to the complete removal of tissue from the external genitalia and stitching it with a small opening to only urinate, forced female circumcision is widely spread in many parts of the world and is a heinous crime similar to male circumcision. If you are a fair minded human being, you would find no difference in condemning circumcision irrespective of it is done to males or females but the shear hypocrisy of the western world is appalling. Lets take the example of the world health organization which has condemned any form of female circumcision as genital mutilation and claiming that a tiny "nick" of a girl violates the human rights as well as the fundamental rights but has shamelessly published a 132 page instruction manual on how to circumcise boys stating that male circumcision helps fight sexually transmitted infections (which is a blatant lie). The double standards is clear like day and night. It is very evident that female circumcision is consensually performed on patients due to cosmetic reasons. female circumcision was banned in the united states in the year 1997 but it is performed by cosmetic surgeons by various names. Labiaplasty is one such procedure where the labia majora or labia minora size is reduced for mainly aesthetic reasons. If female circumcision is banned then why are labiaplasty's being performed? The western world's ignorance is so severe they differentiate between consent and non consent. The other surgery that is widely performed on women and often with out her consent is known as "episiotomy". An episiotomy is a deep incision made between the vagina and the anal area to facilitate the birth of an infant. Episiotomy is also a form of genital cutting which could disfigure and scar the vaginal exterior as well as the area surrounding the anus as well. Episiotomies are common and are sometimes unnecessarily performed with out any consent. This procedure is also a form of genital mutilation if the western standards are applied but then why is it performed on unsuspecting pregnant women?. The biggest joke is that the WHO recommends episiotomies and gives a rate of 10% for the total deliveries. How come female circumcision of any form be genital mutilation but not an episiotomy?
It is high time that male circumcision is outlawed just like female circumcision because force is what is definitely used when circumcising young children. If being,sexual assault of children of children is child abuse, then how come forced circumcision of little boys isn’t? . Let us take away the colored lenses and see the blatant hypocrisy so that routine male circumcision is banned as soon as possible.