Bill Gates doesn't seem to care that that science behind the project is terrible. It must have been pointed out to him, yet he was still promoting the project in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ovf8GYfNbw&t=40s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFtSt862sKY - how much informed consent do you think was involved here?
A lawsuit against PSI Zimbabwe, also supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation http://nehandaradio.com/2018/09/02/400-000-circumcision-laws...
15,269,720 "voluntary medical male circumcisions" based on this bogus science http://www.aidsmap.com/PEPFAR-funded-15-million-medical-male...
Hearing that boy's sadness in that video is very upsetting.
The best hope we have is to work on many fronts at the same time: education, condoms, voluntary circumcision, etc.
It always felt a bit like puritans trying to find empiric evidence for their moral and cultural traditions.
There is a definite neo-colonial shadow hanging over it
I did hear from the staff that she got peed on pretty much every time.
However now you mention lobotomy...that might have made child rearing much simpler. A bit late for me, but you might consider proselytizing this issue for the good of parents everywhere...
I agree - it's on the wrong side of history. When we look back will be shocked at what we did to ourselves and our children, simply because we could not evaluate a study correctly.
In the case of infants it's certainly non-consensual
In the case of adults there is an issue with the "informed" part of informed consent
There is massive historical momentum behind it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#R...
The discourse at that institution around circumcision, and the taboo of mentioning it alongside FGM/C without saying "circumcision is NOTHING compared to FGM" are difficult
Male circumcision is prevalent in Africa mostly as as the norm. It is painless at childhood but gruesome when done to older kids. In some cultures around the world male circumcision is akin to piercing the ears of a baby girl for earrings.
In places where circumcision is a ritual, it gets done to older kids (early teens) as a rite of passage into adulthood. To me that will be more agonizing considering the awareness of the pain eg. when your dick gets caught in a zipper.
I personally dont find male circumcision at birth repugnant because I literally have no memory of it and I but I appreciate it was done to me appropriately.
According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5422680/
"The timing and reason for circumcision in boys or men vary across the continent. Circumcision is prevalent in as much as 93% of the countries in Northern Africa compared to 62% of countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Whereas the procedure is done for religious purposes in Western and Northern parts of Africa, it is seldom performed in neonates in Eastern and Southern regions of the continent where circumcision is, often, a rite of passage into adulthood"
What I'll love to see if the comparative AIDS footprint between countries with varying degrees of circumcision.
When you have Americans telling Africans to get themselves circumcised you do have to wonder what is really going on, particularly when there is this dubious level of 'science'.
In the U.S. there is always the profit motive. Hence male circumcision is sold to parents as hygienic and beneficial, they go along with it and the hospital makes some money, everyone getting bonuses except for the baby boy.
To contrast with this profit-motive-situation you have places like the UK where healthcare is provided by the government - e.g. the NHS. The hospital has no financial incentive to circumcise as many boys as possible, doing so would be a cost, not a profitable thing, so it doesn't happen. Therefore the population ends up being un-circumcised as a general rule.
By adulthood men have had long enough to rationalise with what happened to their foreskin. If it has been removed then they tend to want this for others including their own boys. Meanwhile, those with intact foreskin don't talk about such matters in public as they know that open discussion will deeply hurt someone in the room who has been circumcised.
I think that this experiment to circumcise millions of African men for their own good would have been easier to get to the bottom of if everyone involved had to explain their viewpoint in just their 'birthday suit'.
Since it is a binary option with moral overtones and since your boy will eventually compare notes with his contemporaries you could gift him a story that sidesteps the matter.
The story might not be grounded in truth any more than Santa Claus is. The mythical backstory could be that it was decided on a coin toss, heads it stayed on, tails it came off. Maybe embellish it so that the doctor, his mum and yourself all had coins, it being a 'best of three' with the doctor calling 'tails', you calling 'heads' and his mum having the deciding coin.
Such a white lie can be useful for him when he needs to dig himself out of a conversational hole when he gets older so as to not have that awkward moment with a religious workmate/sister's boyfriend etc., even if by then he knows the story is a myth.
That may be an inflammatory statement but if one looks at some of the more extreme corners of internet opinion it's not hard to believe. That said I wouldn't expect most people who the idea appeals to to admit it, but given that science is obviously not on the side of those promoting circumcision one has to look for possible motivation elsewhere.
There are some complex dynamics at work
1. a conflict of interest when there is a financial incentive to do a surgery
2. a pattern of doctors / father who are circumcised feeling the need to promote it to others
3. an issue where men circumcised as infants are never approached for follow-up consent by healthcare professionals, so never know what happened
4. an issue where men circumcised as infants know what happened but rationalise it
It is tempting to think that the 60% figure that’s being thrown around in media reports is just too large a percentage to ignore–even if the studies had some flaws. But do you know what the “60%” statistic is actually referring to? Boyle and Hill explain: What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.
That’s right: 60% is the relative reduction in infection rates, comparing two very small percentages
I don't even know where to begin. What does he think people will interpret it to mean? His entire point here is made in bad faith. What he's saying basically comes down to "the infection rate in this trial was low to begin with, therefore there's no point trying to make it lower," which is preposterous. The authors claim a reduction, which any speaker of the English language should know how to interpret.
I think it's entirely valid to argue the validity of the study and the blowback issue, but his sloppy argumentation throughout the article is underscored here.
In fact, the "absolute decrease [of] only 1.31%" claimed by the article, if anything, is misleading, because that number (representing 60% of the 2.49%) is over a certain small amount of time, and therefore will only grow larger as time passes.
I'm currently contemplating what kind of legal action I could take against the Board of Commissioners of the Public Hospital District that oversees the EvergreenHealth organization.
Over the last year, I have been sharing information with them. The management team of EGH has been relying on the AAP 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement as their justification for offering the harm they offer to parents. I have informed them that the Policy Statement expired in 2017, but they continue to defend the offering of this harm. I also submitted copies of a statement-by-statement refutation of the Policy Statement written by Dr. Robert S. Van Howe, who was (may still be) the Interim Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the Central Michigan College of Medicine.
If anyone has any suggestions for me as regards what kind of legal action might be considered, to compel / encourage the Board of Commissioners to do the work necessary to decide for themselves whether they are harming healthy infants and neonates by continuing to offer this harm, I would appreciate it.
There is no legal basis for circumcision but unfortunately the law cannot help in this case as it reflects public opinion.
Check this out written by the author of this article
I am considering retraining from software engineering into health policy to combat non-therapeutic infant circumcision in the UK
Yes, every study has limitations. The fact that you can't do a blind study or a placebo control with circumcision is just a fact of life -- people tend to know if they're circumcised or not. This does not refute the many studies' findings.
Can you imagine the outrage if the author published a paper questioning the effect of smoking on lung cancer, and then wondered if smoking actually reduces your chances for lung cancer? That's what this article is doing.
I'm glad that Gates is standing on the side of science here.
I don't think the evidence bases are exactly comparable (even acknowledging that the study you've linked to doesn't sound quite as appallingly constructed as the one described by the blog). And people argue about whether recommendations with thin justifications around stuff like diets have counterproductive side effects all the time, especially when the recommendations are pretty drastic.
But in 2018 we have a lot of evidence that show the effect on transmission is real -- and we also have evidence that circumcised people do not engage in more risky behavior. 
So that's why I think this is similar to denying climate change or claiming vaccines cause autism. It could have a real impact on public health.
I suspect I'm getting downvoted because some people are passionately anti-circumcision. And that's fine! Nobody is going to make you get circumcised. But the science doesn't care about one's personal views regarding circumcision.
Yeah, the problem is that this "science" is inevitably used to justify performing an invasive, unnecessary procedure on babies because in 15+ years it will reduce his risk of acquiring HIV during unprotected sex with an HIV-positive woman from 4/10,000 to 2.4/10,000.
Maybe that's worthwhile in certain cultures experiencing pandemic levels of HIV, but in the USA it's borderline medical malpractice. There are only about 250,000 women in the entire country with HIV.
I would say it's actually common sense when you consider how HIV is actually transmitted and account for the fact that conditions, where the procedures are happening, are very likely far from ideal.
The whole thing represents a pretty pointless complication and infection risk, not just from HIV but all kinds of other nasty things.
If there's nothing wrong, there's no reason to cut off pieces from people.
That sounds strangely like the Hawthorne Effect[∆].