# The CDC is going to recommend circumcision in the US



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.pdf

Quote:

CDC HIV/AIDS Science Facts:
Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States
*December 2006*

Quote:

Male circumcision may also have a role for the prevention of HIV transmission in the United States. With the results of three clinical trials showing that male circumcision decreases the risk for HIV infection, CDC is undertaking additional research and consultation to evaluate the potential value, risks, and feasibility of circumcision as an HIV prevention intervention in the U.S


----------



## QueenOfThePride (May 26, 2005)

*enraged*


----------



## mamabadger (Apr 21, 2006)

One step forward, two steps back.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

These new studies are, IMO, creating an emotional contagion that's sweeping through the public health authorities all over the world.

It's just a matter of time before they do the cost-effectiveness analysis and decide that circumcision is a better use of "resources" when performed in infancy.
Ugh...


----------



## QueenOfThePride (May 26, 2005)

But isn't the truth destined to come out? Circumcision simply does not prevent the spread of HIV infection.


----------



## muckemom (Jun 26, 2006)

: I cannot LIVE here anymore.... more and more I just want to move to Australia or New Zealand or Canada...


----------



## zoebugsmom (Jan 19, 2004)

:

That just makes me incredibly sad.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride* 
But isn't the truth destined to come out? Circumcision simply does not prevent the spread of HIV infection.

The truth is probably that it does by some _very small amount_. The NIAID studies weren't inherently flawed in any way that would explain the 50% figure. The real truth is, I'm fairly sure, that circumcision probably does have some _small_ effect there that's simply going to be abrogated by the "50% rumor".
And who knows what the difference would have been between the two groups if they'd completed the damn study. I'm sure it wouldn't have been 50% at 5 years.

But in their haste to "_do something quick_", millions of babies and children are going to be mutilated all over the world.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

Those studies came out of third world countries, in which widespread sexual encounters with strangers was the norm. Intercourse was commonly carried out using herbs which rendered the woman's vagina dry and dessicated, without production of natural lubricant. This is a process known as 'dry sex' intended to increase the friction on the penis and enhance sexual pleasure. Also causes abrasions on the penis and vagina which transmit the HIV virus.

Circumcision does nothing to protect against transmission via anal intercourse or IV drug use, the two most common modes in the US.

Risk of HIV transmission from heterosexual contact in the US is very, very low.


----------



## Tinijocaro (Jan 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamabadger* 







One step forward, two steps back.


I think this one is going to be at least ten steps back. I fear that we may never recover.


----------



## MobiusWentKnowhere (Dec 11, 2006)

The next step will be forced libido suppression. Oh wait, that is what they are talking about

What a brave new world.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

I hope the CDC ends up thinking like you, blessed. "Public health authorities" tend to have some goofy logic sometimes.


----------



## blessed (Jan 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamakay* 
I hope the CDC ends up thinking like you, blessed.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Hey, blessed...will you empty your PM box?

ETA: Thank ya'.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

I read "undertaking additional research" not "going to recommend" as your title states. Still upsetting though, I agree.

Mamakay, enough of the confounding factors (such as whether or not the female partners of the men had been subjected to female genital mutilation, as is common in Africa) were not studied that you certainly can't call it "the truth."

When syphillis was our big fear as a culture, circ "prevented" that, too.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride* 
But isn't the truth destined to come out? Circumcision simply does not prevent the spread of HIV infection.


Right, but Money and Fear have bigger mouths than Truth.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

They're going to do cost/benefit analysis. Not conducting trials to confirm the NIAID results. They explicitly stated that they were taking the results as factual. Nevermind that this study hasn't even been released or peer reviewed yet. They are officially on the bandwagon.


----------



## intorainbowz (Aug 16, 2006)

Well I'm still not circing my future sons.

Oh, and I'll be an adult and teach our children our religious views on sex, as well as birth control and condoms.

Hey, I have an idea, lets have parents actually teach their children about sex, and how to prevent disease and pregnancy. Let's see what AIDS rates do then?

Just a bit irked because here it seem that everyone where I live including the state has the head in the sand approach toward sex and STI.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

After reading the whole link, I'm starting to get the feeling that the only intact boys in the whole U.S. will be those whose mamas (and/or papas) are on MDC!









And I'm afraid that this will make the AIDS rate go up..........when circ'd guys get the feeling that they are "immune."


----------



## sophiekat (Oct 29, 2005)

. . . . . but if we circ them as infants we don't ever have to have those uncomfortable sex talks and take a hard look at what our kids might be doing















:


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *A&A* 

And I'm afraid that this will make the AIDS rate go up..........when circ'd guys get the feeling that they are "immune."

My thoughts exactly.


----------



## PiePie (Oct 2, 2006)

I think the headline on this thread is misleading. CDC is thinking about making recommendations -- no decision yet.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Did you read the link???


----------



## amyjeans (Jul 27, 2004)

that is just plain stupid. How is it physically possible to reduce the risk w/ circ? My head is spinning- I just don't get it.


----------



## BetsyNY (Jul 1, 2005)

I don't see what any of this has to do with RIC. If some grown man wants to cut off part of his penis rather than wear a condom, that's his choice. Eliminating risky behavior is what stops the spread of HIV, nothing else. Circumcised men still get AIDS! And the situation in Africa just can't be compared to the situation in the U.S., so until these studies are replicated here, I don't think it applies.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amyjeans* 
that is just plain stupid. How is it physically possible to reduce the risk w/ circ? My head is spinning- I just don't get it.

Here's what the CDC is thinking:

Quote:

*Biologic Plausibility*
Compared to the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection in laboratory studies [3]. It has also been argued that the foreskin may have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens including HIV [4]. In addition, the micro-environment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BetsyNY* 
I don't see what any of this has to do with RIC. If some grown man wants to cut off part of his penis rather than wear a condom, that's his choice. Eliminating risky behavior is what stops the spread of HIV, nothing else. Circumcised men still get AIDS! And the situation in Africa just can't be compared to the situation in the U.S., so until these studies are replicated here, I don't think it applies.

What it has to do with RIC is that it's "cheaper" to circ babies. That's the scary rationalization you're going to be seeing for RIC in Africa, and probably in the US, as well, eventually.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sophiekat* 







. . . . . but if we circ them as infants we don't ever have to have those uncomfortable sex talks and take a hard look at what our kids might be doing















:

Totally. And I guess this skirts the whole issue of providing condoms to developing nations or poor people in the US, and possibly upsetting certain conservative religious elements. Just cut 'em all, and the US won't have to have that conversation with _ourselves_, politically.


----------



## mommymarliah (Jun 29, 2004)

$%@! the CDC.

Also the people who say vaxxing is safe and stand by while thousands of children die are are vaccine damaged (like my 2).

Ive come to believe that is the CDC says to do something do the exact opposites. They have been totally bought off by mainstream medicine, this makes me sick.


----------



## Leiahs (Jul 29, 2005)

This is too upsetting for me to post a valuable response. I am disgusted with the direction this is going. But no stupid CDC recommendation will change how I feel about any of it.


----------



## BetsyNY (Jul 1, 2005)

It's cheaper still to just wear an effing condom. You could buy a thousand condoms for what one circumcision costs.


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Is the CDC going to take into account the other studies showing that
... circumcised men transfer HIV to women at a higher rate
... circumcised men wear condoms less often
... circumcised women get STD's less often

These clinical studies have not been accepted yet by a peer-reviewed journal and we already get this crap from the CDC???

My head is going to explode too.

Jessica


----------



## MommytoB (Jan 18, 2006)

shame shame on the cdc I wonder where half those ppl got their education from could it be from the president of terroism we have here ?


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BetsyNY* 
It's cheaper still to just wear an effing condom. You could buy a thousand condoms for what one circumcision costs.

Ahh...but there's a price to be paid politically for supposedly encouraging sex before marriage by distributing free condoms, eh? You don't see the CDC encouraging that lately, do ya.


----------



## Jade2561 (Jun 12, 2005)

I am so pissed off about this. I don't much faith in (or any) in the CDC and this is the straw that breaks the camels back.







:


----------



## kxsiven (Nov 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamakay* 
These new studies are, IMO, creating an emotional contagion that's sweeping through the public health authorities all over the world.


Nope. Not on this side of Atlantic. The news was published on BBC. But they also published the fact that it is not a quick fix and circ does not protect against anything.

Here in Scandinavia the news was posted too but it only spoke about *adult* circ and warned that it can turn to false security.


----------



## kalisis (Jan 10, 2005)

Wow...unbelievable.


----------



## AutumnMama (Jan 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *muckemom* 







: I cannot LIVE here anymore.... more and more I just want to move to Australia or New Zealand or Canada...









Ugh, I am with you 100%!
It's just disgusting.


----------



## MobiusWentKnowhere (Dec 11, 2006)

The CDC just gave a resounding F.U. to women. While this practice may reduce HIV transmission to men, it does nothing for women except open them up to even more possibilty of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I wonder about the political motivations involved the CDC's decision making. Could they be so sick that they see a disempowerment of women in our society as an added benefit?


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

OMG, reading that made me sick to my stomach. They said that "lack of male circumcision" is a risk factor for HIV. They make it sound like circumcision is some automatic, beneficial thing that we crazy intactivists are denying our sons!


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

Well, so much for the steady decline in RIC rates in the US. They are going to shoot right back up, I guarantee it. Like someone else said, the mere fact that they are considering this is pretty much 10 steps back that I don't think will be recoverable.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *minkajane* 
OMG, reading that made me sick to my stomach. They said that "lack of male circumcision" is a risk factor for HIV. They make it sound like circumcision is some automatic, beneficial thing that we crazy intactivists are denying our sons!

I noticed that wording, too.


----------



## LoveChild421 (Sep 10, 2004)

Epidemiologically isn't it pretty obvious that the US has one of the highest non-religious circ rates in the world and we also have the highest rate of HIV infection in the developed countries? Can't people realize that if Circ really prevented AIDS transmission that we would have one of the lowest rates? Wasn't the Circ rate around 85-90% in the 60s and 70s? These men "came of age" in the 80's and 90's and if circ really prevented AIDS you'd expect to see a drop of a plateau in the number of new cases in men.

So if the CDC recommends it, do you think they will try to force parents to have their sons circ in the name of "public health" (sort of like vaccinations, they tell you the shots are "mandatory" and only peple who know about the exemptions and stand up for their children are allowed to opt out)?

This makes me so sad.


----------



## pacifica (Apr 8, 2006)

unbelievable! I feel sick to my stomach.







:


----------



## lrlittle (Nov 11, 2005)

this is one of those times when i wonder if i should have any more kids. should i really bring more people into this f-ed up world? who are we and what are we doing?!?!?! i can't stand it. just. so. sad.







:


----------



## amyjeans (Jul 27, 2004)

I prefer to take matters into my own hands. my son(s) will grow up knowing that they should know who they will be intimate with and protect themselves approriately. Thank you CDC, but I birthed them, I'll take care of them.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommymarliah* 
$%@! the CDC.


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

Even if circumcision completely eliminated the risk of HIV, I would not subject a non-consenting, non-sexually active minor child to it. Sexual HIV aquisition is still largely dependant on *behavioral factors*. To circumcise my young son presuming he'll be too stupid or lazy to properly protect himself through safer sex practices is just as offensive and insulting as circumcising him because I think he'll be too stupid or lazy to practice good hygiene.

Maybe other <edit: people who blindly follow, like sheep> who don't actually plan on putting the time and effort into raising their children, who are too embarassed to talk about sexual health will jump at the idea of decreasing HIV risk by amputating a large percentage of skin and other unique, nerve-laden structures from their infant son's primary sex organ. Sensible parents, however, aren't that gullible.

Jen


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:

In addition, *while the prevalence of circumcision may be somewhat lower in racial and ethnic groups with higher rates of HIV infection*, most Americans are already circumcised, and it is not known if men at higher risk for HIV infection would be willing to be circumcised, nor *if parents would be willing to have their infants circumcised to reduce possible future HIV infection risk*.
That right there is very, very scary.
If the CDC decides circumcision would be an effective disease preventive in, say, African Americans...and if they find that African Americans are "ignorant" about the disease preventing abilities of circumcision...they are also going to decide that the only "ethical" thing to do is "educate" the members of this "ethnic group" about how beneficial circumcision is.

Also notice that the CDC _didn't_ factor in meatal stenosis as a complication of circumcision, either.
WTH????


----------



## Just_Isabel (Mar 5, 2006)

Silly CDC. Even if circ lowers the infection rate by 50%, I know something much better: if all boys get their penises chopped off as infants (but leaving the tests intact so they can produce sperm and stuff) I bet the rates would fall by 100%! That would safe everyone sooooooooo much money! No more STDs! Why didn't the CDC think of something as simple and effective?







[/sarcasm]

Does anyone know the differences in new HIV cases in Europe or Australia or NZ or Canada vs. the USA? Wouldn't that tell us more about circ and HIV transmission?







:


----------



## bunniemunch (May 28, 2005)

well they aer wanting to *protect* only america huh? how gullible some americans must be to believe this crap grrr

not america bashing btw lol


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

What should we cut off women to reduce OUR Langerhans cells? Hollow out our vaginas? You know, what function do lips serve- they are full of Langerhans cells, & people WILL have oral sex, let's cut off ALL mucus membranes & see if AIDS simply goes away, shall we?

I think we need to strike fast & hard & simply know more. The next person who says 'AIDS' to me as a circ excuse is getting an earful of science + common sense to make their heads spin.

The time has come to stop beating around the damn bush.


----------



## Calidris (Apr 17, 2004)

Brilliant idea, it must be because the circ rate in the US is so much lower than in Europe that their HIV rate is so much higher.


----------



## Just_Isabel (Mar 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TigerTail* 
I think we need to strike fast & hard & simply know more. The next person who says 'AIDS' to me as a circ excuse is getting an earful of science + common sense to make their heads spin.

The time has come to stop beating around the damn bush.

The problem is, most people will just believe the"authorities", because they are experts and they _must_ know what's best for people. They must have taken all that you have to say into account, and still think that their recommendation is best.









Can you imagine the ads? "Protect your son from AIDS, circ him as soon as possible!"







:


----------



## Ravin (Mar 19, 2002)

Not just the general language (lack of circumcision, etc.), but the way they present the numbers strikes me as misleading. For example, several times they speak of an increase in relative risk by some percentage. Relative risk refers to how much more likely a risk group is to develop a disease than the general population (meaning everybody), expressed as a ratio of [risk for risk group/risk for general population]. So, for example, you might say that the relative risk of uterine rupture following C-section is 2. That is, it's twice that for the general population, or 100% higher. That's a very low relative risk. Describing a relative risk of group A vs. the total of groups A and B as a percentage higher than the risk of group B than the total of groups A and B borders on the nonsensical.

They also mention a few numbers that they go on to say aren't statistically significant. You only bother with statistically insignificant results if you're trying to prop up a weak case and can't come up with something better.

Finally, the lack of mentioning ANY research that contradicts the "circ reduces HIV risk" result (And there's bound to be some even if it turns out to be true, because of the nature of this kind of research) shows a very clear bias on the part of the person writing the CDC review article.


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

The thing that gets me-really makes me insane-is that all three studies were halted early; The Lancet refused to even publish the first one due to ethical concerns so it ended in a second-rate online journal, PLOS. The last two haven't even been published. What about post-op pain, hypersensitivity, and other very individual factors? None of these studies have even been completed...and there is ZERO long-term follow-up to prove that the decreased risk extends after men get used to their circumcisions, keratinization begins to really take effect, etc. With a 'window period' of 6 months and healing times/initial hypersensitivity taken into consideration how can these studies be considered reliable?

Jen


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pdx.mothernurture* 
The thing that gets me-really makes me insane-is that all three studies were halted early; The Lancet refused to even publish the first one due to ethical concerns so it ended in a second-rate online journal, PLOS. The last two haven't even been published. What about post-op pain, hypersensitivity, and other very individual factors? None of these studies have even been completed...and there is ZERO long-term follow-up to prove that the decreased risk extends after men get used to their circumcisions, keratinization begins to really take effect, etc. With a 'window period' of 6 months and healing times/initial hypersensitivity taken into consideration how can these studies be considered reliable?

Jen

Absolutely agree. The variables are just infinite. How much sex were they having? Monogamous relationships? Was either group using condoms? How many HIV tests were these men given in the two year span?

Ugh, this has just gotten me so incensed.


----------



## Eman'smom (Mar 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LoveChild421* 
Epidemiologically isn't it pretty obvious that the US has one of the highest non-religious circ rates in the world and we also have the highest rate of HIV infection in the developed countries? Can't people realize that if Circ really prevented AIDS transmission that we would have one of the lowest rates? Wasn't the Circ rate around 85-90% in the 60s and 70s? These men "came of age" in the 80's and 90's and if circ really prevented AIDS you'd expect to see a drop of a plateau in the number of new cases in men.










I was going to post nearly the same thing. If circing prevented AIDS shouldn't the US be near the bottom, not near the top. When are people going to wake up.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calidris* 
Brilliant idea, it must be because the circ rate in the US is so much lower than in Europe that their HIV rate is so much higher.









Yup, must be.


----------



## pdx.mothernurture (May 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Eman'smom* 
I was going to post nearly the same thing. If circing prevented AIDS shouldn't the US be near the bottom, not near the top. When are people going to wake up.

Playing devil's advocate here, but it also matters how different populations are becoming infected; HIV is also transmitted by IV drug use. It sounds like in Africa, it's being transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex. Is the same true for the U.S.?

Jen


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pdx.mothernurture* 
Playing devil's advocate here, but it also matters how different populations are becoming infected; HIV is also transmitted by IV drug use. It sounds like in Africa, it's being transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex. Is the same true for the U.S.?

Jen

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/res...tsheets/aa.htm

I bet they're going to decide that circumcision would be appropriate for African American males. They're going to go with the "other STDs" increasing the rate of HIV infection 3-fold thing.


----------



## Raja (Dec 13, 2006)

Being from India as I am I knew nothing of the widespread practice of RIC in the US until a week ago when my sister studying to be a pediatrician in the US told me about it - unbelievable.

What the hell is THIS for example?
http://www.quickmedical.com/olympicm...mobolizer.html
https://secure.posey.com/poseystore/...productid=4749

Is this for real or what?


----------



## jessjgh1 (Nov 4, 2004)

Yes, circumcision is very real in the US. (Only instead of dolls they use real baby boys).

But WE want it to end, and it can't happen quickly enough.

The raw and unfiltered reaction from those from intact-norm countries is an invaluable resource.

Of course YOU are shocked, but the sad truth is that most Americans are so used to it they don't really think, question, or understand the procedure.

Jessica


----------



## njeb (Sep 10, 2002)

What I'd like to know is, who is behind the wide dissemination of these bogus studies???? The only thing I can think is, there must be some very powerful people in the upper class who are very pro-circ, and who are doing everything within their power to push circumcision on the American people.







:


----------



## Raja (Dec 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessjgh1* 
Yes, circumcision is very real in the US. (Only instead of dolls they use real baby boys).

But WE want it to end, and it can't happen quickly enough.

The raw and unfiltered reaction from those from intact-norm countries is an invaluable resource.

Of course YOU are shocked, but the sad truth is that most Americans are so used to it they don't really think, question, or understand the procedure.

Jessica

"Procedure", eh? Some "procedure".
After informing myself on the issue for a bit it seems the whole of the US is totally desensitized to this: circumcision torture is a "procedure", FGM is a " terrible human rights violation". Nobody talks about it or wants to, for whatever reason. People worry about ANIMAL RIGHTS yet this happens in every hospital in your country.
Good luck and best wishes from India - your cause is just.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Thanks, Raja.


----------



## Dave2GA (Jul 31, 2005)

Don't despair. Not everyone falls for this. I was on the Walden's Pond radio show for an hour today on WBAI 99.5 FM in NYC (a Pacifica affiliate, I believe). The callers were all respectful and many, if not all, saw thru this latest ridiculous study. One asked about Meissner's corpuscles but sounded like he was asking about Langerhan's cells. I set him straight. Likewise the letters to the editor in the NYT yesterday all pointed out how dangerous it is to circ to prevent AIDS and how effective condoms are. The only effect these studies are likely to have in the US is to let the pro-circ fanatics try to get a new AAP committee or a recommendation from the CDC. Even the press is getting smart. Halperin has been branded as a long time circ pusher in the hispanic press by EFE, the Spanish news service. The U.S. press has indicated similarly. Since the rates in California, Oregon, and Washington are so low, they are unlikely to go up much over this. I think we are at the tipping point nationally, i.e. the point where it goes in our favor. There has been too much talk about circ and the losses caused by it. Keep on educating parents. Emphasize the risks and the losses - particularly that of sensitivity. What do you think keratinization does to the glans? Make if more or less sensitive? The answer is obvious. Less is more only to those who have been clipped.


----------



## QueenOfThePride (May 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *njeb* 
What I'd like to know is, who is behind the wide dissemination of these bogus studies???? The only thing I can think is, there must be some very powerful people in the upper class who are very pro-circ, and who are doing everything within their power to push circumcision on the American people.







:

Edgar Schoen


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *njeb* 
What I'd like to know is, who is behind the wide dissemination of these bogus studies???? The only thing I can think is, there must be some very powerful people in the upper class who are very pro-circ, and who are doing everything within their power to push circumcision on the American people.







:

I know I sound like a broken record/Michael Moore-style freak, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of those huge biogenetic tissue engineering companies are helping fund these studies somehow. The $$ they make from foreskins is ASTOUNDING.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dynamohumm6* 
I know I sound like a broken record/Michael Moore-style freak, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of those huge biogenetic tissue engineering companies are helping fund these studies somehow. The $$ they make from foreskins is ASTOUNDING.

I was thinking the same thing-- someone has to be making money off of this.


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

I'm inclined to wonder if the inevitable rise in HIV rates from people thinking they don't need condoms if they're circ'ed is an intended result by the people propigating this. Maybe someone somewhere thinks this would be a good population control method. I know, it sounds kinda tin-foil-hattish. Thoughts?


----------



## LoveChild421 (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pdx.mothernurture* 
Even if circumcision completely eliminated the risk of HIV, I would not subject a non-consenting, non-sexually active minor child to it. Sexual HIV aquisition is still largely dependant on *behavioral factors*. To circumcise my young son presuming he'll be too stupid or lazy to properly protect himself through safer sex practices is just as offensive and insulting as circumcising him because I think he'll be too stupid or lazy to practice good hygiene.

Maybe other <edit: people who blindly follow, like sheep> who don't actually plan on putting the time and effort into raising their children, who are too embarassed to talk about sexual health will jump at the idea of decreasing HIV risk by amputating a large percentage of skin and other unique, nerve-laden structures from their infant son's primary sex organ. Sensible parents, however, aren't that gullible.

Jen

right on!


----------



## 13Sandals (Sep 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dynamohumm6* 
I know I sound like a broken record/Michael Moore-style freak, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of those huge biogenetic tissue engineering companies are helping fund these studies somehow. The $$ they make from foreskins is ASTOUNDING.


No question in my mind about this either. I still can't work out why national policy is being reavaluated without the peer-reviews..correct me if I'm wrong - but one of the studies was only published in some second rate on line journal and the other two haven't been published at all yet and the NYT is preaching as if the author's word is truth. What is going on with this?

And Dave, I sincerely hope you are correct. Thing is, I know someone who is fighting with her family to save her baby boy's foreskin right now (she's due early next year) - this is very bad timing. I don't know that she will stand strong.







:


----------



## dynamohumm6 (Feb 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *13Sandals* 
I still can't work out why national policy is being reavaluated without the peer-reviews..correct me if I'm wrong - but one of the studies was only published in some second rate on line journal and the other two haven't been published at all yet and the NYT is preaching as if the author's word is truth. What is going on with this?

They are grasping at straws. That industry stands to lose a ton of money if circumcision drops like it's trending to do, and they're going to push the ever living crap out of anything that might work for them.
Remember, adult foreskin doesn't work....the big deal about neo-nate foreskin and tissue engineering is that it lacks the immunology or something...I forget the correct terminology. basically, it won't be rejected like adult donor tissue. This is a huge, huge deal in their applications.

It's not like it's a cosmetic company - we're talking about skin grafting techniques for burn victims, or other "chronic sores" that would benefit from engineered tissue. Not only is it a huge $$ industry, but it's important in the health care world, too.
I wouldn't be shocked if to a lot of them, the end justifies the means.


----------



## BamaDude (Aug 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
I'm inclined to wonder if the inevitable rise in HIV rates from people thinking they don't need condoms if they're circ'ed is an intended result by the people propigating this. Maybe someone somewhere thinks this would be a good population control method. I know, it sounds kinda tin-foil-hattish. Thoughts?

I've been thinking the same thing.

Africa is a large, for the most part "underdeveloped" continent with vast natural resources. With no pesky natives to get in the way, all those resources are up for grabs.


----------



## Acksiom (Jun 10, 2004)

We should also keep in mind that routine and ritual child genital amputation is, fundamentally, a cultural psychosis, and that the people involved in pushing this are simply _*not rational about it*_.

As in _craaaaaay-zeee_.

I'm willing to entertain the _possibility_ that there is some sick vivisectionist profiteering motive involved in the actions of some, but come on, people -- for the most part, all that is needed to explain this insanity is. . .well, the essential insanity of it all.

As a men's issues advocate and activist, I can assure you from long experience that this sort of deranged denial and distortion of reality is nothing new. I've seen it play out like this where other gender issues are concerned, so it's actually rather familiar to me. It's the same old story as with domestic violence or child custody or dozens of other areas; lies, damn lies, and statistics, simply in order to protect the self-image and revenue streams of academics, the monosource media, and the herds of sheeple they sell to the advertising companies.

I recommend that folks calm down some. Being outraged about the usual lying and deceit and BS is fine, but there's no need to view this as some great and terrible success on the part of the prepucectionists and get all panicky and weirded out. Because it isn't. It's just another desperate old-school attempt at spreading FUAD, and that tactic keep working worse and worse as the new informational networds spread out in competition with the old top-down monosource media model.

The only winning strategy these people have is silence and censorship, because intactivism is one of the few movements in history, such as abolition or general suffragism, that actually DOES have the truth on its side. Not to mention righteousness. The more the subject gets talked about AT ALL, the better it is for intactivism OVER ALL.

Keep that in mind. When this sort of thing comes up, I always remind myself of Gandhi's aphorism (rephrasing Schopenhauer):

First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Stuff like all this foofaraw is clearly in the fighting category. So I'm not going to worry until I see the NYT and CDC and the WHO and the rest of these idiots moving _backwards_ into _mockery_ of intactivism. The very fact that they're so desperate as to resort to this kind of patent and blatant manipulation of public opinion is a GOOD sign for us.

I know all this may appear to be a series of _tactical_ losses, but in fact _strategtically_ speaking we're doing pretty good to make them take us on like this.

If they were _smart_, they'd be _totally clamping down on the subject and not allowing any mention of it through the monosource media whatsoever at all_. They'd also be trying to shame and blame normal everyday people who spoke up about it at all, and characterize intactivists as silly trivial meaningless little crackpots.

That's their only hope for maintaining the status quo a little longer. And I ain't seeing it happening.

My advice is to take the wide view -- bigger, longer, and uncut, as Parker and Stone put it







. Calm down and look at how far we've already come. This crap isn't really going to undo that. Yes, it's bad and awful and will wastefully hurt a lot of people and, yes, even kill some of them, and make the inevitable victory a little harder and more costly, but come on, people. . .

. . .it's not the _Aposthcalypse_







.


----------



## shimmerMom (Nov 25, 2005)

Makes me shutter







: I hope that the canadian's here don't believe that claptrap.


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

Wow, Andrew. You said it all.


----------



## GruppieGirl (Feb 19, 2002)

Oh, this makes me mad!

I would love to send a simple, coherent, fact-based letter to the editor of the local paper rebutting their recet article on this subject.

I don't believe that I have enough concrete knowledge to write such an article.

Any ideas?


----------



## Just_Isabel (Mar 5, 2006)

Silly CDC. Even if circ lowers the infection rate by 50%, I know something much better: if all boys get their penises chopped off as infants (but leaving the testes intact so they can produce sperm and stuff) I bet the rates would fall by 100%! That would save everyone sooooooooo much money! No more STDs! Why didn't the CDC think of something as simple and effective?














[/sarcasm]

Does anyone know the differences in new HIV cases in Europe or Australia or NZ or Canada vs. the USA? Wouldn't that tell us more about circ and HIV transmission?







:


----------



## GoodMomma (Aug 6, 2006)

uke

Absolutely disgusting!


----------



## frenchie (Mar 21, 2006)

How about we allow sexually active men to decide whether or not they want their bits cut up....leave the babies alone!!!! I am so enraged right now.


----------



## Electra375 (Oct 2, 2002)

Why do they keep changing the rules???
Years ago intackness was the way to prevent HIV transmission, now it's to circ -- leave penises alone damn it!!!


----------



## Just_Isabel (Mar 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Electra375* 
Why do they keep changing the rules???
Years ago intackness was the way to prevent HIV transmission, now it's to circ -- leave penises alone damn it!!!









:
Why can't they just recommend the use of condoms? ITA, they should leave the penises alone!


----------



## buckeyedoc (Nov 9, 2006)

One can only hope that more medical scientists evaluate these studies objectively and understand that the HIV scenario in Africa is vastly different than anywhere else. It's one thing for adult men to willingly choose circumcision in hopes of even a tiny decrease in HIV infection in a region where HIV is rampant and often spread heterosexually and quite another to recommend circumcising newborn males in regions with very low HIV prevalence and exceedingly rare female to male transmission. It would be a *gross* misapplication of the study findings, even if we except that there is a real (albeit not impressive) decrease in female-to-male HIV transmission in circumcised men in an endemic area. It's crystal clear to me as a researcher. I suppose some are just willing to jump on any potential means of HIV prevention, even a very crude measure that would be quite difficult to implement. Rest assured, though, that there is better HIV research going on than these correlational studies. That kind of research will lead to actual vaccines and novel antivirals.


----------



## mariposita (Sep 13, 2002)

This very topic came up on a local neighborhood mom's yahoo group I belong to. This yahoo group is extremely mainstream with the exception of myself and my friends. But to my surprise, most all responses were very, very anti-circ. There were only a couple of people who seemed pro-circ and it was for religious reasons. It seems like we've been heading in the right direction, let's just hope this CDC thing doesn't push us back even further.


----------



## DocsNemesis (Dec 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *muckemom* 







: I cannot LIVE here anymore.... more and more I just want to move to Australia or New Zealand or Canada...









Or Finland!!!!!!


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

I feel sick, I'm so disgusted. I agree with Ravin regarding the statistics.


----------



## homebirthing (Nov 10, 2002)

Families that I attend in labor (whether they are thinking about circ for the first time when I bring it up or not) go into birth and baby with a very good head on their shoulders. This won't affect them. It is the mainstream families, who are already doing it that will be even harder, because it won't just be for cultural norn, they will think that they have a reason now.


----------



## Electra375 (Oct 2, 2002)

Will the CDC recommendation change the AAP current standing that it is no longer recommended???


----------

