• Log In
• Register
• Find Password

• home
• rss
• submission guidelines
• masthead
• letter from the editor
• mra principles and goals
• mnd lifestyles

How to survive the coming food shortage.

13 Responses to “2 new large studies show circumcision substantially lowers HIV risk”

1. 
   1
   DrDamage Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 3:24 am

   Great, so all it takes is a barbaric ritual involving a newborn babe and the unanaesthetised removal of exquisitely sensitive body parts.

   So, I’m wondering when medicine will advance past sacrificing newborns in its quest to cure AIDS?

2. 
   2
   amfortas Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 6:49 am

   You don’t have to be a research genius to show that good morals and keeping your dick out of other’s arses reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS. But I am waiting for someone to publish that gem.

3. 
   3
   ninderthana Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 8:46 am

   Try to imagine a newspaper publishing an
   article that proposed that all western women older than 50 years have double mastectomies so that we reduce the number cases of breast cancer. And imagine if they justified the removal of these “unnecessary appendages” by saying millions of western women’s
   lives would be saved.

   If a study showed that female genital mutilation reduced the level of HIV infection, does anyone seriously think that a newspaper would publish an article proposing that hundreds of millions of African women should have their genitals mutilated?

   Why are we in the so called “civilized” West so keen to promote male genital mutilation of African men?

4. 
   4
   John Dias Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 9:47 am

   The article:
   

   “It does have the potential to prevent many tens of thousands, many hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of infections over coming years,” Dr. Kevin De Cock, director of the World Health Organization’s department of HIV-AIDS, said Wednesday during a teleconference announcing the findings.

   First of all, that guy’s name takes the cake. Did he gear up his whole life for this very story, for punchline effect?

   Secondly, I don’t have a problem with circumcision to prevent (or lower the likeliness) of AIDS. As long as it is done by a consenting male adult.

   John Dias

5. 
   5
   John Dias Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 9:48 am

   Correction to my last post… as long as it is done to a consenting male adult.

   John Dias

6. 
   6
   fourthwire Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 2:42 pm

   Male genital mutilation is a barbaric practice promoted through the ignorance of the public, misandry, and the greed of those companies who provide supplies and equipment for performing MGM.

   The basis of MGM has not changed since it was introduced as a “health measure” in Victorian times: to punish and control the sexuality of children.

   European nations almost always allow their boys to keep their intact genitals….. and those same nations boast far lower incidence of HIV/AIDS and STD’s than America, or most African nations where male genital mutilation is widespread.

   Yet the medical supplies and equipment industries who stand to financially benefit from the continuation of the practice continue to fund “research” that purports to find a medical basis for this backwards, barbaric, and disgusting practice.

7. 
   7
   toysoldier Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 3:44 pm

   My question is exactly how they determine that circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS. Specifically, what is done to make this determination. As stated above, many European nations have relatively low rates of HIV/AIDS infections and their males are largely uncircumcised.

   Without knowing how they reached these conclusions–what the subjects did, how they determined the risks, etc.–I am hesitant to accept them.

8. 
   8
   fourthwire Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 3:58 pm

   The American medical establishment has promoted male circumcision as a preventative measure for an astonishing array of pathologies, ranging from:

   masturbatory insanity,
   moral laxity,
   aesthetics and hygiene,
   headache,
   tuberculosis,
   rheumatism,
   hydrocephalus,
   epilepsy,
   paralysis,
   alcoholism,
   near-sightedness,
   rectal prolapse,
   hernia,
   gout,
   clubfoot,
   urinary tract infections,
   phimosis,
   cancer of the penis,
   cancer of the cervix,
   syphillis
   and (now) AIDS.

   But the only rationale which has clear, well established scientific support is the one originally and openly used by the medical establishment when medical circumcision was introduced as a “public health” measure in the Victorian era: that is, to punish and control the sexuality of male children.

   Victorian doctors knew something that modern medicine has chosen to ignore: the foreskin is at the heart of male sexuality.

   The most virulent, chronic and debilitating pathology associated with the male foreskin appears to be the compulsion to cut it off.

   http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html#MB

9. 
   9
   fourthwire Says:
   December 14th, 2006 at 4:00 pm

   A typical Western medical circumcision results in the loss of approximately 50% of the total surface area of the penis and between 50% and 80% or more of its erogenous sexual nerves, including:

   - The Taylor “ridged band” [sometimes called the "frenar band"], the primary erogenous zone of the male body.

   This unique, highly specialized and exquisitely sensitive structure is equipped with soft ridges designed by nature to stimulate the female’s inner labia and G-spot during intercourse.

   - The frenulum, the highly erogenous V-shaped tethering structure on the underside of the head of the penis.

   - Between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which can feel slight variations in pressure and stretching, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture.

   - Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner’s corpuscles, which are also found in the fingertips.

   Also lost are:

   - The foreskin’s gliding action, the non-abrasive gliding of the shaft of the penis within its own sheath, which facilitates smooth, comfortable and pleasurable intercourse for both partners.

   - The “subpreputual wetness” which protects the mucosa of the glans (and inner foreskin), and which contains immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme, a potent HIV killer which is also found in tears and mothers’ milk.

   - Estrogen receptors, the purpose of which is not fully understood.

   - The foreskin’s apocrine glands, which produce pheromones.

   - The protection and lubrication of the erogenous surface of the penis, which is designed by nature to be an internal organ like the vagina.

   Natural sex involves contact between two internal organs.

   http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html#MB

10. 
    10
    NationalVoice Says:
    December 15th, 2006 at 8:24 am

    Talk about a study with built in bias. Just think, the only people in Africa that are currently practicing circumcision are either Christians or Jews. Their cultures are entirely different than people who don’t practice circumcision.

    It’s not the missing foreskin, it’s the morals difference that is resulting in lower HIV rates.

    It’s like saying that people in men’s prison are 100% free of cervical cancer, so to prevent cervical cancer all women have to do is get into a men’s prison.

    Looks to me like the medical establishment will publish studies that promote mutilation just so long as they can make a buck. Never mind that the study was a setup to achieve the desired results.

    I’m circumcised and I wish my parents had given me choice in the matter.

    Read the above comment to see what we mutilated guys lost.

    I find it ironic that we in the west condem the practice of forced female mutilation but can’t seem to recognize that we are just as guilty of that type of stupidity when if comes to men.

11. 
    11
    fourthwire Says:
    December 15th, 2006 at 1:55 pm

    Nationalvoice, in fact there are parts of Africa where the inhabitants are neither Christian nor Jewish, yet they still practice MGM.

    For starters, the Moslem nations of northern Africa practice MGM.

    But I obviously agree with the rest of your post.

    I also found it ironic that as the U.N. and feminist organizations have been racheting up the pressure on Africans to stop the practice of FGM, they are indifferent (at best!) to the plight of African males being subjected to genital mutilation.

    At least part of the reason for that callous indifference is the widespread prevalence, particularly among Western nations of the notion that females’ genital integrity is more valuable than males’ genital integrity.

    Part of the reason of course comes down to instituionalized misandry, pure and simple.

    Part of the reason stems from the profit-motive of those companies selling supplies and equipment used during MGM (and those companies “coincidentally” fund never-ending research attempting to prove that MGM has therapeutic value!).

    On message boards discussing female genital mutilation, I always point out the hypocrisy of those individuals who rail against FGM, but remain indifferent, or even supportive of MGM………. which never fails to evoke replies amounting to “but THAT’S different”.

    And even when presented with their own hypocrisy, such individuals (usually but not always feminists) prefer to attempt to maintain the facade that FGM is based on misogyny, but that somehow baby boys deserve to undergo genital mutilation.

12. 
    12
    macklin Says:
    December 18th, 2006 at 7:29 am

    At least part of the reason for that callous indifference is the widespread prevalence, particularly among Western nations of the notion that females’ genital integrity is more valuable than males’ genital integrity.There are two sides to any divide, and you can widen the divide by pushing either side away from the other. This can be observed in all feminist policies. So, if women’s genital integrity is a feminist issue, the destruction of men’s genital integrity also becomes a feminist issue. Ideas about women’s genital integrity will be pushed in one direction, while those about men’s will be pushed in the other so as to make the gap between the treatment of men and women on this issue as wide as possible. I wonder how long it’ll be before somebody claims that castration has health benefits…

13. 
    13
    wt Says:
    December 19th, 2006 at 2:20 am

    STOP THE PRESS, THIS IS TOTAL FRAUD!

    The NIH’s new endorsement of MGM to slow the spread of HIV isn’t supported by the science, for a number
    of reasons. Most glaringly, they’re completely focusing on the
    female->male transmission factor while ignoring the equally important
    male->female transmission factor. There is both laboratory and
    epidemiological evidence that MGM drastically increases HIV
    transmission rates from men to women, due to increased abrasion of
    the vaginal wall. MGM rubs women raw. See
    http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/blog/HIV.txt
    Using the data from the study of US (high MGM rate) vs european
    (low MGM rate) HIV infection at
    http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#hetero
    MGM halves the rate of female->male HIV transmission (transmission
    per intercourse) but more than QUADRUPLES the male->female rate to
    a factor of 4.75, for a net increase of 2.375 in relative risk of transmission
    between circ’d and intact populations. This is reflected in the large difference in US vs
    european infection rates. In the industrialized world where cultural,
    religious and iatrogenic (dirty needles used in “charity” vaccination
    campaigns) confounding factors are not an issue, MGM is POSITIVELY
    correlated with HIV.

    There are other issues involved as well, such as the value judgement
    involved in ignoring the finding that FGM reduces male->female HIV
    transmission (no one knows its effect going the other way), and the
    underlying question of the applicability of any of this to the
    moral, legal and ethical question of imposing genital mutilation
    on defenseless children.

    The insanity of this latest PR push can’t be overstated. It’s an
    indication of the corruption and increasing desperation at the highest
    levels of the medical establishment. They’ll do anything to justify
    what they’ve already done, including, apparently, doubling the world’s
    HIV transmission rate.

Leave a Reply