Write a Comment
5 Comments
Circumcision CLEARLY is not necessary nor sufficient to protect ANYONE ANYWHERE from HIV. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were cut at birth. Wawer/Gray reported to the WHO in 2009 that the Ugandan men they cut infected their female partners with HIV 50% MORE often than the men they left intact did.
if any of this were remotely true, the same could be said for female circumcision which also offers the same benefits. A study was even done in Tanzania that proved this. Moreover, why are we promoting genital surgery for men instead of practicing safe sex? Maybe if Jewish pedophile doctors and the Jewish media stopped this pedophilic propaganda and told the truth, we'd have less issues today. Did you know the foreskin, both male and female have agents that prevent hiv and infection? Look it up.
Condoms are the only way to help prevent HIV. That and being pre-cautious about who you sleep with perhaps. No recognized professional scientist has ever claimed that amputating the foreskin should be done instead of wearing a condom, that's religious non-sense.
I don't think anyone ever suggested that circumcision would lower the risk of HIV infection for Gay men. Circumcision for Straight men, however, is recommended, since their risk of HIV infection comes in the form of infected vaginal and cervical fluids and secretions in HIV+ women, especially if those Straight men have a preexisting STD such as herpes or syphilis.
Frederick Rhodes
Rescent studies "suggest" that the reason circumcision does not prevent HIV infections 100% of the time is because there are still mucosal cells in the urethra that are "suggested" to be the entry point of HIV in men and women, intact or circumcised. There is no actual proof of HIV entry through mucosal cells, only HIV transmition from HIV tainted semen, vaginal fluids, or blood into the blood of an uninfected person. There are no actual health benefits from ritual infant circumcision
August 29, 2013 • Barra de Navidad, Jalisco, MX