Totally against circumcision
MBABANE – While prominent organisations and private doctors are advocating that every male should get circumcised, there is a website dedicated to dismissing these efforts as not being as beneficial as they are made out to be.
Male circumcision is the surgical removal of some or the entire foreskin from the male reproductive organ.
A lot of adverts and campaigns countrywide are being run calling for men to get circumcised.
Experts have stated that circumcision has become one of the ways of reducing the risk of being infected with sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV during intercourse.
According to the Circumcision Information and Resource Pages (CIRP) most parents are not aware of the side effects of circumcision when taking their children for the ‘cut-off’.
A reader who identified himself as David J Llewellyn alerted the Times SUNDAY to the website, www.cirp.org/anat.
He was reacting to a report in our last edition, which revealed that a man of Nhlangano had been circumcised without his permission.
He had gone to a hospital in South Africa for treatment after being in a car accident but the doctor decided to circumcise him, charging government E6 000 for the procedure.
The man had been taken to hospital under the Phalala Specialist Medical Car Fund.
"When are Africans going to stand up to these circumcising doctors and demand their right to be left alone? He should sue the pants off of the arrogant doctor who circumcised him. He is right that he is now sexually diminished. See www.cirp.org," wrote Llewellyn.
The website dedicates several pages to ‘revealing’ information it suggests is always omitted by doctors who conduct circumcision.
It says, for instance, that the foreskin has 12 useful functions that a circumcised male no longer benefits from.
It states that the foreskin is not ‘useless or redundant skin’ as one would imagine.
"Circumcision of an infant male significantly reduces erogenous pleasure potential in his genitals when he becomes sexually active and continues to be reduced as he ages until, in many cases, he is left with relatively little sensation," reads information on the website.
"Infant circumcision is made more acceptable by believing the notion that there is a flap of skin at the end of one’s manhood called the foreskin which hangs over the glans and circumcision simply removes that flap," it states.
"This is factually incorrect," reads the website.
"By thinking that the foreskin is separate or ‘extra’ tissue it is easier to believe that its removal does little to impact or change the rest of the skin of the manhood. There is really no separate anatomical structure called the foreskin. Rather there is one single continuous skin sheath of the manhood which is called the skin system. This single, uninterrupted skin sheath may, at any given time, fold to varying degrees over the glans or retract to reveal it.
The amount of the skin system that is folded over can be referred to as the forefold of the skin system. It’s extent changes often to accommodate degrees of erection and it is never a separate structure from the skin of the shaft," it states.
"What the operation called circumcision actually does then is to interrupt and significantly reduce the skin system of the manhood to a fraction of its normal anatomical and functional extent," the website states. It states that a common misperception is that infant circumcision is preferable to adult circumcision because it spares a man pain and trauma. It however state that many physicians say the opposite and critics admit that most of their objections to infant circumcision cannot be applied to the adult procedure.
"With adult circumcision the patient is making a personal choice to have himself circumcised. He has the option of comparing the pros and cons and has had the opportunity to know what having a foreskin is like. This eliminates the ‘lack of choice’ objection made by critics. With elected adult circumcision, critics see no violation of rights," state the website.
In Swaziland, circumcision is done free of charge and this has been the case since the introduction of the Soka Uncobe Campaign which ended in March 2012.
The Soka Uncobe campaign was launched on July 15, 2011 and it was funded by the US government.
Government statistics indicate that by April 2012, about 40 300 Swazi males had been circumcised.
Vusi Maziya, Senior Programme Officer Responsible for Male Circumcision from the Swaziland National Aids Programme (SNAP) says the information provided by the website is not credible.
SNAP is a department under the Ministry of Health which is headed by Minister Benedict Xaba.
Maziya said male circumcision was provided as a way of HIV prevention method.
Interviewed on Wednesday, he said research was done and it was discovered that in-between the foreskin of a manhood some micro orgasms domicile there, resulting to diseases penetrating.
"Circumcision is done for cleanliness. The cells found inside the foreskin are very soft (langerhan cells) making them receptor cells for HIV. HIV does not penetrate in natural skin. If you remove the ‘soft cell’ through circumcision you are actually reducing the risk of contracting HIV," explained Maziya.
"There is no disadvantage of circumcising. In fact, before one is circumcised he gets special counselling where the advantages of circumcision are properly explained," he said.
He said circumcised men naturally perform better sexually.
One man in Africa appears to have more common sense than those who are promoting circumcision based on faulty studies from foreigners. "Jackson Dlamini, 25, ... told IRIN he was considering circumcision as a way to protect himself from HIV/AIDS. When told that counsellors at Mbabane Government Hospital would advise him to carry on using condoms even after the operation, Dlamini said, "It is painful to get circumcised. If I have to wear a condom anyway, what is the point?"" “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%, which is not statistically significant.” (Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med 2011; 19:316-34.) See: http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf Denied, withheld, and uncollected evidence and unethical research cloud what really happened during three key trials of circumcision to protect men. http://dontgetstuck.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/denied-withheld-and-uncollected-evidence-and-unethical-research-cloud-what-really-happened-during-three-key-trials-of-circumcision-to-protect-men/#comment-609 "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" (Nature Medicine- 4 March 2007). This study states, "Langerhans cells (LCs) specifically express Langerin . . . LCs reside in the epidermis of the skin and in most mucosal epithelia, such as the ectocervix, vagina and foreskin . . . " Removal of the foreskin (male circumcision) removes the langerhans cells that express langerin, the natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission. See: http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100157237#scpti2. Danish Study- Male circumcision leads to a bad sex life http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life November 14, 2011 - 21:47 Circumcised men have more difficulties reaching orgasm, and their female partners experience more vaginal pains and an inferior sex life, a new study shows. What is Lost to Circumcision http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist/ How Male Circumcision May be Affecting Your Love Life by Christian Northrup, M.D. http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Northrup/lovecirc.htm
May 27, 2012, 3:00 AM, PJ (firstname.lastname@example.org)
"A lot of adverts and campaigns countrywide are being run calling for men to get circumcised." This is common. See Aesop’s fable of the fox without a tail “A reader who identified himself as David J Llewellyn alerted the Times SUNDAY to the website, www.cirp.org/anat.” Yes, Mr. Llewellyn is a lawyer who specializes in wrongful circumcision cases. He is the most knowledgeable person in this issue I have ever met. “He was reacting to a report in our last edition, which revealed that a man of Nhlangano had been circumcised without his permission. He had gone to a hospital in South Africa for treatment after being in a car accident but the doctor decided to circumcise him,” This is a violation of the worst kind possible. Prison for this doctor is simply not enough. This is worse than a rape of a woman. This is not the first time I’ve heard of this. There have been several other instances of doctors doing this. If there is no punishment, the abuse will continue with this doctor and others. “"When are Africans going to stand up to these circumcising doctors and demand their right to be left alone? He should sue the pants off of the arrogant doctor who circumcised him. He is right that he is now sexually diminished. See www.cirp.org," wrote Llewellyn.” It will only stop when Africans hold them accountable for their actions. We had a similar practice in The US. Doctors would circumcise newborns even against the parents wishes and instructions. One set of parents brought a lawsuit and won a large judgment. That stopped it right there for good. “The website dedicates several pages to ‘revealing’ information it suggests is always omitted by doctors who conduct circumcision. Yes, once it was common practice for doctors not to tell parents this information. Now, thanks to the internet, parents are able to get the information themselves. As a result, the circumcision rate has fallen by more than 50% in just 6 years. Apparently, this is information Africans are not getting. "What the operation called circumcision actually does then is to interrupt and significantly reduce the skin system of the manhood to a fraction of its normal anatomical and functional extent," the website states. Yes, the foreskin has nerve densities similar to the lips. Touch your lips and then touch your arm and notice the difference. That difference is what a man loses when he is circumcised. “Interviewed on Wednesday, he said research was done and it was discovered that in-between the foreskin of a manhood some micro orgasms domicile there, resulting to diseases penetrating.” What he is actually talking about is the langerhans cells. These cells produce a protective enzyme called “langerin” that fight the HIV virus. Cutting off the foreskin negates the effect of this protective enzyme. “If you remove the ‘soft cell’ through circumcision you are actually reducing the risk of contracting HIV," explained Maziya.” This is a lie! The “soft skin” is the inner mucosal skin of the foreskin. With any circumcision, there is remaining mucosal skin so it would be susceptible. “"There is no disadvantage of circumcising. In fact, before one is circumcised he gets special counselling where the advantages of circumcision are properly explained," he said. He said circumcised men naturally perform better sexually.” The lies just never end, do they? Circumcision permanently changes the way men perform and for the worse. Circumcised men reach impotency a full seven years before men who are not circumcised. Consider that The US consumes 54% of the world’s production of Viagra type products. Consider that counterfeiting of Viagra type products is a problem where ever there are large populations of Muslims. Consider that Malaysia has the highest per capita consumption of Viagra type products. Israel is the world’s leading counterfeiter of Viagra Type products. Circumcised men often need to use artificial lubricants to perform while uncircumcised men do not So, how is it that circumcised men “naturally perform better?”
May 27, 2012, 3:00 AM, Frank OHara (email@example.com)
The 3 African studies on which the WHO and UNAIDS base their recommendations have serious scientific problems. http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/23477339/1441224426/name/JLM_boyle_hill.pdf http://www.edenfantasys.com/sexis/body/bad-science-doesnt-justify-circumcision-1017111/ The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) will do or say anything, to get Americans to circumcise. They keep no figures on deaths due to circumcision. The death certificate always says something else, like that the child bled to death. Americans know circumcision doesn't work. In the 1980s, 90% of adult males were circumcised. We buried nearly a million mostly circumcised males. Condoms work. They protect both partners. There is no disease that circumcision cures, or prevents. Condoms are 98% effective, when used regularly and correctly. Here is what an American doctor who spent his whole life working on genitalia has to say about circumcision. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrcMYq0ASB8&feature=g-vrec and words from a non-medical PhD doctor, on the damage of circumcision. http://safespaceradio.com/2012/05/circumcision/
May 27, 2012, 3:00 PM, Tommy124 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Vusi Maziya may be Senior Programme Officer Responsible for Male Circumcision from the Swaziland National Aids Programme (SNAP) but he is badly confused about the foreskin, circumcision and HIV. HIV is a virus, not a microorganism. The cells inside the foreskin are mucosa, which is not "soft". Langerhans cells are part of the immune system. A recent books says "The protective efficacy of immune mechanisms at the genital tract, especially the female genital tract, has been estimated to stop the vast majority of HIV transmission across an intact and uninflamed mucosal surface, indicating a protective efficacy of almost 99 percent – much greater than any biomedical intervention described to date." (Models of Protection Against HIV/SIV: Avoiding AIDS in Humans and Monkeys, Chapter 5 – The Genital Mucosa, the Front Lines in the Defense Against HIV by T. Blake Ball and Kristina Broliden) In 10 out of 18 countries for which USAID has figures, more of the circumcised men have HIV than the non-circumcised. This needs to be explained before blundering on with mass-circumcision campaigns. Circumcision can not protect women, and may increase the risk to them. There are many disadvantages of having part of your genitals cut off. Here are some: http://www.circumstitions.com/Reasonsnotto.html That is only one of many websites explaining the many reasons males should not have any of their genitals cut off. And of course, men with (the best) part of their genitals cut off can not "naturally" perform better sexually.
May 27, 2012, 3:00 PM, Hugh7 (email@example.com)