Times Of Swaziland: Totally against circumcision

Totally against circumcision
================================================================================
 MBONGENI NDLELA on 27/05/2012 00:00:00


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.
-------------------------
Comments
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 (needled@localnet.com)
"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 (ohara30075@yahoo.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 (tftobin@live.com)
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 (hughcirc@gmail.com)