Maybe I’m a cynic but I’ve noticed a few things about this whole African HIV ’study’.

#1 – A company wanted to test a new circumcision clamp and the FDA said no.

#2 – One of the companies that purchases discarded foreskin (to make TestSkin) put out a memo saying that they had to secure the supply by any means.

Both of these happened about a month or two before the ’study’ started. And then there was basically mass circumcision and the rate in the US stopped dropping and remained steady for about a year. The clamp was tested extensively and the supply of skin was secured (temporarily, since the rate is going down again).

Sounds to me like the study achieved exactly what it was intended for, unfortunately by potentially infecting and sacrificing many African lives.

Circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS. There are six African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.

The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 50% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.