24 Comments on "Zimbabwe’s Circumcision drive “a waste of money”"

peter Wrigby on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 3:54 am 



The tone of this article has the familiar ring of the irrational circumcision haters. These people couldn’t care less about saving lives. They totally ignore or misconstrue valid scientific studies. They are dangerous nasty people who should be put in their place. Zimbabwe is doing a fine job and is a good example to the rest of the world.

clifford on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 4:47 am 



there is need for this article to be supported by scientific studies.if it is true that circumcision reduces hiv/aids why is it that it is only in africa where it is said to work very well. Where were the intial studies conducted, by whom and for how long?African scholars, scientists and researchers must learn to carry out their own independent studies.why do we always look outside ourselves for solution.why so much engrossed in africa? what are the motives?

Bla Miki on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 4:58 am 



The above writer, if you are a white man as suggested by your name Peter something, l would like to thank you so much for a positive comment for the first time coming from a white imperialist. Zimbabwe needs people like you who are bold enough to criticize what is wrong regardless of where it is coming from. We hope your puppets from the mdc have learnt something. Kaganda ngakachekwe mhani ndosaka zvimoko zvichimhanyira manaijimbi nekuti inenge iri musvuu mpostory.

syl muta on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 7:32 am 



its is unwarranted to refer to every white person as an imperialist. worse still to abuse those in the MDC. it just shows how unread and lack of exposure you have. Circumcision is smart.The merits and demerits could just be a matter of perception. God gave it as a sign between Him and all male born to his chosen people.I would urge all men to be circumcised1

Anhu acho on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 8:41 am 



blamiki murwere zimbabwe is an inclusive country. circumcision is done for 1] medical
2] cultural
3] preventive reason
MDC is there to stay just like zanu pf zvizive izvozvo miki hazvichinje kwasara kuti itungamirire kwete kutonga nekukusungirira vamakasunungura. the only foolproof method is ABSTINENCE TILL THE RIGHT TIME. iwe miki wazvinzwa. zimbabwe ndeye vanhu kwete bato MDC yacho tikaivhotera ikakanya uko-o one time. usafunge kuti ZERO ABILITY NO UNITY & POSITIVE FAILURE VAMugabe vakatorwa nenguva ingamira bodo tsvo-o. nader no kwete aiwa uhuh nie hai ndaramba wakatengawo here imba kuchina kana malaysia. taka a leaf from zambia thank you but no thank you

cde bofuratsikamwana on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 9:41 am 



At one moment zvainzi AIDS abbreviates AMERICAN’S IDEAS OF DISCOURAGING SEX. if our cultural practices may serve the few of us, why not implement them. remember we have been turned on the funding according to yesterday’s reports, so totowona yekutamba. get that foreskin off guys, mudumbu tonwa murumanyama and mosquitoe topisa ndove yenzou. IHWAKU MUKWAKU APA! there should be some epidemiological intelligence in the whole exercise, considering the common infection process. however according to AMERICA nothing good can ever come from AFRICA.

ZveMDC staying it’s real and true, but only to cause the suffering of the people. it will stay yes, because funding is readly available for the project than the deadly pandemic. it’s a priority to deprave ZIMBABWEANS of their socio-political and economic freedoms. unfortunately there are some among us who vote for it coz of greedy or ignorance. forgive them, we saw MADZAKUTSAKU during the liberation struggle, so vane twana twavowo.

James Mac on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 11:07 am 



The truth is found in the real world, not in fraudulent studies trashing the once good name of science.

In the real world, USAID found men were MORE likely to be infected if they’d been circumcised in 10 of 18 African countries they looked at.

In the real world, decades of near-universal circumcision in the United States has delivered it the highest rates of HIV/AIDS in all of the developed world. 1in 30 adults in Washington DC is living with HIV/AIDS, a rate rivaling the worst of western Africa.

Africans should be filled with rage at the West’s newest cynical exploitation of a vulnerable population and boot the teams of sexual mutilators out of their countries.

Education, condoms and safe practices work. Circumcision does not.

Tom Tobin on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 11:46 am 



Let me be blunt. Dr. David Tomlinson is chief expert to the World Health Organization on circumcision. He invented the “improved” Gomco, the “improved” Plastibell and the “improved” Accu-circ. Obviously, it is a conflict
of interest for him to hold the position, when he stands to make money
from each of these circumcision clamps sold.

Here Dr. Tomlinson is in an ad:
http://www.kentecmedical.com/media/document/AccuCircWorkshopBroc****.pdf

They make it seem so safe, comfortable, and marketable.

Circumcision is ineffective in preventing HIV. In the US, 80% to 85%
of all adult men were circumcised. We still managed to have one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world.
Ethiopia’s circumcision rate is close to 100%. Are they any healthier? No, they have a high HIV infection rate. There is no one saying that a circumcised man is safe without a condom. If you have to wear a condom to be safe, keep your foreskin. It has 60% to 70% of the nerves of your genitals.
Condoms work. They protect both partners.

Tom Tobin on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 11:50 am 



cde bofuratsikamwana, why do you spew such words? Americans know that humans came from Africa, as well as a great deal of culture, music, and art which is precious to all of us.
Your call for cutting off foreskins, without any knowledge, echoes this man:
‘Kenya is furthest along, with about 330,000 circumcisions, a third of
the government’s goal, which exceeds the international health agencies’ goal. “We’re hacking away at it every month,” Dr.Bailey said. “Those foreskins are flying.”’

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/health/27circumcision.html?pagewanted=all

Dr. Bailey is not a medical doctor or even a medical epidemiologist,
but rather holds degrees in Anthropology and behavioral epidemiology.

Does this sound like a guy you want to trust with your health care?

octopus on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 11:54 am 



Siyanai nesu mhani.afta all hapana arikumanikidzwa kuchekwa kwacho.so wats the fuss?besides hazvina kunzi munhu achekwa ngaasa shandise condom.kana mashaya zvekuita rowayi bonyora.pasi ne mdc

MDARA weka'bla miki on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 1:12 pm 



Some people are politically colonised such that they view everything in terms of zanu or mdc. This is a medical issue vis a vis corruption issues in the health dept.The question is ‘will the money benefit the intended beneficiaries and suppose it doesn’t,where will it have gone and what deterent action can be taken on perpetrators given the tradional wanton use of public resources by a few with no tangible justice having been meted,simple.

Roland Day on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 4:19 pm 



The claim that circumcision prevents HIV infection is based on three poorly performed Randomized Clinical Trials. They claimed a 60 percent reduction in female-to-male HIV transmission. This was incorrectly calculated. The actual reduction was 1.3 percent, which is NOT statistically significant. The studies are fraudulent. Circumcision will NOT prevent HIV infection.

Monique MD on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 4:45 pm 



The HIV studies are a fraud and extremely racist. They would never have been allowed in the U.S. The absolute risk reduction is only about 1%. The relative risk reduction they claim is 50-60%, but this is clinically unimportant. Almost half the males in the studies acquired HIV through non-sexual sources, so their claims are false and misleading.The promoters of circumcision as AIDS prevention are a fraud. There is much money at stake, which is why they continue to promote circumcision. Keep your foreskins and protect your health and sexual function. Stay away from cultural colonialists who claim to have your best interests at heart. They don’t and they won’t. This is all about the power and the money. Make sure all injections are provided with sterile needles and medical care is provided with sterile equipment. Use condoms, be monogamous. Anti-retroviral medication is almost 100% effective at preventing further spread of HIV from those infected. Be smart. Question everything and do your research.

Hugh7 on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 7:48 pm 



In Zimbabwe in 2005, USAID found 14.2% of non-circumcised men had HIV compared to 16.6% of circumcised men. (And as James Mac points out, similar ratios apply in 10 of 18 countries for which it has figures.) Shouldn’t this at least be explained before blundering on with mass circumcision programmes?

Peter Wrigby speaks of “irrational circumcision haters”. One could more accurately speak of “irrational foreskin haters” (who intersect with “irrational sexual pleasure haters”). We certainly care about saving lives. That is why we oppose these campaigns.

Women are at several times greater risk than men, and circumcision does NOTHING to protect them. It may even INcrease the risk to women, according to a Ugandan study (Wawer, et al., Lancet 374:9685, 229-37) it was cut short for no good reason (nothing they could then do or not do would prevent any new infections) before that could be confirmed. Circumcision may also increase the risk indirectly by encouraging men to throw caution to the winds and demand sex without condoms.

Mark Lyndon on Wed, 28th Dec 2011 11:31 pm 



[I posted this earlier, but it doesn't seem to have gone through, probably because of the links. Here it is again without the links, so sorry if it appears twice.]

From the USAID report “LEVELS AND SPREAD OF HIV SEROPREVALENCE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS: EVIDENCE FROM NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS”
“There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher.”

The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups “believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms”.

From the committee of the South African Medical Association Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee :
“the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission.”

The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

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

Barefoot Intactivist on Thu, 29th Dec 2011 4:46 am 



One more reason to hope — Gates Foundation’s genital mutilation (circumcision) campaigns are failing, so we may soon see a return to methods of HIV prevention that actually work, like condoms, education, ARVs, and increasing access to clean water.

There’s a reason nobody is trying circumcision as HIV prevention in India and elsewhere: only cultures that already practice genital mutilation (like USA and much of Africa) can be duped into accepting the fraudulent pseudoscience behind the HIv circumcision ‘studies’ carried out by Johns Hopkins Univ. et al.

Here’s to hoping for a better future, one with responsible philanthropy, a respect for basic human rights, and disease prevention methods that actually work.

~Barefoot Intactivist

SARAH on Thu, 29th Dec 2011 10:30 am 



Bla Miki ngaaende kunodzingiswa!

richie moyo on Thu, 29th Dec 2011 10:35 am 



thats true, zim wasting money for nothing.

John Dalton on Thu, 29th Dec 2011 3:27 pm 



HIV is normally treated by Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART). This reduces the viral load close to zero.

Those who are newly infected with HIV, or receiving Post Exposure Prophylaxis with HAART, can have the viral load reduced to Zero and be cured of the infection.

For longer standing infections HAART reduces the viral load close to zero leaving the infected person healthy with a life expectancy close to that of a never-infected individual and incapable of transmitting the virus to others. However they are not “cured” because reservoir tissues harbour the virus and allow the viral load to increase again when the HAART is withdrawn. Thus HAART needs to be lifelong which is costly and has side effects.

Current serious HIV researchers are looking at ways to eradicate “reservoir” HIV. While this is not yet possible, it is seen as being within reach by the researchers. There are drugs such as raltegravir[1] which have shown promise in reducing reservoir HIV.

Clearly what Africa needs for HIV treatment and prophylaxis is HAART, not circumcision.

Many with an interest promoting circumcision have hijacked HIV as a vehicle for doing so. As they attend all the HIV conferences they will know about HAART but they have pushed
circumcision.

Clearly HAART in Africa is intrinsically prohibitive due to its cost. In the late 1990s there was a major campaign to make cheap generic anti- retrovirals available to Africa which was opposed by Big Pharma who owned the patents. A scheme to provide the cheap drugs to Africa was close to agreement but was scuppered by President George W Bush upon
gaining office. It was about this time that “ABC” (Anything But Condoms) and “MC” started to be promoted. In the case of “MC” it was at this stage that the “trials” got underway. Africans were denied effective treatment and offered snake oil to protect drug companies’ profits.

HAART must be made affordable and deliverable in Africa. The Gates Foundation and Richard Branson-Condom should accept this argument. If in a few years time when a cure based on the elimination of the viral reservoirs becomes available then circumcision becomes totally redundant.

Finally it seems appropriate to refer to Tuskegee. Tuskegee is the text book example of a research study which was unethical because [black] men were denied treatment for their sexually transmitted diseases and sent out to infect others for the good of the research objective. All HIV research in Africa during the last 10 years falls into the Tuskegee
bracket since the [black] people in Africa have been denied effective treatment while we have researched their pandemic. Whether we are looking at circumcision or anything else, it is truly scandalous.

1. http://www.hiv-reservoir.net/images/stories/PDF/Buzon2010.pdf

Anonymous on Thu, 29th Dec 2011 3:31 pm 



Aids or no Aids,human beings come into the world for a short period and then die.Stop worrying about aids and look forward to life after death,prepare yourself to meet your maker wether you are positive or negative the difference is the same.wake up and enjoy this short life.

LSTM1 on Thu, 29th Dec 2011 5:25 pm 



The USAID report has been cited in numerous occasions here to demonstrate that circumcision doesn’t work as an HIV prevention strategy. Without taking sides one way or another, I wanted to review the data to see if it still is the case, including accessing more recent DHS surveys.

First, data has since become available for Mozambique and Zambia. In both cases, HIV prevalence is higher among those uncircumcised. Data also became available for Swaziland, which showed that HIV prevalence is higher among those who are circumcised.

Second, in the case of Tanzania, the earlier USAID report states that prevalence is higher among those who are circumcised. A more recent study indicates the opposite, with HIV prevalence being 3.7% among the circumcised and 6.4% among the uncircumcised.

Third, of the 14 countries where male circumcision is being promoted (Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe), there is no recent DHS data about male circumcision and HIV prevalence for 3 of them (Botswana, South Africa and Namibia). Of the 11 countries where there is data, 5 of them have higher HIV prevalence among the circumcised (Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland and Zimbabwe) and 6 have higher HIV prevalence among the uncircumcised (Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia).

Those who support circumcision argue that at least in Lesotho and Malawi, partial circumcision is practiced, which may explain the results in those two countries. Also in Rwanda, the data indicates that if you look only in urban areas, circumcision is actually partially protective (even though in the country as a whole, it appears not to be).

I don’t know if this supports one side or the other, but I wanted to provide these figures so that we could all have the most up to date information.

Hugh7 on Thu, 29th Dec 2011 8:29 pm 



Thank you LSTM1. Your new figures certainly show that it is far from “conclusive” that circumcision is protective against HIV. A recent study of Xhosa men in Cape Town found a 7% difference, but it was not statistically significant. That’s a far cry from 60%.

It may well be that circumcised men are at a slightly lower risk of contracting HIV from HIV+ women with whom they have condomless sex. However, given the many other ways HIV is transmitted, the inadvisability of anyone having condomless sex, the sorry state of the health system in Zimbabwe, the risks and harms of circumcision itself and the many better ways the money could be spent to combat HIV, the message of the article, that mass circumcision is a waste of money, still holds.

Stormwatch on Thu, 29th Dec 2011 9:26 pm 



Circumcision is clearly a bull**** therapy, so the real questions are: who is pushing so hard to spread it, and why?

Kat Katapaltes (U.S.) on Mon, 2nd Jan 2012 5:43 am 



To the African populations who are the subject of these circumcision studies and to readers of this site: Please understand that the studies are being used to promote circumcision of non-consenting newborn children in the U.S.

Europe is largely not circumcised and has lower HIV/AIDS rates than the U.S., but pro-circumcision doctors and journalists never mention this fact. Instead, they always point to these African studies. Why is this?

____Like ZimEye?____