http://www.ugpulse.com/articles/daily/news.asp?about=Research%20says%20implementing%20male%20circumcision%20challenging&ID=8548

Since all the hoopla about circumcision preventing HIV (African studies claimed it was up to 60% protection against female to male transmission) I have been finding a lot of the research pretty suspect. For example, the 2 main researchers in the African studies had tried for over a decade to prove their hypothesis here in the U.S. to no avail. We have a much higher rate of HIV than Europe and we have a majority circumcised adult male culture & Europe has a 95% intact population. Its also insulting to all of the American men that are dead b/c of AIDS that circumcision could have prevented HIV. No American man would trust that his lack of skin would keep him safe, yet we expect Africans to believe that and then, use that same logic to have one reason left to convince Americans to cut their new babies.

The complications of circumcision have always been underreported and I always thought the numbers were way too low. I have personally seen buried penis (scary!),bleeding problems, infections & adhesions in otherwise healthy babies that I know. So, a Ugandan paper finally is reporting on the real rates of complications and shedding light on the real reason these studies showed a higher rate of transmission in the intact group-----the cut group was too busy healing to go out on the town!


I think most medical studies done in Africa are the worst form of colonialism. I hate that people are used in this way and I wish more Americans, esp. doctors & nurses would think more deeply before using these flawed studies to back up recommending surgery on perfectly healthy babies. Haven't we gotten past the point in medicine where we amputate healthy tissue to prevent disease?

As annoying as it is to cut & paste the link, I highly recommend it, I try & try & blogger never makes links work for me!