Post Your 2 Cents at NYTIMES

[Joseph]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/he...wt&twt=nytimes

It's possible to register and post a comment. I've already posted mine in two halves. I'm in doubt as to whether or not they'll get posted, but at the very least someone has to read them.

I encourage others to do the same...

BEGIN COMMENT:

The bias of the writer is already obvious in this article. The opening line could have been better written: "Public health officials are considering WHETHER OR NOT TO PROMOTE routine circumcision..."

Having said that, I'm hoping that readers will have the brains to ask themselves, "Even if circumcision DID 'reduce HIV infection by half,' how do babies who are at ZERO risk 'benefit?'"

"...a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men."

It doesn't seem to protect men PERIOD. Is the author of this article not aware that we have an HIV rate greater than countries who don't practice infant circumcision? Can s/he tell us why it is HIV isn't rampant all over Europe? Japan? Here's the fact of the matter; when HIV hit this country back in the early 80s, 90% of all US men were already circumcised. Is it possibleto know how a procedure that has shown to fail is suddenly working miracles in Africa? Does it somehow slip this person's mind that many countries in Africa already practice circumcision as a matter of custom? Countries such as Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania, where it was CIRCUMCISED men who were shown to have higher HIV incidence?

Incidentally, why did Bailey and Halperin choose to omit this data?

And why are authors such as the one who wrote this very article silent?

"Recently, studies showed that in African countries hit hard by AIDS, men who were circumcised reduced their infection risk by half. But the clinical trials in Africa focused on heterosexual men who are at risk of getting H.I.V. from infected female partners."

Data from countries where this was not the case was omitted. The author is also choosing to not mention the recent studies that show women were more 50% likely to be infected by circumcised men.

Why?

"For now, the focus of public health officials in this country appears to be on making recommendations for newborns, a prevention strategy that would only pay off many years from now. Critics say it subjects baby boys to medically unnecessary surgery without their consent."

They also question the validity of considerion the prevention of any STD in newborns who are at ZERO RISK. They also question if the risk of glans amputation, MRSA infecion, etc. are worth a possible 50% reduction in HIV risk, when cheaper, less invasive, more effective means of protection, such as CONDOMS, are already easily available.

"But Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of H.I.V./AIDS prevention at the C.D.C., said that any step that could thwart the spread of H.I.V. must be given serious consideration.

“We have a significant H.I.V. epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,” Dr. Kilmarx said."

Fact:A study known as the Stallings study, shows that FGM reduces HIV among the women who have undergone the procedure. Would this man ever consider this "tool?"

“What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

We've heard this argument before. First off, hasn't there been a few court settlements involving professional doctors who managed to cut off the glans in botched circumcisions?

Mr. Kilmarx seems to be afflicted by a condition I call selective hearing. Or is he not aware of the risk of MRSA? Did not 20 circumcised boys not contract HIV at Bethanny?

How it makes sense to reduce the "risk" for a perfectly preventable disease by putting a child at more actual serious risks is beyond me.

"Clinical trials in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda found that heterosexual men who were circumcised were up to 60 percent less likely to become infected with H.I.V. over the course of the trials than those who were not circumcised."

Results from studies in Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania, where it was CIRCUMCISED men who have markedly higher HIV incidence, were deliberately omitted. Something is wrong with "studies" that select only favorable results.

"Another reason circumcision would have less of an impact in the United States is that some 79 percent of adult American men are already circumcised, public health officials say."

BINGO! And yet we manage to have a higher HIV rate than countries that do not circumncise. The question everyone keeps avoiding is, why didn't circumcision prevent HIV, when 90% of them were already circumcised?

"But newborn circumcision rates have dropped in recent decades, to about 65 percent of newborns in 1999 from a high of about 80 percent after World War II, according to C.D.C. figures."

And this, I believe, are officials' real worry.

"Circumcision rates have fallen in part because the American Academy of Pediatrics, which sets the guidelines for infant care, does not endorse routine circumcision. Its policy says that circumcision is “not essential to the child’s current well-being,” and as a result, many state Medicaid programs do not cover the operation."

And this would all change if we could somehow make circumcision essential, huh.

"The academy is revising its guidelines, however, and is likely to do away with the neutral tone in favor of a more encouraging policy stating that circumcision has health benefits even beyond H.I.V. prevention, like reducing urinary tract infections for baby boys, said Dr. Michael Brady, a consultant to the American Academy of Pediatrics."

Didn't studies in Israel show an INCREASE of UTIs in circumcised boys? UTIs are already RARE in boys, whether or not they've been circumcised. They are more common in GIRLS, and they're easily cureable. Again, how does it make sense to try and prevent a perfectly and easily cureable diease by putting a child at bigger risks? Methinks circumcising doctors are grasping at strings and straws.

"He said the academy would probably stop short of recommending routine surgery, however. “We do have evidence to suggest there are health benefits, and families should be given an opportunity to know what they are,” he said."

This statement is preposterous. There are "health benefits" to amputating a child's toes. No toe jam, no having to clean under one's toe-nails or clip them, no ingrown toe-nails, and no hammertoe.

Circumcision is elective, cosmetic surgery. Performing such a procedure in healthy, non concenting individuals is medical fraud. Doctors can't even be performing this procedure. How is it they're even eliciting permission form parents, let alone complying with parents' wishes to have it done?

SHAME on these doctors.

"Among the speakers is a physician from Operation Abraham, an organization based in Israel and named after the biblical figure who was circumcised at an advanced age, according to the book of Genesis. The group trains doctors in Africa to perform circumcisions on adult men to reduce the spread of H.I.V."

This is a rather conspicuous plug... is there any reason why this is relevant to the CDC's position on infant genital mutilation?

"Although the group’s members oppose circumcision on broad philosophical and medical grounds, Ms. Chapin argued that the studies in Africa found only that circumcision reduces H.I.V. infection risk, not that it prevents infection. “Men still need to use condoms,” Ms. Chapin said."

Read the fine print in the African "studies." The circumcised group was given a head start and asked to abstain from sex in the first 6 weeks. Furthermore, they were instructed in the use of condoms; the intact group was not. In the end, the condoms did the job, and the "studies" were halted early, ostensibly because "the evidence was clear," but more likely because it was favorable.

"In fact, while the clinical trials in Africa found that circumcision reduced the risk of a man’s acquiring H.I.V., it was not clear whether it would reduce the risk to women from an infected man, several experts said.

“There’s mixed data on that,” Dr. Kilmarx said. But, he said, “If we have a partially successful intervention for men, it will ultimately lower the prevalence of H.I.V. in the population, and ultimately lower the risk to women.”"

Actually, no, the data ISN'T mixed, and Kilmarx is wrong, if not blatantly lying.

The Wawer study was halted early because trends were showing that women were 50% more likely to get HIV from circumcised men.

"Circumcision is believed to protect men from infection with H.I.V. because the mucosal tissue of the foreskin is more susceptible to H.I.V. and can be an entry portal for the virus."

So how did we make the jump from "study" to "belief?"

Isn't the columnist even going to get into how the scientists that conducted these "studies" can't even explain how circumcision "reduces" HIV contraction? How they had this theory that the Langerhans cells were the "prime port of entry" for the virus, but that other scientists discovered that the cells actually help STOP the virus?

"Observational studies have found that uncircumcised men have higher rates of other sexually transmitted diseases like herpes and syphilis, and a recent study in Baltimore found that heterosexual men were less likely to have become infected with H.I.V. from infected partners if they were circumcised."

So which "studies" are these? Who wrote them?

"Studies" need to show two things.

WHY the US has higher rates of STDs than countries that do not circumcise, and HOW babies who are not sexually active benefit from any kind of STD "protection."

Bottom line: Circumcision cannot protect anyone from HIV, only condoms.

Newborns aren't in any kind of need for "pretection," esp. if they will have to learn to use condoms when they grow up anyway.

STD risk reduction is a false and horrible pretense to justify infant circumcision which is dwindling in this country.

What a shame that "studies" are being used to justify the violation of basic human rights of children.

[admin]

I would just add that forceful letters under 200 words are most likely to get printed at NYT.

-Ron

[Someone mundane]

Threw down some of my comments.

[Joseph]

I also spotted an error... the boys at bethany got MSRS, not HIV. I must have written this too hastily, or too pissed off to think...

Good thing it wasn't posted...

At least there are other views against it on there too...

Kudos to the guys that went and posted.

[Joseph]

I submitted this shorter (and hopefully sweeter) response.

I hope it gets posted...

Some questions beg asking.

If "studies showed" that FGM reduced HIV transmission, would we ever let the CDC or AAP consider it was recommended for children?

Some people balk at the comparison between male circumcision and FGM. But what makes them so "different?" Is it that one "can't be remembered" because it's done at an early age?

What if girls were circumcised in a hospital setting? By a professional? Using sterile equipment? Using pain killers? At birth so that "they don't remember?" Would it still be mutilation then?

Circumcision is elective, cosmetic surgery. Performing non-medical circumcision on non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud. As such, can doctors even be PERFORMING circumcisions? Let alone elicit permission from parents? Or complying with a parents' wishes that it be done? Or does he have a duty to protect the well-being of his patient?

Guess what. At least one study, known as the Stalling study, shows a reduction of HIV in circumcised women. Should the CDC be considering this as a "tool" as well?

Bottom line: Babies do not have sex. They are at ZERO RISK.

Let them CHOOSE when they become MEN whether they want to wear a CONDOM or choose to depend on "protection" that only works half the time.

HIS body, HIS choice.

What a shame that circumcision continues in this country, and what a shame that healthy boys are mutilated in the name of "medicine."

Primum non nocere. - First, do no harm.

One of these days practitioners of medicine need to be held to their own standard.

[Someone mundane]

Heh, fancy that... What I posted was thrown into the editors selections category. Is that of some special significance or something?

EDIT: Nevermind, read what it meant.

[Joseph]

Originally Posted by Someone mundane

Heh, fancy that... What I posted was thrown into the editors selections category. Is that of some special significance or something?

EDIT: Nevermind, read what it meant.

If you log out and it's not in there when you check that same page, it means it's still being reviewed for posting.

I think...

[Someone mundane]

I kind of botched my comment... Oh well. It still has a negative tone to circumcision and calls down one of the other supporters I saw.

EDIT: Bah, it got removed. Figures.

[z726]

Damn, registered only to find they're no longer accepting comments. That was quick.

[Joseph]

Guys;

It is still possible to write into the NYTimes about this article.

If you possibly can, you should voice your opinion.

I sure have... go here:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/...letter_KEY=191

Dear Editor,

I'm writing because I found your article on the CDC and circumcision to be extremely biased.

It was obvious from the very beginning, as the opening line could have been better written: "Public health officials are considering WHETHER OR NOT TO PROMOTE routine circumcision..."

Having said that, I'm hoping that readers will have the brains to ask themselves, "Even if circumcision DID 'reduce HIV infection by half,' how do babies who are at ZERO risk 'benefit?'"

The article says: "...a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men."

It doesn't seem to protect men PERIOD. Are you not aware that we have an HIV rate greater than countries who don't practice infant circumcision? Can you tell us why it is HIV isn't rampant all over Europe? Japan?

Here's the fact of the matter; when HIV hit this country back in the early 80s, 90% of all US men were already circumcised. Is it possibleto know how a procedure that has shown to fail is suddenly working miracles in Africa?

Does it somehow slip your mind that many countries in Africa already practice circumcision as a matter of tribal custom? That in Countries such as Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania, it was CIRCUMCISED men who were shown to have higher HIV incidence?

Incidentally, this information was omitted from the African "studies."

Did you know this, or are you intentionally keeping silent?

The article continues: "Recently, studies showed that in African countries hit hard by AIDS, men who were circumcised reduced their infection risk by half. But the clinical trials in Africa focused on heterosexual men who are at risk of getting H.I.V. from infected female partners."

Data from countries where this was not the case was omitted. Furthermore, there have been recent studies that show women were more 50% likely to be infected by circumcised men.

I'm talking about the Wawer studies that were ended early, presumeably because they were showing a trend towards an increase in male to female infection among women who had sex with circumcised men.

http://www.davidwilton.com/files/waw...t-on-women.pdf

They are not mentioned in this article.

Why?

The article continues: "For now, the focus of public health officials in this country appears to be on making recommendations for newborns, a prevention strategy that would only pay off many years from now. Critics say it subjects baby boys to medically unnecessary surgery without their consent."

I am one such critic. The "critics" also question the validity of considerion the prevention of any STD in newborns who are at ZERO RISK. They also question if the risk of glans amputation, MRSA infecion, etc. are worth a possible 50% reduction in HIV risk, when cheaper, less invasive, more effective means of protection, such as CONDOMS, are already easily available.

"But Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of H.I.V./AIDS prevention at the C.D.C., said that any step that could thwart the spread of H.I.V. must be given serious consideration.

“We have a significant H.I.V. epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,” Dr. Kilmarx said."

Fact: A study known as the Stallings study, shows that FGM reduces HIV among the women who have undergone the procedure. Would Kilmarx ever consider this "tool?"

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

ANY potential intervervention, Mr. Kilmarx?

Mr. Kilmarx continues: “What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

We've heard this argument before. First off, hasn't there been a few court settlements involving professional doctors who managed to cut off the glans in botched circumcisions?

http://www.wbbm780.com/Suit-claims-p...-%5Cci/4206807

http://www.icgi.org/2009/03/atlanta-...-son/#more-131

http://circumstitions.com/news/news34.html#tank

Mr. Kilmarx seems to be afflicted by a condition I call selective hearing. Or is he not aware of the risk of MRSA? Did not 20 circumcised boys not contract MRSA at Beth Israel?

http://www.boston.com/news/health/ar...kCurrentPage=1

How does it make sense to reduce the "risk" for a perfectly preventable disease by putting a child at more actual serious risks?

Is he not aware of the many sex reasignments that have had to go on because doctors cut off "a little bit too much???"

http://noharmm.org/canadianboy.htm

"Worth the risk?" When condoms ALREADY do a better job? PLEASE!!!

Continuing..."Clinical trials in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda found that heterosexual men who were circumcised were up to 60 percent less likely to become infected with H.I.V. over the course of the trials than those who were not circumcised."

Results from studies in Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania, where it was CIRCUMCISED men who have markedly higher HIV incidence, were deliberately omitted. Something is wrong with "studies" that select only favorable results.

"Another reason circumcision would have less of an impact in the United States is that some 79 percent of adult American men are already circumcised, public health officials say."

BINGO! And yet we manage to have a higher HIV rate than countries that do not circumncise. The question everyone keeps avoiding is, why didn't circumcision prevent HIV, when 90% of them were already circumcised?

"But newborn circumcision rates have dropped in recent decades, to about 65 percent of newborns in 1999 from a high of about 80 percent after World War II, according to C.D.C. figures."

And this, I believe, are officials' real worry.

The article goes on: "Circumcision rates have fallen in part because the American Academy of Pediatrics, which sets the guidelines for infant care, does not endorse routine circumcision. Its policy says that circumcision is “not essential to the child’s current well-being,” and as a result, many state Medicaid programs do not cover the operation."

And this would all change if we could somehow make circumcision indispensible, wouldn't it.


"The academy is revising its guidelines, however, and is likely to do away with the neutral tone in favor of a more encouraging policy stating that circumcision has health benefits even beyond H.I.V. prevention, like reducing urinary tract infections for baby boys, said Dr. Michael Brady, a consultant to the American Academy of Pediatrics."


Didn't studies in Israel show an INCREASE of UTIs in circumcised boys?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043807.html

UTIs are already RARE in boys, whether or not they've been circumcised. They are more common in GIRLS, and they're easily cureable.

Again, how does it make sense to try and prevent a perfectly and easily cureable diease by mutilating a child's genitals and putting him at bigger risks? Methinks circumcising doctors are grasping at strings and straws.

Moving on: "He said the academy would probably stop short of recommending routine surgery, however. “We do have evidence to suggest there are health benefits, and families should be given an opportunity to know what they are,” he said."

This statement is preposterous. There are "health benefits" to amputating a child's toes. No toe jam, no having to clean under one's toe-nails or clip them, no ingrown toe-nails, and no hammertoe.

Circumcision is elective, cosmetic surgery. Performing such a procedure in healthy, non concenting individuals is medical fraud. Doctors can't even be performing this procedure. How is it they're even eliciting permission form parents, let alone complying with parents' wishes to have it done?

SHAME on these doctors.

"Among the speakers is a physician from Operation Abraham, an organization based in Israel and named after the biblical figure who was circumcised at an advanced age, according to the book of Genesis. The group trains doctors in Africa to perform circumcisions on adult men to reduce the spread of H.I.V."

This is a rather conspicuous plug... is there any reason why this is relevant to the CDC's position on infant genital mutilation?

Incidentally, I'm supposed to believe that circumcision prevents AIDS. Here is this Inon Schenker telling me he wants to circumcise the Hispanic population, when AIDS is rampant in his OWN COUNTRY???

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996706.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/998873.html

Talk about taking a plank out of your eye.

"Although the group’s members oppose circumcision on broad philosophical and medical grounds, Ms. Chapin argued that the studies in Africa found only that circumcision reduces H.I.V. infection risk, not that it prevents infection. “Men still need to use condoms,” Ms. Chapin said."

Editor, read the fine print in the African "studies." The circumcised group was given a head start and asked to abstain from sex in the first 6 weeks.

http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00122525

Furthermore, they were instructed in the use of condoms; the intact group was not. In the end, the condoms did the job, and the "studies" were halted early, ostensibly because "the evidence was clear," but more likely because it was favorable.

The article continues: "In fact, while the clinical trials in Africa found that circumcision reduced the risk of a man’s acquiring H.I.V., it was not clear whether it would reduce the risk to women from an infected man, several experts said.

“There’s mixed data on that,” Dr. Kilmarx said. But, he said, “If we have a partially successful intervention for men, it will ultimately lower the prevalence of H.I.V. in the population, and ultimately lower the risk to women.”"

Actually, no, the data ISN'T mixed, and Kilmarx is wrong, if not blatantly lying.

The Wawer study was halted early because trends were showing that women were 50% more likely to get HIV from circumcised men.

http://www.davidwilton.com/files/waw...t-on-women.pdf

"Circumcision is believed to protect men from infection with H.I.V. because the mucosal tissue of the foreskin is more susceptible to H.I.V. and can be an entry portal for the virus."

So how did we make the jump from "study" to "belief?"

Aren't you even going to get into how the scientists that conducted these "studies" can't even explain how circumcision "reduces" HIV contraction? How they had this theory that the Langerhans cells were the "prime port of entry" for the virus, but that other scientists discovered that the cells actually help STOP the virus?

http://www.cirp.org/news/healthday2007-03-05/

Then you go on to say: "Observational studies have found that uncircumcised men have higher rates of other sexually transmitted diseases like herpes and syphilis, and a recent study in Baltimore found that heterosexual men were less likely to have become infected with H.I.V. from infected partners if they were circumcised."

So which "studies" are these? Who wrote them?

"Studies" need to show two things:

WHY the US has higher rates of STDs than countries that do not circumcise, and HOW babies who are not sexually active benefit from any kind of STD "protection."

Bottom line: Circumcision cannot protect anyone from HIV, only condoms.

Newborns aren't in any kind of need for "pretection," esp. if they will have to learn to use condoms when they grow up anyway.

STD risk reduction is a false and horrible pretense to justify infant circumcision which is dwindling in this country.

What a shame that "studies" are being used to justify the violation of basic human rights of children.

How these shoddy studies are being used to even consider the promotion of "universal circumcision" of children without regard for ethics and respect of individual human rights is absolutely dispicable.

This article is a biased, shameless circumcision plug and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Circumcision is NOT just a "tiny snip." It is radical cosmetic alteration that a boy will have to live with for the rest of his life. It is amputation of a substantial, normal, healthy tissue. It is a violation of human rights.

Even IF, mr. Editor, even IF circumcision "prevented" anything, it needs to be a man's choice. The circumcision of male infants and the circumcison of girls in Africa CAN be paralleled, because it is irreversible forced genital mutilation, and it violates the exact same principle of violating an individual's right to his autonomy and self-determination.

What measures of STD prevention a man should take should be HIS body, HIS choice. NOT his parents, the AAP or the CDC, or ANYONE ELSE.

I, like many others, demand that you shed equal light on both sides of the issue, and not shine light on just those parts of the issue that are convenient.

God, I hope you have a conscience.

Good day to you.

Joseph