Lewis says "Here you have three determinative studies, definitive studies, we have UNAIDS and WHO encouraging male circumcision as a way of reducing transmission". They are NOT definitive. All three have the same flaws: * neither double-blinded nor placebo-controlled; * more safe-sex advice for the experimental groups (and some suggestion that circumcised men who didn't get the message got special treatment); * drop-out rate much higher than infection rate; * trials aborted before completion, and long-term effects can now never be known; * non-sexual transmission ignored; * demonstrated greater risk to women. * a quite small absolute risk reduction (~1.8%) * a large Number Needed to Treat - about 30-55 circumcisions to prevent one HIV transmission in two years. As for UNAIDS and WHO, the same few people who conducted the trials (Halperin, Bailey, Auvert, Moses, Weiss, et al.) are now pushing their agenda.

Dr. Manto Tshababala-Msimang may be a flake on other issues, but this time, she's got it right.

Saddest of all, people point to the benefits of male circumcision without noting that the NIH-funded American researchers responsible for these three studies continue to overlook traditional, simpler, more acceptable, and more practical ways of promoting STD-stifling as well as HIV-prevention personal hygiene: washing after sex. In 2006 the respected "Journal of AIDS" published a report on the first scientific study to show that men who "bathed" for at least 10 minutes within an hour of sexual intercourse got protection from HIV infection, even if they were not circumcised. Education about post-sex hygiene in African countries could be combined with efforts to instiutionalize sanitation, supply clean water, and teach everyone about hand-washing, thereby providing a holistic approach to self-health. See the following article cited above: JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes:Volume 43(1)September 2006pp 117-118 Independent Association of Hygiene, Socioeconomic Status, and Circumcision With Reduced Risk of HIV Infection Among Kenyan Men [Epidemiology and Social Science] Meier, Amalia S. PhD*∥; Bukusi, Elizabeth A. MBChB, M Med(ObGyn), MPH†§¶; Cohen, Craig R. MD, MPH#; Holmes, King K. MD, PhD‡§

Received for publication November 23, 2005; accepted April 18, 2006.

Supported by the University of Washington Center for AIDS Research (AI 27757), STI-Topical Microbicide Cooperative Research Center (AI 31448), and AIDS International Research & Training Program (NIH FIC D43 TW00007).

Reprints: King K. Holmes, MD, PhD, Harborview Medical Center, Box 359931, 325 9th Ave, Seattle, WA 98104 (e-mail: worthy@u.washington.edu).

Abstract TOP Summary: Among Kenyan men recruited as sex partners of women with genital symptoms, 22 of 150 were HIV seropositive. Because male HIV infection and male hygiene were unexpectedly found to be associated with each other, we examined the relationship of 5 hygiene variables with HIV infection in the men in a principal components analysis, controlling for socioeconomic status and other potential confounders. By multivariate analyses, HIV infection in men was not only independently associated with previous illness (odds ratio [OR], 5.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-19.1) and inversely associated with being circumcised (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.91), but also independently associated with a combined measure of hygiene (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19-0.90).

Left out of Stephen Lewis's bio was that he is a circumcised man from a circumcising culture who thinks nothing of amputating healthy normal body parts, whereas most of the world views amputation as a last resort.

It's a mystery why Lewis can't recognize the fallacy of circumcision to fight AIDS. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. Several African nations have markedly higher AIDS rates among their circumcised populations.

The foreskin includes over half a male's sensual nerve endings. Many of the AIDS-ravaged places in Africa also have poor empowerment for women. Telling a man his circumcision has made immune to AIDS will give women even worse standing to insist their partners use condoms, especially in light of his lost sensitivity.

The studies linking HIV and foreskins were done by long-time circumcision justifiers. They were not double-blinded. They were not even run to their agreed upon duration. (That's like wagering on a best-2-out-of-3 coin toss, and demanding payment when the first toss goes your way). Regardless of what some gullible people who represent a couple charities think, no national medical association on earth recommends routine circumcision.

95% of the world's non-Muslims do not circumcise. That's probably because foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body HIS decision.

How about his country Canada; what have they done ? It is easy for these diplomat types to lambast other countries but they never say a hoot about their home countries. Charity starts at home; that is what he needs to be talking about first; his country Canada.