This is total nonsense. Circumcision is being heavily promoted by members of minority religious groups that practice this mutilating ritual.

Circumcision didn't prevent the spread of HIV in the United States, where 80% of men were victims of male genital mutilation at the height of the epidemic, while in civilized countries that didn't subject men to this practice, rates were much lower; if anything, it would appear that circumcision INCREASES the spread of HIV.

The statistics in Africa don't take into account that the circumcised Africans lead totally different lifestyles, and have different attitudes towards sexual morality. The statistics are badly flawed, and are being deliberately used to foster this practice.

And rates of HIV infection would also be higher in Africa, where the disease supposedly began.

HIV is caused by a virus, not by a foreskin.

It didn't work in the USA, why would it work in Africa?

These men will think that they're immune to HIV, and also the women, and the rate of infection is going to go up, not down.

If you look at all the scientific papers and news releases supporting the claims that circumcision prevents HIV, that circumcision will save millions of lives, that circumcised men will not stop using condoms, that circumcision does not impair sexuality, and that circumcision is "acceptable" to parents, and so on - you will find the same few names again and again: Daniel T Halperin, Robert Bailey, Malcolm Potts, Helen Weiss, Bertran Auvert, Frank Klausner, Stephen Moses, Roger Short, Xavier Castellsagué, Stefan Bailis. Are they more interested in preventing AIDS or promoting circumcision?

Daniel T Halperin has been at the forefront of promoting circumcision for over a decade. He is on record as thinking his descent from a ritual circumcisor means “maybe in some small way I’m ‘destined’ to help pass along [circumcision] to people in [other] parts of the world … .” ('The Case for Circumcision' by Gordy Slack, East Bay Express Online, May 19-24, 2000) Whatever else that it, it’s not science.

The flaws in the research are many: * Not double-blinded * Not placebo-controlled * Significant drop-out rate - 5 times as many as were infected. * Non-sexual transmission ignored * Non-identical treatment of controls and experimental group * One of the three trials used a method that removed significantly less tissue than the others, yet the "protection" was the same.

And “60% reduction” sounds impressive, but what it means is that they circumcised a total of 5,400 men and found that after less than two years, 64 (1.2%) had HIV, compared to 137 (2.5%) in similar-sized groups left intact - 39 circumcisions for each HIV infection deferred (not prevented). How does the cost of that compare to education or condoms?

In several African countries, the HIV rate is higher among circumcised men than non-circumcised, according to the National Demographic and Health Surveys. Something very funny is going on.

I appeal to scientists who get involved in AIDS prevention, to conduct further research on the relationship between HIV and ultraviolet radiation. I am quite sure the HIV occurs due to ultraviolet radiation and its interaction with the local radiation / local nuclid radioactive. The HIV strains are determined by the local nuclid radioactive. On its connection with the free sex behavior, the free sex doer make themselves the absorber of radiation. I am quite sure if the effects of radiation are terminated, the HIV will automatically " die " by itself. For AIDS treatment, first I suggest AIDS patient must be treated in FRR ( Free Radiation treatment Room ). Sincere yours, Gatot Soedarto.