The trials that the circumcision campaign is based on had the following results: After the trial period the infection rated for circumcised men was 0.85% and the intact group was 2.1 %. for infection transmission from women to men. The 60% reduction sounds big on its own but the reduction is for a route of infection that is hard in the first place. The actual net reduction is only 1.25%. What is not being advertised is that there was a second set of trials that tested the transmission for HIV infection from men to women (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8154134.stm) which had the following results: After the trial was halted early the infection rates were: Women infected by their circumcised partners, 18% but women infected by their intact partners was only 12%. Circumcision actually increased the infection rate by 6%. Given the results of these trials, circumcision, for every infection it stops, will actually cause five more. This would be bad enough on its own but... The trials could not be said to be un-bias as they were conducted by researchers who had been trying to find a disease for circumcision to ‘cure’ for years before the HIV research. The trials were weighted against the uncircumcised men. During the trial period the circumcised men had to abstain from sexual contact for one and a half months while the circumcision healed because, as everybody accepts, having an open wound on the penis massively increases the risk of infection. If they couldn’t abstain for the full 6 weeks the participants had to use a condom, for which all the circumcised men received information. On this proven method of infection prevention the uncircumcised men received no such automatic training.

Circumcision is just giving men a false sense of security and will lead to more unsafe sexual practices without even being a help in itself. The industrialised nation with the highest HIV infection rate is the industrialised nation with the highest circumcision rate: the USA.

Circumcision is a hoax.

It does not protect against anything. Circumcised men are still vulnerable to every STD that anatomically correct men are. There is not a single study that can refute this.

Even if "studies" were correct, circumcision would only work 60% of the time. Men would still have to wear condoms. If this is the case, then what is the point?

Matter of fact:

In America, 80% of men are already circumcised from birth. The rates of infant circumcision are dropping, but at large, the population remains circumcised. These rates are at their highest in the East Coast, where cities such as Philadelphia and Washington DC rival HIV hotspots in South Africa. In the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic first hit, the rate of circumcised men in America was at 90%. One needs to question how something that never worked here in our own country is suddenly going to start working wonders in Africa.

In other countries, the "protection" remains to be seen as well. AIDS is a rising problem in Israel, where the majority of the male population is already circumcised. On Wednesday, July 7th, two weeks ago, Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan announced that than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims (in other words CIRCUMCISED). The Muslim, circumcised population accounts for 70% of the incidence of HIV, but only 60% of the population, which would mean that the circumcised population is getting HIV at a much higher rate than the non-circumcised population.

Africans, don't fall for the great western Hoax. You are being lied to by your leaders. Hold them accountable when you are circumcised and you get AIDS anyway.

Circumcision does not protect; only condoms and education can do that.