PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe's health advisor, Timothy Stamps, has rubbished claims that male circumcision reduces HIV and Aids prevalence rate at a time the country had embarked on a foreskin cutting crusade, ostensibly to lessen chances of contracting the deadly disease.
The former minister of health said circumcision did not make any difference to the adult prevalence rate, noting researches had shown that countries with a higher number of circumcised men, like the US, also had a high HIV prevalence rate.
He said instead of channelling funds towards circumcision, the money must be used to save pregnant mothers who die in huge numbers in this country.
"When we are losing 960 mothers for every 100 000 pregnancies, should circumcision be a priority?" said Stamps.
He said circumcision had led to men being more reckless in sleeping around.
"Young men are happier to take risks and chances without the use of condoms or any other preventive measures because they are told circumcision will protect them," he said.
Last week, the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare insisted that circumcision helped in the reduction of HIV infection.
It said evidence of randomised controlled trials conducted in 2007 in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa demonstrated that male circumcision reduced the risk of female to male sexual transmission of HIV by 60%.
"It is therefore important to recognise that male circumcision does not eradicate the chances of acquiring HIV but reduces by 60%, meaning that there is still a 40% chance of acquiring HIV."
Comments Post a comment
Finally some is getting it. Cutting off penis parts is a HUGE waste of resources.
The US sponsored DHS Comparative Reports No. 22 showed that in Africa there appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence. In 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men.
In 2010 the same Kisumu team (Bailey) that did one of the flawed Africa studies reported the cut Kenyan men were no less likely to have HIV after all.
The recent CDC Zambia study did find that men with herpes were more likely to be HIV-positive, but also found that lack of circumcision did not increase the risk of HIV infection. In 2009 the same Rakai team (Wawer/Gra-y) reported that the Ugandan men they cut were 50% MORE likely to infect their female partners. Thankfully there has been no female circumcision trial (female circumcision most typically is labia and prepuce cutting) although a Tanzania study women at risk (prostitutes) and a West African female prostitutes study claim a 55% risk reduction.
In Zimbabwe, after a circumcision campaign (as per the WHO), the cut men have higher rates of HIV than those not It does NOT WORK for HIV prevention as HIV prevention via penis parts cutting is not observed in the real world. The mutilation practice has no purpose except to remove thousands of nerves, shut down part of the human sensory system and give men ED at a young age.
Dr Timothy Stamps is a jackass who has sat back and watched Zimbabwe's health care system plummet to such high maternal, infant and other mortality rates when He has not only been a minister of health for many years with great experience in a functioning pre-indepence health care system, but a health ADVISER to Robert Mugabe to this day. What on earth has he been "advising" Robert Mugabe?
If Stamps knew (as he should ) that circumcision does bugger all Against HIV/AIDS infection, Why could he not have advised Mugabe and the country as a whole against circumcision but opting to "scoff" at it now after so many Zimbabwean males have gone through the procedure and who knows how many of them were made to truly believe that this procedure prevents HIV/AIDS infection and therefore not used protection. And the current ministry of health, why has it also done nothing to worn and stop this circumcision nonsense at the very start? An ignorant Ministry of health?
It is ONLY a few of us posters here who have tried so hard to explain against this procedure until we were blue in the face and no one taking note. I hope FINALLY this madness stops.
From a USAID report: "There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher." http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms". http://www.info.gov.za/issues/hiv/survey_2009.htm
It is unclear if circumcised men are more likely to infect women. The only ever randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60998-3/a bstract
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery seems likely to cost African lives rather than save them.
"... male circumcision ... reduces by 60%, meaning that there is still a 40% chance of acquiring HIV." Whoever said that doesn't understand statistics at all. There was never a 100% chance - at least not through sex. The "60% reduction" figure was only ever a slanted way to make a small difference look big.
Mr Stamps's strongest suit is not the rate in the USA (mainly transmitted through male-male sex and IV drug use with contaminated needles) but the recent USAID figures for Zimbabwe: 12% of non-circumcised men have HIV, 14% of circumcised men. That difference hasn't changed since before the circumcision campaign began, so it's no use blaming the circumcised victims for their post-operative behaviour. The other reason not to rely on circumcision is the probability raised by a trial in Uganda, that circumcising men INcreases the risk to women, who are already at greater risk. Condoms protect both partners. Keeping to one partner at a time also greatly reduces the risk of transmission.
Good for Stamps! Finally someone realizes that circumcision is a waste of time and money.