These figures prove nothing either way. The argument also does not reflect other factors relating to frequency of HIV infection.

It does prove something: removing your foreskin is NOT essential to prevent STDs and HIV.

Two points, Minami. One, you have merely stated some figures relating to Japan and the US, but not substantiated them, so maybe you have just imagined those results, or are just reading them into the actual ones you have scanned too briefly. We cannot just take your word for it, but need to check the original sources which you have notably failed to present. Two, I do not claim that circumcision prevents all sexually transmitted diseases or AIDS. The evidence however that they lessen the likelihood of transmission by 65% at least in Africa is confirmed by many studies over many years, as mentioned in my own cited articles. No doubt if those citations are doubted, even though they describe research presented at AIDS medical conferences, I could dig up more. But in any case the argument was never that removing the foreskin is “essential” to prevent STDs and HIV. You have misread the comments relating to that, and this alone suggests a likelihood that you have tendentiously read what you have wanted to into your sources.

The WHO reported these HIV rates and you can find them on their website in their country reports. Also, the HIV studies in Africa are flawed. Aside from the fact that America isn’t in Africa, 1) circumcised men abstained for 6 of the 12 weeks, 2) received safe sex counseling the uncircumcised men did not, and 3) the study was terminated early and followup was never completed.

I see, you apparently just reject out of hand any scientific studies and long-term research coming from whatever sources that contradict your own predetermined views. They are just “flawed,” and no further justifications for this assessment are needed. OK, that is clear enough. And, in consonance with that easy dismissal, also merely to say that WHO says this or that without actually giving the website URL is equally easy to do. It is all very easy. No thought is needed at all.

A 12 week study with clear bias is hardly “long term research.” And again, go to the WHO’s website and go to their country stastistics. It’s right there in their toolbar.

I refer you back again to the sources cited in my response to BBill, above. They cover long-term research going back two decades, employing all the standard rigorous research criteria necessary for such epidemiological studies, including long-term longitudinal studies of particular subjects, randomized sampling of large cohorts, replication by other scholars, and so on. So your characterization is itself highly biased and inaccurate — as I have found again and again when checking your own cited sources. As it turns out, WHO has endorsed these findings, and has officially recommended circumcision as an important way of helping to prevent the spread of AIDS to African countries struggling with this disease epidemic.

The articles and research I cited did not rely on a 12 week study. They covered decades, included research on over 12,000 men randomly chosen, and followed the strictest and most scrupulous scientific criteria. Their findings have been replicated by many subsequent researchers, and are now accepted both by the U.S. National Institute of Health and the World Health Organization.

As I wrote above, and will repeat here, at the World Health Organization webpage,www.who.int/features/qa/71/en/… which is headed “HIV/AIDS: Online Q&A, July 2012,” we read the following:
“Does male circumcision prevent HIV transmission?
“Male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by around 60%. Since 2007, WHO and UNAIDS have recommended voluntary medical male circumcision as an additional important strategy for HIV prevention in settings with high HIV prevalence and low levels of male circumcision. Fourteen countries in eastern and southern Africa with this profile have initiated programmes to expand male circumcision.

“A one-time intervention, medical male circumcision provides life-long partial protection against HIV as well as other sexually transmitted infections. It should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package and should never replace other known methods of prevention, such as female and male condoms.”

Arugmentum ad verecundam.
The WHO has been wrong before.

Here is something no “researcher” or organization can deny; circumcision fails to prevent HIV.

It fails so horribly that the very “researchers” cannot stress the use of condoms enough.

According to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan,
more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are
Muslims. In Malaysia, most, if not all Muslim men are circumcised,
whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. 60% of the
Malaysian population is Muslim, which means that HIV is spreading in
the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate,
than in the community where most men are intact.

http://www.mmail.com.my/content/39272-72-percent-aidshiv-sufferers-malaysia-are-muslims-says-council

In the Philippines, the majority of the male population is circumcised,
as it is seen as an important rite of passage. In the 2010 Global AIDS
report released by UNAIDS in late November, the Philippines was one of
seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV
infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either
stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections.
Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh are
reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or
decreasing.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110102-312124/Philippines-HIVAIDS-problem-worries-UN

Circumcision does not “fail” to prevent HIV-related diseases without condom use, only lessens the incidence of such diseases by 60% according to the World Health Organization, or even more, up to as much as 76% according to some researchers. Nothing more than that lessening effect is claimed by its advocates. They do not present it as a miracle preventative that works regardless of all other factors 100% of the time, as is stated above, in derision. It is not hard to knock down a straw-man, and that is what that argument is. People who persistently indulge in dangerous sexual contacts can certainly contract the disease even if circumcised, and advocates even stress that; no prophylactic is effective 100%, especially in the face of persistent disregard of personal hygiene measures.

Nevertheless, circumcision is the most effective single preventive measure currently available for high risk populations. It has been shown to be much more effective than condoms used alone as a preventative measure. The American incidence of AIDS, by the way, is in relative terms very low, certainly lower than for example in Europe where circumcision is much rarer, and far lower than in most third-world countries. So it is no disproof of the effectiveness of circumcision in helping to prevent the spread of HIV diseases.

Circumcision hasn’t stopped HIV in the US.

http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/1998/19981125_global_epidemic_report_en.pdf

And, it hasn’t stopped other STDs either.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/13/us-infections-usa-idUSTRE50C5XV20090113?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

In America, the majority of the male population is circumcised,
approximately 80%, while in most countries in Europe, circumcision is
uncommon. Despite these facts, our country does poorly.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177

In fact, AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hotspots in Africa. In some
parts of the U.S., they’re actually higher than those in sub-Saharan
Africa. According to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal
of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in
30; rates higher than those reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1000069

The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administrator, Washington DC, 2009, “[Washington D.C.’s] rates are higher than West Africa… they’re on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya.” Hader

once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s work in Zimbabwe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031402176.html

But none of this matters to you. At all. It’s remarkable that, given your background, you can actually sit there and pretend to feign an interest in public health…

Bottom line; circumcision fails, and there are more effective, less invasive ways to prevent disease.

Take condoms for example. Even if the research were “correct,” circumcision fails in lieu of condoms.

Actually I am very concerned about the health of all of those around me. They too are human beings whose lives are precious. That is why I keep stressing the larger health benefits of circumcision. But regardless of the wider society, Jews have every right to continue their religiously mandated practice of circumcision. I have also vigorously argued that point too. There is no contradiction between the two arguments.

Circumcision does not “fail” in lieu of condoms, it is only less effective in preventing AIDS, etc., but it still has a remarkable lessening effect just by itself of around 60%. That means that 40% of circumcised men who have indiscriminate sex will get HIV-related illnesses. The figure would be lower if they used condoms. Another factor is the number of sexual partners. If a person, whether circumcised or not, has more than one sexual partner, if he has many in fact, and his partners are also very active sexually, it is much more likely that he will get a sexual disease regardless of whether he is circumcised or not, or uses condoms or doesn’t, or even takes both precautions. Condoms by themselves have even greater ineffectiveness than circumcision in preventing sexual diseases. HIV rates can be very high amongst populations that use condoms, as many statistics from various countries and scientific meta-studies have shown.

I call shennanigans.

You couldn’t care less about public health. You are Jewish, and circumcision is important to you for other reasons you cannot pretend you don’t care about.

If Jews have every reason to circumcise their boys, then everyone else has every reason to circumcise their girls. Judaism isn’t the only religion around you know.

And yes, circumcision DOES fail in lieu of condoms; that is why no self-respected “researcher” cannot end on that note. No, not 60%, but a mere 1.37%. And it’s funny how you say “the figure would be lower if they used condoms.” Maybe American HIV transmission rates would be lower than Europe’s if they wore condoms too then, eh? I suppose you’re now going to argue that Americans simply have more sex partners than Europeans?

Can you share with us the secret? How does circumcision prevent HIV? Perhaps when a man is circumcised, this makes his body produce anti-bodies that guard against it. Is this how it works, genius one?

Hint: Scientists are hard-pressed to present the causal link; they keep finding out circumcision makes no difference, if not that the foreskin actually helps COMBAT HIV…

But why am I arguing about “health benefits” with someone who has a religious conviction with circumcision…

Because “religious freedom” is increasingly a meaningless alibi for circumcision.

That’s why.

Read again the statement I quoted just above from the WHO website on the preventative effect of circumcision: “60%” is what it said. The figure of “1.37%” is not used. This is not by accident. Also read again the article from Zimbabwe that Minami cited, and which I quoted from, further above. Neither claimed what you say, namely that circumcision alone is sufficient to prevent all HIV infections, and that condoms, actually for both men and women, are not needed nor advisable. Without them, both Zimbabean health authorities and WHO itself says, circumcision is only 60% effective. That is very high, but it is not 100%. No one is claiming 100% — not for any preventative measure at all.

I could care less what your corrupt authority has to say. They distort the truth. The absolute reduction was 1.37%, not the inflated 60%. Circumcision doesn’t prevent anything.

It sounds like you’re reiterating what I’m saying; even the most pro-circumcision authorities cannot promote circumcision without falling back on condoms.

Because circumcision is worthless and superfluous.

No, as a Jew (or, more appropriately, stark adherer to Judaism, not all Jews believe circumcision should be practiced), you are concerned about the welfare of only your “traditions” and are eager to silence any critique of it, particularly this one point of contention, which has been a historically problematic custom for Jews and other circumcising cultures, hasn’t it.

There is a conflict of interest between safeguarding what is known to be a very important custom that Jews (and others) have been fighting to protect for hundreds of years, and a feigned interest in public health. Kind of like how Japanese, who are fighting to protect whale hunting because it’s part of their culture, are also suddenly interested in “whale research” (that involves killing over 800 creatures a year).

This isn’t about a “hate for Jews,” so there’s no need for you to whip out the bible and your “messages of love.” This is about respecting the bodies and rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals. It is not “religious freedom” when you are forcing a religious mutilation on the body of another. Circumcising a child to brand him with your religion is as bad as tattooing a Jew with a barcode to brand him as such.

No one is against circumcision per se, just forcing it on others. If someone wants to circumcise himself because he believes doing so will earn him a special place in heaven, fine. But it should be his choice. Otherwise, where’s the freedom.

It’s disingenuous to be presenting circumcision like it’s universally practiced amongst Jews. Not all Jews support the practice anymore. Even in Israel, a large number of Jews are choosing to forgo circumcision and give their children a choice. Additionally, some of the most outspoken voices against circumcision happen to be Jewish.

So stop trying to make this about “the persecution of the Jews.” It’s not about Jews; it’s about circumcision. Remember that, at least in the US, the overwhelming majority of circumcisions that happen are gentile, secular circumcisions in hospitals. We’re against ALL of it, religious or no. Circumcising a healthy, non-consenting minor is WRONG. It violates his basic human rights, it violates his religious freedom, and it’s wrong on so many other levels.

Shalom alechem to you.

Your comments are abusive, Jordan681. As for the rest, trying to outlaw infant male circumcision would effectively outlaw just one religious community, the Jewish one, although in the U.S. it is certainly true that many Christians who take their Bible seriously have also accepted its benefits. That a distinct minority of less observant Jews might not take circumcision all that seriously does not remove the problem, since circumcision remains a central part of traditional Orthodox Judaism that its adherents will not give up, and the same is true in the Conservative movement and for most Reform and even secular Jews.

Circumcising an infant is not wrong, and it is not a matter of “human rights,” nor does it interfere with bodily integrity, good sexual function, diminished sensation or any other dire consequence. It has also been shown by over a thousand studies by medical scientists to have beneficial medical aspects, as discussed above, and as is stated by the American Association of Pediatrics. The allegation that this would unethically coerce the infant without its consent into being a Jew and member of the Jewish people is itself wrong and unethical in several respects.

If when a circumcised child grows up he does not want to be a full Jew, all he has to do is to stop going to synagogue, Jewish community events, etc. His circumcision does not force him to be a Jew in adult life. The decision will always be up to him and always has been. So it is not “coercion.” But if, as just about all Jewish males down through the ages have done, he does want to be Jewish in actual fact, belief, and community affiliation, his circumcision will be considered by him a welcome sign of his bodily engagement in this commitment, and he will very gladly endorse it. Just about all male Jews do. Depriving them of this, and forcing them to undergo circumcision in adult life, constitutes a penalty imposed on them by the surrounding secularist or even anti-Judaism society for affirming Judaism. This is a coerced punishment.

The claim also ignores that people born into every religious culture have not asked to be in those cultures, but nevertheless they just about all grow up to affirm membership in them. Births are not neutral. They are already and as such entry into very different cultures and worlds, which are each so rich and deep they shape the very first moments of life and every day after it for each human being, making people very different as adults. The illusion of sameness at birth is a sentimental fallacy. In fact, it is an unethical fallacy, since it strips from the infant his or her birthright, namely to be born to those specific parents, themselves part of and products of that specific culture, religion and society. Every person has a birthright to their own family, society and history. No one has the right to strip that from him. That presumption that ethics demands this, however, is basic to your argument. It is, as I have said, unethical.

Just because you say: “Circumcising an infant is not wrong, and it is not a matter of “human rights,” nor does it interfere with bodily integrity, good sexual function, diminished sensation or any other dire consequence,” doesn’t make it true, Tzur. There are scores of men who would have preferred to be left intact, but that choice was made for them and cannot be changed. You can try to compare this with any other aspect of parenting in terms of making choices on behalf of the child, but name another choice that is made on behalf of a child that permanently changes their body. Choosing what school, or what neighborhood, or what values to teach to your children are all important choices that we make on behalf of our children, but none of these choices permanently modifies their bodies (save for body piercings which I don’t agree with either). That is the key distinction here. Another distinction is that school choice, neighborhood, immunizations, are choices that HAVE to be made before the child reaches the age of consent. Infants don’t HAVE to be circumcised. That choice can be deferred until later. Unless your newborn is sexually active, I see no impetus to force a surgical alteration of non-consenting minors without urgent medical indication. Please Tzur, explain how amputating tissue from and infants genitals doesn’t interfere with bodily integrity. Definition of integrity: the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished.

Circumcision = The great cure, just waiting for a disease to justify it.
People, do your research. You will find that for thousands of years, people have tried very hard to find a justification for mutilating the genitals of children. Today that justification continues. The arguments used to be that it would curtail masturbation. Then it was hailed as more hygienic. Then it was hailed as a way to decrease common STI’s, and now it being pushed as a way to curtail the spread of HIV. Let me ask a question: Which would you rather rely on to protect you against HIV: condoms or a circumcised penis? Anyone who thinks that circumcision will protect them from HIV is misguided and is needlessly putting themselves and others in harms way.

The causal link is well established. Scientists are not “hard-pressed” to present the causal link. They know what it is. Neither does anyone claim that circumcision is 100% effective against AIDS, etc., only that it is 60% just by itself. That is a very significant reduction in the odds. It would further be improved by other prophylactic practices, such as condoms, few sexual partners, etc.

The route of infection involves the Langerhans cells of the foreskin. Put in a Google search, using the terms “HIV foreskin,” and you will find a number of medical scientific research articles, published in the usual peer-reviewed medical journals over the past decade, showing the exact mechanism of transmission of HIV infection via the foreskin.

And, I find when I go to the WHO website, that they have accepted all that research and have officially endorsed their findings, recommending male circumcision to African countries suffering high rates of HIV because it reduces the risk of HIV transmission “by around 60%.” See their “HIV/AIDS: Online Q&A” of July 2012, the question “Does male circumcision prevent HIV transmission?”

I do not know, in fact I do not know that what you say is true at all. You have stated this, but not backed it up with any evidence. My statements are given strong and clear confirmation by references. On what do you base your assertions? Give the reference so we can all see for ourselves. There are often a lot of factors that influence disease rates; there are also lots of studies that are of questionable standards or incomplete results. The ones I cited are not, but relate to research conducted over many years by many researchers in many African countries, I believe including Zimbabwe, with consistent findings.

According to the latest Zimbabwe Health Demographic Survey (ZHDS 2010/2011),
the prevalence rate among the circumcised is 14 percent
while that of the uncircumcised is 12 percent.

Give a source on the internet one can check, please.

http://www.zimdiaspora.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8811:hiv-infection-rate-higher-on-circumcised-men

Minami, you have misrepresented the significance of the source you cite. It shows that circumcised men in Zimbabwe do indeed slightly exceed uncircumcised men in HIV infection as you state, but you leave out everything else in the article which undermines your whole thesis. For one thing, because of circumcision promotion and the many tens of thousands of men circumcised each year, the overall prevalence rate has dropped from 18% to 15%, we learn. But even more to the point, the article states:

“National Aids Council (Nac) public health officer Dr Blessing Mutede said authorities were concerned about the high rate of infection among the circumcised.

He said it was largely a result of “risk compensation behaviours”.

Most men, after circumcision, harbour the false impression that they have been equipped with an invisible condom, he added.

“It is a worrying development that at a time when we are promoting male circumcision as a preventive measure to combat HIV, we are recording a high prevalence rate amongst the group that has been circumcised largely due to uninformed risky compensation behaviours,” he said.

“Most people forget that being circumcised will only safeguard a person from contracting HIV up to a certain percentage and they are still at a 40 percent risk of contracting the virus.”

The article goes on to inform its readers:

“The World Health Organisation recommends circumcision for HIV prevention in “generalised epidemic settings” where prevalence of the virus is high and male circumcision is low.

Zimbabwe embraced the recommendation and anticipates that it will prevent 42 percent of all new infections between 2015 and 2025 if 80 percent of males in the country are circumcised. The country also hopes to reduce HIV prevalence to about 7 percent, in addition to other benefits.

The country has carried out about 70 000 circumcisions since the programme began in 2009.

Experts claim the procedure can reduce HIV infection risk, in part because of physiological differences that decrease the susceptibility to infection among circumcised men.”

So the statements of the article, truly cited, prove that circumcision does very substantially reduce infection rates, as argued by none other than the very WHO that you, Minami, claim dismisses the usefulness of circumcision to fight HIV.

Circumcised men can and are becoming infected with HIV. The fact remains that circumcision no substitute for safe sex practices. Condoms don’t work better if you’re circumcised. We can prevent HIV without genital surgery. And again, there are countries with low circumcision rates are boasting lower rates of HIV. Lying to men and letting them think circumcision will be of use to them will only increase HIV rates.

Your own cited sources prove that it is no lie when WHO and African government health authorities say circumcision will help to reduce HIV rates dramatically. Read your own cited sources again without your blinders on.

Would you mind furnishing the mechanism whereby circumcision prevents HIV transmission?

HINT: You can’t. There is not a single “researcher” than can demonstrably prove circumcision does anything. What they HAVE been able to physicially, visually demonstrate is that circumcision makes absolutely no difference. (Dinh et al)

FACT: Circumcised men can and do contract HIV, as evidenced by HIV transmission rates in Israel, Indonesia, the United States, and other countries where circumcision has failed to prevent anything.

For the mechanism of transmission of HIV viruses through the foreskin, see the article “HIV-1 Efficient Entry in Inner Foreskin is Mediated by Elevated CCL5/RANTES that Recruits T Cells and Fuels Conjugate Formation with Langerhans Cells,” by Zhou, de Longchamps, Smith, et al., published in the peer-reviewed PLoS Pathogens, June 2011 (available at: http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1002100). Also see the article in the medical journal AIDS for 2009, Oct. 23: 23 (16):2209-13, entitled “Foreskin surface area and HIV Acquisition in Rakai, Uganda (size matters),” coordinated by the Rakai Health Sciences Program, Entebbe, Uganda and Kigozi, Wawer, Ssettuba, et al., at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19770623 These articles state that circumcision helps reduce changes of HIV infection by 60%. They explain how that operates. There are lots of other articles out there affirming the same thing.

Google “HIV foreskin” and find out the answer for yourself. There has been plenty of research showing the link, and explaining the mechanism through which HIV infections spread through the Langerhans cells in the foreskin.

They are misreporting it. It says the benefits are insufficent to recommend circumcision all male babies. (But they are to be forgiven because the AAP obfuscates its own “finding”.)

You’re playing word games, too. The statement says: “the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks”. That is basically an endorsement. It is a shift in tone from the previously neutral position to one which is pro-circumcision. It will therefore be reported as such by the American press on Monday morning when the statement is released nationally.

Rebecca, Hugh7 is not willing to accept the AAP findings, no matter how they are worded, so he will continue to characterise them wrongly. You are right, and he is wrong.

Oh and it is. It is not any more true, though. No, the AAP has reiterated enough time that they cannot use the “evidence” to endorse circumcision. They try, but they can’t. Because then they would REALLY be out of line with the rest of the world… Not that they’re not already…

That has nothing to do with my comment which was about the history of circumcision. I don’t get your hatred of male anatomy and your enthusiasm for this but whatever. Do you agree with the AAP’s 2010 attempt to recommend female circumcision too? Really of all the organizations whose advice I’d follow the AAP is pretty low on the list. I’m Jewish and I’m not going to circumcise any children I have in the future male or female, no matter what the AAP or any Rabbi might tell me to do.

“Hatred of male anatomy,” equivalence to “recommend female circumcision too” — is this guy sane?

Female excision or clictoridectomy properly so-called is not equivalent in any way to male “circumcision” and the application of the same term to both is prejudicial to both sexes. It minimizes the true horror of excision, and wildly maximizes the very tiny significance of removing the prepuce for men. Female excision or clictoridectomy is not about removing a tiny flap of skin, but a basic sexual organ. The true equivalent for men would be castration. Excision is a major operation, extremely painful and highly risky to the victim, as also is the sometimes but not always related removal of the labia. To make excision or clitoridectomy equivalent to male circumcision is simply a debate trick and propaganda deception.

Nobody said a word about a clitoridectomy, I said female circumcision which is what the AAP tried to legalize in 2010. Look it up if you don’t believe me. Unlike male circumcision female circumcision has about six different types, some are significantly less drastic than male circumcision and some are hundreds of times worse. Although the ones that are the most destructive (those rightfully dubbed “female genital mutilation”) are the most famous in the west, the most common procedure is actually identical to male circumcision i.e. the removal of the prepuce. In men the prepuce is the foreskin, in women it is the clitorial hood. It is a homogoneous structure and it is removed in much of the world for the same reasons that Jews remove male prepuces; it is believed to be cleaner, it is believed to be more aesthetically appealing and it is believed that God commanded it. I know because I had Moroccan friends who were insulted that I was horrified by this. In any case, please read what I wrote more closely. I did not compare not liking foreskin to removing clitorises or any other form of female circumcision, I mentioned the AAP’s attempt to endorse female circumcision in 2010 as a separate thought. You’re conflating the two.

Let’s look at what really happened; the AAP, once again, stopped short of endorsing circumcision, the silly statement’s only saving grace…

Putting an age restriction on it, postponing it to adulthood, is effectively to single out practicing Jews for attack, not only forbidding their traditional religious practice, one of the most central in Judaism, but penalizing them later in life for doing it, and yes, that does sound rather antisemitic. Doing circumcision on the eighth day generally has next to no pain associated with it and is well tolerated by the baby, but doing it to young adults is a totally different story, much more terrifying, more painful, and more likely to lead to complications according to the literature I have read. It also has more impact on later sexual sensation.

At the time of my own son’s circumcision, done by a very expert Hassidic mohel in Kiryat Bialik, Israel, he made a small cry, really just an exclamation, and that was it. I was far more tense and anxious than he was. He was soon asleep, and the total healing process took just a few days. This is the case with almost all circumcisions I have witnessed in later years. Traditional mohels do an excellent job. The most painful and longest-drawn-out one I ever saw, in fact, was one done in an Australian community by a doctor who I think must not have often done this procedure before. He tied down the baby (which really upset it terrifically), gave it local anaesthetic and treated the whole thing like an operation. All those present, and not just the baby, were in agony. Experienced mohels really are the best ones to do circumcisions.

I recommend the article by David Goldman on this website, “The Sacred Rite of Circumcision,” http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/108801/sacred-rite-of-circumcision

You’re correct that experienced mohels do a good job. That is why many non-Jewish celebrities and important people, including Queen Elizabeth II, have hired mohels to circumcise their boys. It takes only 30 seconds for the mohel to remove the foreskin and it is a much better procedure than that done in the hospital by inexperienced practitioners.

In their article, “A ‘snip’ in time: what is the best age to circumcise?,” BMC Pediatr. 2012, Feb. 28, 2012, the authors (Morris, Waskett, Banerjee, et al.) summarize their research as follows: ”
DISCUSSION:
We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant’s low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.
SUMMARY:Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.” See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22373281

Morris and Waskett are pro-circumcision advocates and neither hold a medical degree and neither are active in the medical field.

It is evident that Morris and Waskett are trained epidemiologists and certainly highly qualified in their specific medical field. They have each published very many articles on the incidence of many diseases, written in cooperation with very many other leading authorities, which are published in the leading medical journals dealing with epidemiology and sexual diseases in Africa and beyond. For example, the article cited above includes amongst its authors: Morris, Waskett, Banerjee, Wamal, Tobian, Gray, Bailis, Bialey, Klausner, Willcourt, Halperin, Wiswell, and Mindel, whose chief authors at least (who are always the first listed in the author-credits, as given above), are presented as working at the School of Medical Sciences of the University of Sydney in Australia — others may be from other leading universities with departments of epidemiology and medicine. It is published in a leading pediatric medical journal, and is reproduced on the internet at the US National Library of Medicine of the National Institute of Health. Obviously the editors of that journal and of the NIH, and of all the other leading journals that publish the work of these authors do not despise them as Minami does, but regards them as certainly highly qualified in the medical field. It is true that they as epidemiological experts are supporters of circumcision, since that is what their research shows works as one of the chief preventative methods against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Such support is not a disqualification for taking their work seriously, contrary to what Minami thinks. They also have published on such things as the incidence of tuberculosis in Africa, problems of pregnant women, trichomoniasis in women, gonorrhhoea, intestinal nematode infestation, etc., etc. — a wide range of ailments.

I have looked up the background of B.J. Morris, the lead author of the above-cited research article. What I find tells me that I can have zero confidence in anything Minami says. It is all partisan propaganda from him. I am not even interested in going on to look up J.H. Waskett’s background. Here are the “biographical details” and “research interests” for Professor Brian J. Morris as given at the as found at the University of Sydney, School of Medical Sciences website, at

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/bmorris.php
Biographical details:
Brian Morris was appointed to the academic staff of the Department (now Discipline) of Physiology in 1978 after 3 years of postdoctoral studies in the USA as a CJ Martin Fellow, then an Advanced Fellow of the American Heart Association, firstly at the University of Missouri, Columbia, in 1975-1976, then at the University of California, San Francisco, from 1976-1978. He has been a Professor since 1999. His research has been mostly in the realm of molecular biology and molecular genetics, with a particular interest in hypertension.

He won the Edgeworth David Medal in 1985 from the Royal Society of New South Wales, the 2006 Faculty of Medicine Award for Excellence in Postgraduate Research Supervision, a Scroll of Honour, Australia Day Award for community service from The Waverley Council in 2007, and the Lewis K. Dahl Memorial Award and Lecture in 2010 from the American Heart Association’s Council for High Blood Pressue Research.

He was until the end of 2010 the Treasurer of the High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia, and has served two 6 year terms on the Executive Committee. He was a foundation member of the editorial board of Hypertension from 1979-1981, and has been a board member in recent years since 2002. He was a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Hypertension from 2003-2007.

He has over 300 publications and 5,663 citations to early 2011 His H-index is 40.

Research interests:
The research of Brian Morris’ Lab is primarily directed at the molecular genetics of hypertension, with a particular focus on genome-wide alterations in gene and microRNA expression in human essential hypertension and rodent models of this condition.

The Lab has also been involved in research with Eugenie Lumbers and colleagues at University of Newcastle on the expression of the various components of the (pro)renin-angiotensin system and other genes in fetal and maternal tissues to determine whether these have a role in premature labour.

Prof Morris has personal interests in the molecular basis of ageing, especially the effect of dietary and other factors on health and lifespan, and has published in this field.

The Lab has worked in recent years on the molecular biology of factors involved in alternative splicing of pre-mRNAs, a process that results in the generation of multiple proteins from most of the genes in the genome.Brian was the first in the world to patent the use of PCR for cervical screening. This method was devised to detect the cancer-causing types of human papillomavirus (priority date Feb 1987). This interest led to his involvement in promoting the health and medical benefits of male circumcision (www.circinfo.net), a field in which he has developed a strong international reputation, with numerous publications.

>>Morris and Waskett are trained medical specialists and certainly highly qualified.

Seriously?? Have you done the slightest bit of research about these two? They are pretty infamous fetishists with membership in the Gilgal Society and Circlist. Both are known associates of Vernon Quaintance, who was recently arrested for child pornography.

http://circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_Morris
http://circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_waskett

Minami is correct – neither holds a medical degree and are not considered “experts” by any serious scientist.

In that case I go with the humorous scientists. Even better if they have a red plastic clown’s nose on their face.

Tzur, you could not be any more wrong. Neither man you cite holds a medical degree. Waskett holds no degree of any kind. You’ve already made clear that your religious fanaticism trumps anyone else’s rights, so why are you even trying to justify? Just admit it, you believe that you own your children and their bodies, because you believe that your religion gives you license to. If you want to join ranks with pedophiles and circumcision fetishists to try to make your point, you really only help others see my point of view.

On the website of the University of Sydney School of Medical Science, we find the following bio of Professor Brian Morris. Given these details I have not bothered to pursue research into the credentials of Dr. Waskett, since the allegations against Dr. Morris are so far from the mark.

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/bmorris.php

Background details:
Brian Morris was appointed to the academic staff of the Department (now Discipline) of Physiology in 1978 after 3 years of postdoctoral studies in the USA as a CJ Martin Fellow, then an Advanced Fellow of the American Heart Association, firstly at the University of Missouri, Columbia, in 1975-1976, then at the University of California, San Francisco, from 1976-1978. He has been a Professor since 1999. His research has been mostly in the realm of molecular biology and molecular genetics, with a particular interest in hypertension.
He won the Edgeworth David Medal in 1985 from the Royal Society of New South Wales, the 2006 Faculty of Medicine Award for Excellence in Postgraduate Research Supervision, a Scroll of Honour, Australia Day Award for community service from The Waverley Council in 2007, and the Lewis K. Dahl Memorial Award and Lecture in 2010 from the American Heart Association’s Council for High Blood Pressue Research.
He was until the end of 2010 the Treasurer of the High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia, and has served two 6 year terms on the Executive Committee. He was a foundation member of the editorial board of Hypertension from 1979-1981, and has been a board member in recent years since 2002. He was a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Hypertension from 2003-2007.
He has over 300 publications and 5,663 citations to early 2011
Research interests
The research of Brian Morris’ Lab is primarily directed at the molecular genetics of hypertension, with a particular focus on genome-wide alterations in gene and microRNA expression in human essential hypertension and rodent models of this condition.
The Lab has also been involved in research with Eugenie Lumbers and colleagues at University of Newcastle on the expression of the various components of the (pro)renin-angiotensin system and other genes in fetal and maternal tissues to determine whether these have a role in premature labour.
Prof Morris has personal interests are the molecular basis of ageing, especially the effect of dietary and other factors on health and lifespan, and has published in this field.
The Lab has worked in recent years on the molecular biology of factors involved in alternative splicing of pre-mRNAs, a process that results in the generation of multiple proteins from most of the genes in the genome.
Brian was the first in the world to patent the use of PCR for cervical screening. This method was devised to detect the cancer-causing types of human papillomavirus (priority date Feb 1987). This interest led to his involvement in promoting the health and medical benefits of male circumcision (www.circinfo.net), a field in which he has developed a strong international reputation, with numerous publications.

Jake Wasket is not a doctor. Morris is a professor but not a doctor. Morris is so despised by the RACP that they actually released a statement saying to the public that he was not affiliated with him and recommended AGAINST his “medical advice.” These men are members of the Gilgal Society, a procircumcision group whose leader was arrested for child pornography a few months ago.

Wrong again, Tzur. My statement is correct. Neither man holds a medical degree. Mr. Morris doesn’t hold a PhD or MD, so I am not sure why you refer to him as Doctor Morris. Mr. Waskett holds no degree at all. Also, what is unique about Mr. Waskett and Mr. Morris, is that they are part of a small circle of influential, yet under-credentialed laypeople who espouse the virtues of circumcision yet associate with circumcision fetishists. More info can be found here: http://www.circleaks.org

The CV given at the University of Sydney website says otherwise, BBill. You should take it up with them, as well as the Wikipedia website on Dr. Morris and the various universities that have awarded him doctorates, since as Wikipedia informs us he actually has two doctorates, as well as other post-doctoral studies. As the Wikipedia articles informs us:

“Brian Morris grew up in Adelaide, South Australia, where he graduated with First Class Honours from the University of Adelaide in 1972. He then completed his PhD in Melbourne in 1975, leading to the award of a prestigious Sir Charles James Martin Overseas Research Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. From 1975-1978 this supported him as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Missouri, and the University of California, San Francisco, where in his last year he was supported by the American Heart Association. He was then appointed as an academic at the University of Sydney in 1978, where he has been ever since. His was awarded the Royal Society of New South Wales’ State Science Prize in 1985, and in 1993 the University of Sydney awarded him a DSc. In 2003 he was elected as a prestigious Honorary Fellow of the American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research. He won the Faculty of Medicine’s Award for Excellence in Postgraduate Research Supervision in 2006, and The Scroll of Honour, a community service award for his public health advocacy, by Waverley Council on Australia Day in 2007”

Funny. Wikipedia is the only site that actually lists that he has a PhD. I found that suspicious since that section of his wiki is without a citation. I was unable to find any information on the U of Sidney site that states that Brian Morris holds a PhD. Also, I see that you are avoiding looking into Mr. Waskett’s credentials. Care to share what you’ve found out about him? Can you point to his expertise in the field of Urology? (either man for that matter) How about Mr. Waskett’s education? Can you tell us how many degrees he holds? This is surely an uncomfortable truth knowing that to further your case, you’re aligning yourself sick people. Please, Tzur, share what you’ve found about Mr. Waskett, one of MR. Morris’ close associates. Why don’t you research both men’s ties to the Gilgal Society and sick bastards who run it. I will cede that I could possibly be wrong about Brian Morris holding a PhD, but I like I said, other than an un-cited section on his Wikipedia page I can find nothing, but your defense of Jake Waskett is making me question your honesty.

Why bother with Waskett, and after him no doubt ad nauseum all the other 11 scientists contributing to the co-authored report, when you persist in blindly rejecting Morris, its lead author and coordinator of research, against really irrefutable evidence? I have proven that he is a world-respected authority in medical science, with no less than two doctoral degrees, given leadership roles at the University of Sydney School of Medical Science, and yet you continue to deny his basic qualifications for such a role. By the way, no university of any standing whatsoever would admit students to “post-doctoral studies” without requiring transcripts from other universities certifying that the student has gained a doctoral degree already.

Anyway, on to other subjects: an article came out just this past week or so, “Cutting out circumcisions could cost billions: Study,” by Dr. Tiffany Chao on the ABC News website (see http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/08/21/cutting-out-circumcision-could-cost-billions-study/), whose first four paragraphs read:

Declines in infant male circumcision in the United States could add more than $4.4 billion in avoidable health care costs for sexually transmitted infections, experts warn in a new report.
In a paper in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, a team of health economists and disease experts at Johns Hopkins cite the declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision — from 79 percent in the 1970s to approximately 55 percent today — as responsible for billions of dollars spent in the U.S. on preventable infections.
The decline in circumcision rates has already cost the nation an estimated $2 billion, the researchers say, and if rates decrease to the 10 percent levels seen in Europe, this could mean an additional $4.4 billion for the nation.
The cost of treating sexually transmitted infections in both males and females that could be prevented with circumcision accounts for most of this total. Circumcision removes the foreskin at the end of the penis, which would otherwise potentially serve as a haven for bacteria and viruses that can cause diseases including HIV, herpes, genital warts, bacterial infections and urinary tract infections. Research has also suggested that circumcision can cut risk of penile and prostate cancers in men, as well as cervical cancer risk in their female partners.

Still won’t go on the record with what you found out about Mr. Waskett and Mr. Morris will you? You are clearly evading talking about these men and the people they are closely affiliated with. It is clear that these men make you uncomfortable, yet your still defending them. I couldn’t care less about who else signs their name to these “studies.” The lead researcher in almost all of these studies is heavily biased toward circumcision, and his close associate who assists in these studies (Mr. Waskett) hold no degrees and is an admitted circumcision fetishist.

Can you perhaps explain why other than the AAP, NO OTHER MEDICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD RECOMMENDS ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION?

My posts are on the record. It is not just a matter of my having general doubts about your allegations against the qualifications and moral integrity of these men, but in the case of Dr. Brian Morris (not “Mr.”!), whom I have researched, I have found, and given, on the record, irrefutable evidence that the accusations against his scholarly standing and authority are utterly false. Nothing more need be said on the matter.

Anyway, on to other more interesting subjects: an article came out just this past week or so, “Cutting out circumcisions could cost billions: Study,” by Dr. Tiffany Chao on the ABC News website (seehttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/he…, whose first four paragraphs read:
Declines in infant male circumcision in the United States could add more than $4.4 billion in avoidable health care costs for sexually transmitted infections, experts warn in a new report.

In a paper in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, a team of health economists and disease experts at Johns Hopkins cite the declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision — from 79 percent in the 1970s to approximately 55 percent today — as responsible for billions of dollars spent in the U.S. on preventable infections.

The decline in circumcision rates has already cost the nation an estimated $2 billion, the researchers say, and if rates decrease to the 10 percent levels seen in Europe, this could mean an additional $4.4 billion for the nation.

The cost of treating sexually transmitted infections in both males and females that could be prevented with circumcision accounts for most of this total. Circumcision removes the foreskin at the end of the penis, which would otherwise potentially serve as a haven for bacteria and viruses that can cause diseases including HIV, herpes, genital warts, bacterial infections and urinary tract infections. Research has also suggested that circumcision can cut risk of penile and prostate cancers in men, as well as cervical cancer risk in their female partners.

I am not interested in pursuing the matter of Waskett per se, since there is no point in wasting time repeating myself in a futile attempt to present clear evidence of scholarly standing and qualifications, as I have done in regard to the lead author Professor Morris, only to be met with continuous stonewalling and refusals to accept that evidence. At least you have been brought to a grudging admission that you might “possibly be wrong about Brian Morris holding a PhD,” but you immediately qualify that statement, and in later posts continue to speak of “Mr. Morris.” So it is pointless to continue this discussion.

You still won’t go on the record about this Waskett guy. You are accusing me of stonewalling, but I actually acceded to your claims about Brian Morris because I cannot disprove them. So do you care to try to defend why this Waskett guy shows up on so many of Brian Morris’ papers? Do you want to share Mr. Waskett’s educational credentials? The fact that Brian Morris associates with people like Jake Waskett certainly casts a dark cloud over his “research.” You continue to dance around the questions that I have asked, yet you continue to engage me. Something is fishy here, Tzur. I remember a few posts back you referred to Jake Waskett as Dr. Waskett. Care to back up that claim?

Funny, Tzur that you’ve decided to stop responding one I really pushed you to go on record with your findings about Mr. Waskett. So allow me to go on record. Brian Morris, the lead researcher in many of the most prominent studies having to do with Circumcision frequently collaborates with a man named Jake Waskett. (You can find his name of several of Brian Morris’ research papers.) It is common knowledge that Jake Waskett holds no academic degree of any kind. Jake Waskett doesn’t work in the field of medicine. (He is a software designer.) Jake Waskett is a known circumfetishist who has written a length about how excited he was to choose be circumcised in his mid-twenties and is now working with Brian Morris to make circumcision mandatory for all baby boys effectively removing the ability for them to make the choice that he did. Jake Waskett’s own writings show that he has a sick fascination with the act of circumcision and that he finds circumcision erotic. How does this not concern you? The mere fact that this sick freak has his name listed on so many of these studies irreparably taints them. All of these claims are verifiable. If you want to see first hand the sort of things that Jake Waskett writes on the internet, you can go to circleaks.org and check for yourself. All of their information is clearly spelled out and verifiable.

BBill, I really do not think that pedophiles infect every person (or organization) they have ever known even slightly, or worked with, or even passed in the street, with the trait of pedophilia, not at least in the medical scientific literature that I have read. Nor are third party organizations or persons know to or linked with the persons and groups actually known to the pedophile also infected by pedophilia, so far as I am aware. Nor do such viral infections extend to all those who have any view that one or another pedophile might share, whether medical, political, social, philosophical or otherwise. If so it must follow that everyone in the world has “joined ranks with pedophiles and fetishists.” This is mere guilt-by-association thinking, which is much used by propagandists, but which carries no force.

It is not even the case that circumcision advocacy leads to pedophilia nor pedophilia to circumcision advocacy. There is no obvious link between the two phenomena; they could as well be amongst the fiercist anti-circumcision polemicists too, could they not? I disdain to research such a question, but since you seem so interested in it, perhaps, BBill, you can share with us the medical research articles you have accumulated that show that pedophilia and fetishism are always (or even just statistically) linked with pro-circumcision opinions, but never (or even seldom) with anti-circumcision advocacy, and cite them here, so we can check them and can be straightened out?

The article I cited several posts back from Professor (and Dr.) Morris also was co-authored by: J.H. Waskett, J. Banerjee, R.G. Wamal, A.A. Tobian, R.H. Gray, S.A. Bailis, R.C. Bailey, J.D. Klausner, R.J. Willcourt, D.T. Halperin, T.E. Wiswell, and A. Mindel. I do not think that they are all pederasts, fetishists, medical ignoramuses nor without medical degrees or qualifications. Nor do they endorse either pedophilia or fetishism, so far as I know. The peer-reviewed pediatrics journal that the article was published in obviously did not think so.

You don’t find it curious that people connected to Brian Morris and Jake Waskett were found guilty of possessing child pornography, and that all of these men are very, very interested in not only circumcision, but infant circumcision? This stuff sickens me. I don’t think it’s too far a leap from pedophilia to be obsessed with mutilating infant genitals, as far as Brian Morris, Jake Waskett, and their associates are concerned. Connect the dots, Tzur. I understand that you are trying to advocate for something that you feel is central to your identity and culture, but you’d be better served not to cite these individuals unless you want your motives questioned.

Yes, that is why there have been lawsuits recently against professional mohels that chopped a little bit too much off the top, right?

I’m sure every mishap was at the hands of an “inexperienced mohel.”

Why, if you dismiss all the mishaps as done by “inexperienced mohels,” then you can claim that “procedures are always successful if perform by experienced mohels.”

Hogwash.

” Doing circumcision on the eighth day generally has next to no pain associated with it”
Wishful thinking. It has been repeatedly proven newborn babies feel pain just like adults.

But while they may feel some pain, it is very slight, especially if they are properly prepared, e.g., as traditionally by mohels, by being given a few drops of wine first or other soporific. So usual is it the case that there is little or no pain to the infant in the traditional ceremony of the brith, that the ceremony is often done in the synagogue — as was the case with my son. It is all done very quickly and it does not hinder prayers for those gathered to celebrate. After all, despite all the hullabaloo, all we are talking about is a very small cut of a tiny flap of skin. It is not a big deal in itself. The infant cries far more and longer, every day, about other things, such as a stomach ache or hunger.

“After all, despite all the hullabaloo, all we are talking about is a very small cut of a tiny flap of skin.”
Like when you cut off a little girl’s clitoral hood? Oh wait, this tiny flap of skin is attached to a GIRL, so it has NOTHING to do with male circ!
I’m deeply disgusted by how little respect you have for your own children’s body.

“by being given a few drops of wine”
Yeah sure because with a few drops of wine you can have a piece of your penis cut off without feeling pain! Hell I wonder why they even invented anesthesia!
Babies feel pain JUST LIKE ADULTS, it has been proven.

It’s not the government’s fault that your religion requires you to force circumcision on a child. They’re not obligated to accommodate you.

In other words, Juden heraus.

I want readers to consider this for a moment; the AAP says infant circumcision
should still be an option for parents, and public coffers should pay
for it, based on “evidence” that they could not use to bring themselves to recommend the practice. Does that make sense?

You would prefer to have less penis? Never met a man who thought he had so much penis that he’d be willing to cut part of it off.

You still haven’t explained the ethics of permanently mutilating a child based on religious preferences. I am against any person of any religion removing any part of anyone’s body without a medical indication and without consent. This has nothing to do with what or who you worship. It has everything to do with basic bodily integrity. Your religious rights end where someone else’s body begins. Tradition doesn’t change that. Culture doesn’t change that. No one has to the right to modify another person’s body without their consent.

I think the conclusion you are driving toward, BBill, is making it a law in the US that all male children should be removed from observant Jewish families, and putting all observant Jewish parents in prison if they nevertheless try to bring their children up Jewish.

You most certainly did not explain the ethics. What you did in your post was huff and puff and stomp your feet about how you have a god given right to alter another person’s body. I have nothing more to say to you other than, I am sorry you feel that way. I am sorry that you have been convinced that you own the identity and body of your children. I am sorry that you choose tradition and custom over what is right.

Obviously you do not even know what ethics is about, BBill. Why should I be surprised?

Whatever moral equivalency you are trying to draw ignores that fact that you are altering another human’s body without their consent. Giving life-saving treatment doesn’t even fall within the realm that I am talking about and is just a canard to obfuscate your twisted ethics. Sure there are many decisions that adults make on behalf of their children everyday but none so permanent as genital mutilation. Name any other “preventive health procedure” that amputates healthy, functioning tissue with no urgent medical basis.

Your facts are wrong. The 65% prevention in new HIV infections is completely false. You have taken a statistic out of context to make your point. The bottom line is, the absolute reduction in risk derived from the Africa studies was 1.3%. The relative reduction was 60%. A 60% reduction in relative risk of infection in no way means that circumcision prevents six out of ten HIV infections in Africa.

My facts are not wrong. The 65% figure comes from the August 1, 2008 article I cited as

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/health/news/article_1421695.php/AIDS-hit_countries_urged_to_increase_male_circumcision, which has as its first sentence: “Male circumcision can prevent 65 per cent of new HIV infections in adult heterosexual men, but AIDS-hit countries are lagging in their efforts to promote it, researchers said Tuesday.”

Your 60% figure comes from the other article cited. Nor have I taken a statistic out of context to make my point. The context was given as stated in the original article, and absolutely nothing in it supports your claims. So far as I can see, since you give no source for your assertions, they are your own invention. To help you research the matter, may I suggest you have a look at the wider literature, some of which I cite below.

Back in 2000, an article was published in the journal AIDS, Oct. 20, 2000; 14 (15): 2361-70, by Weiss, Quigley, and Hayes, “Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11089625. It reviewed 27 studies published up to April 1999 that included circumcision as a risk-factor for HIV-1 infection among men in sub-Saharan Africa. Its conclusion was: “Male circumcision is associated with a significantly reduced risk of HIV infection among men in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly those at high risk of HIV.” The study recommended promotion of circumcision in those countries.

In July 2008, in HIV Med. 9 (6): 332-5, Mills, Cooper, Anema and Guyatt published “Male Circumcision for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection: a meta-analysis of randomized trials involving 11,050 men.” It may be viewed at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18705758. Its “Conclusions” were: “Male circumcision is an effective strategy for reducing new male HIV infections. Its impact on a population level require consistenty safe sexual practices to maintain the protective benefit.”

In regard to Robert C. Bailey, whose research was a chief source for the previous articles I cited, see his CV listing his background and publications at http://www.cade.uic.edu/sphapps/faculty_profile/sphFacultyInd.asp?i=rcbailey&d=

I stand corrected. You did indeed use the figure in the proper context. Too bad the underlying article you cite is pure fluff. There is no author listed, and the only real study cited are the are the ones that I alluded to in my prior post. You can learn the difference between the relative risk of HIV infection and the absolute risk here: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/