In a recent article on an African publication that calls itself "Times Live", so-called "scientists" tried to dismiss Ron Goldman as a "fringe fanatic." Rather than address what he had to say directly, they retorted to name-calling, and to quoting the usual canned responses saved for all PR venues.
Rather than do what I usually do with articles such as these, which is basically destroy them bit by bit, I'm just going to post the e-mail I sent to the link on their article.
Dear Sirs,
This is in response to the article "Circumcision denier derided."
In the article, in order to reply to the claims made by Ron Goldman, so-called "scientists" retorted to name-calling, instead of addressing his claims directly.
Ron Goldman was called a "fringe fanatic," "conspiracy theorist." They said he was "without a scientific evidence base," though they made no attempt to substantiate this claim. He is also called an "anti-circumcision fundamentalist" and a "circumcision denier," whatever that means. No one is denying circumcision, only the false claims made in favor of it.
Only after the so-called "scientists'" ad hominem attack did they decide to quote scientific figures, which are really nothing more than repetition of the same tired claims that circumcision "reduced the risk of contracting HIV by up to 60%."
As usual, the HIV claim is rather weak, so it is always typically reinforced by a claim that circumcision "was associated" with the reduction of some other disease, this time a supposed "59% reduction of syphilis in men."
It must be pointed out; the so-called "benefits" of circumcision aren't as clear-cut as circumcision "scientists" would like their audience to believe.
People ought to read the fine print: There is no scientifically demonstrable causal link between circumcision and a reduction in HIV transmission. Without one, "scientists" can't be sure that circumcision reduces HIV transmission AT ALL, let alone by "60%."
Circumcision was "associated with a 59% reduction in syphilis in men?" What in the world is that supposed to mean? We're supposed to circumcise everybody based on a mere "association?"
Without a demonstrable causal link, one could claim that an absence of vampires in the vicinity of garlic is "proof" that garlic "is associated" with keeping them away.Without a causal link, the African "trials" are meaningless statistics embellished with correlation hypothesis. Circumcision "researchers" merely juxtapose carefully chosen statistics and assume a causal relationship exists as a matter of fact.
The so-called "findings" contradict reality.
According to USAID, HIV was found to be more prevalent among circumcised men in 10 out of 18 African countries. 80% of American men are circumcised from birth. Yet, according to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has more HIV than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced. If the CIA is to be believed, we have more HIV than Mexico.
And finally, even if the 60% claim were irrefutably true, circumcision would STILL be ineffective at preventing HIV.
So ineffective would circumcision be at preventing HIV, that circumcised men and their partners would still have to be urged to wear condoms.
I would like to see any of the "scientists" who responded to Mr. Goldman deny this very simple fact.
I am a happy man with anatomically correct genitals, and if any of them tried to sell me this crock I would laugh in their faces.
I posit that no man with intact genitals in the right mind would fall for this, unless he were being lied to by self-interested scientists trying to secure funds from the HIV pie.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it."
~Upton Sinclair
Thank you for your time,
Josep4GI
Related Links:
UGANDA: Myths about circumcision help spread HIV
ZIMBABWE: Circumcised men abandoning condoms
Botswana – There is an upsurge of cases of people who got infected with HIV following circumcision.
Zimbabwe – Circumcised men indulge in risky sexual behaviour
Nyanza – Push for male circumcision in Nyanza fails to reduce infections
Related Posts:
Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV
Not sure where the 59% decrease in syphilis came from when the African RCTs found that circumcision increased the risk of syphilis, but increased risk was not statistically significant.
ReplyDelete