Says UN: Circumcision Fights AIDS
Here’s an item that can be filed under “What’s the world coming to?” The first is out of Montreux, Switzerland:
U.N. health agencies recommended Wednesday that heterosexual men undergo circumcision because of "compelling" evidence that it can reduce their chances of contracting HIV by up to 60 percent. But World Health Organization and UNAIDS experts said men need to be aware that circumcision is only partial protection against the virus and must be used with other measures. "We must be clear," said Catherine Hankins of UNAIDS. "Male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV." Studies suggest 5.7 million new cases of HIV infection and 3 million deaths over 20 years could be prevented by male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa, the agencies said.
I don’t know who did the “studies” they are quoting from, but my “bulls**t detector” is going off. The thought that making softer inner areas of the skin overtop the stronger outer dermal area of the skin as a way to reduce the likelihood of HIV infection is lunacy. If anything is serves to make more areas where skin abrasions can occur, thus providing more entry points for the virus into the body.
What’s more disturbing is that this notion is being proposed in “sub-Saharan Africa” a place that due to poor available healthcare and high HIV infected citizens, can really not afford to have “sexual experiments” and liberal sexual reasoning inflicted on it. Time lost to bad ideas costs lives. The “strong evidence” for circumcision was based on “three trials — in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa.” Well, for Uganda’s part, AIDS cases were already on a downward spiral in Uganda due to strong social reforms in that country that stress abstinence and monogamy – two words often scoffed at in liberal “real world” strategies:
“Uganda is one of the "success stories" in the fight against AIDS in Africa. Through use of a strategy called ABC (Abstinence, Being Faithful, and Condoms), the country has managed to dramatically reduce the incidence of HIV.
However in recent years, and largely because of the influence of Bush and the money he's donated, that strategy has shifted to focus on the "A" and "B" components, leaving out the "C" (condoms). Public health experts fear that this shift (due largely to political reasons) could once again lead to increasing rates of HIV.
For example, Bush is increasingly only giving money to HIV/AIDS programs that do not promote condom use as a means of HIV protection, but that emphasize being faithful and abstinence instead. There have been a lot of "virginity pledges" lately by young people, but the truth is that many of these young hopeful virgins are unable to keep their pledge (due to a variety of reasons including poverty and disempowerment of women) and then do not know about condom use.”
(As an aside, need I even point out the intelligence in using money donated to stop the spread of a disease in order to back a strategy that has a much better success rate than condoms: “That stupid Bush put more program money into the part of the program that works every time, than into the portion that only works 50-70% of the time – what an idiot!”)
Liberals (especially European ones) loath to give abstinence any credit for working even though its success rate is 100%. It requires a change in lifestyle that seems to put an intolerable damper on their lives – even if it’s saving that same life. This latest U.N. “recommendation”need not be done, especially when the lives lost will be some of the economically poorest people on the planet (according to liberals), and ones of a race – the black race – that liberals say they care so much about.
2 Comments:
Beanie's Appa said...
Last time I checked, circumcision was a pretty conservative thing to do, following family tradition and being good ole' american.
Only Jews and Muslims are circumcised in Europe. In USA New England and California have circumcision rates down in the 30% range, but in the midwest, it's still over 70%.
March 30, 2007 4:00 PM
f22strike said...
I'm not sure how "conservative" circumcision is from a political perspective. I do know that it doesn't seem to be a good technique to use to fight the spread of aids. Monogamy and abstinance seem to be much better weapons in the fight.
April 04, 2007 9:41 PM
U.N. health agencies recommended Wednesday that heterosexual men undergo circumcision because of "compelling" evidence that it can reduce their chances of contracting HIV by up to 60 percent. But World Health Organization and UNAIDS experts said men need to be aware that circumcision is only partial protection against the virus and must be used with other measures. "We must be clear," said Catherine Hankins of UNAIDS. "Male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV." Studies suggest 5.7 million new cases of HIV infection and 3 million deaths over 20 years could be prevented by male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa, the agencies said.
I don’t know who did the “studies” they are quoting from, but my “bulls**t detector” is going off. The thought that making softer inner areas of the skin overtop the stronger outer dermal area of the skin as a way to reduce the likelihood of HIV infection is lunacy. If anything is serves to make more areas where skin abrasions can occur, thus providing more entry points for the virus into the body.
What’s more disturbing is that this notion is being proposed in “sub-Saharan Africa” a place that due to poor available healthcare and high HIV infected citizens, can really not afford to have “sexual experiments” and liberal sexual reasoning inflicted on it. Time lost to bad ideas costs lives. The “strong evidence” for circumcision was based on “three trials — in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa.” Well, for Uganda’s part, AIDS cases were already on a downward spiral in Uganda due to strong social reforms in that country that stress abstinence and monogamy – two words often scoffed at in liberal “real world” strategies:
“Uganda is one of the "success stories" in the fight against AIDS in Africa. Through use of a strategy called ABC (Abstinence, Being Faithful, and Condoms), the country has managed to dramatically reduce the incidence of HIV.
However in recent years, and largely because of the influence of Bush and the money he's donated, that strategy has shifted to focus on the "A" and "B" components, leaving out the "C" (condoms). Public health experts fear that this shift (due largely to political reasons) could once again lead to increasing rates of HIV.
For example, Bush is increasingly only giving money to HIV/AIDS programs that do not promote condom use as a means of HIV protection, but that emphasize being faithful and abstinence instead. There have been a lot of "virginity pledges" lately by young people, but the truth is that many of these young hopeful virgins are unable to keep their pledge (due to a variety of reasons including poverty and disempowerment of women) and then do not know about condom use.”
(As an aside, need I even point out the intelligence in using money donated to stop the spread of a disease in order to back a strategy that has a much better success rate than condoms: “That stupid Bush put more program money into the part of the program that works every time, than into the portion that only works 50-70% of the time – what an idiot!”)
Liberals (especially European ones) loath to give abstinence any credit for working even though its success rate is 100%. It requires a change in lifestyle that seems to put an intolerable damper on their lives – even if it’s saving that same life. This latest U.N. “recommendation”need not be done, especially when the lives lost will be some of the economically poorest people on the planet (according to liberals), and ones of a race – the black race – that liberals say they care so much about.
2 Comments:
Beanie's Appa said...
Last time I checked, circumcision was a pretty conservative thing to do, following family tradition and being good ole' american.
Only Jews and Muslims are circumcised in Europe. In USA New England and California have circumcision rates down in the 30% range, but in the midwest, it's still over 70%.
March 30, 2007 4:00 PM
f22strike said...
I'm not sure how "conservative" circumcision is from a political perspective. I do know that it doesn't seem to be a good technique to use to fight the spread of aids. Monogamy and abstinance seem to be much better weapons in the fight.
April 04, 2007 9:41 PM
Labels: clueless, illustrating stupidity, united nations
posted by Alpheus at 6:12 PM
2 Comments:
Last time I checked, circumcision was a pretty conservative thing to do, following family tradition and being good ole' american.
Only Jews and Muslims are circumcised in Europe. In USA New England and California have circumcision rates down in the 30% range, but in the midwest, it's still over 70%.
I'm not sure how "conservative" circumcision is from a political perspective. I do know that it doesn't seem to be a good technique to use to fight the spread of aids. Monogamy and abstinance seem to be much better weapons in the fight.
Post a Comment
<< Home