In a recent twitter thread, Yale scholar and academic Brian Earp exposed the bias in the World Health Organization (WHO) circumcision manual.

In the thread, Brian Earp first shows that the World Health Organization is using studies performed on adults to justify genital cutting on infants.

Wow. @WHO claims 2 have 'voluntary' medical male circumcision (VMMC) program, based on data from studies of sexually active *adults* – but now pushes non-voluntary circ of infants, for which there is no controlled evidence of a protective effect against HIV. Plot thickens … pic.twitter.com/9WA0R30IdS — Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp) July 12, 2019

Their manual 4 performing non-consensual circ argues "cultural & religious" factors should be considered, in contrast 2 @WHO policy on FGM which says even ritual nicking of the vulva is a *human rights violation* regardless of consent, culture, or religion https://t.co/ShW9p4wCI0 pic.twitter.com/PunqzrqiV6 — Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp) July 12, 2019

Earp also exposes that one of the lead authors for the WHO manual on circumcision is someone who has applied for a patent on a circumcision device, and has a financial interest in the procedure.

One of the lead authors of this new @WHO manual for American-style non-consensual circumcision of boys, now being introduced to countries with no such cultural practice — citing studies of *adult* circumcision & conflating the two — is David Tomlinson of @BrownUniversity. pic.twitter.com/SuDIyhm7At — Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp) July 12, 2019

Would it surprise you to learn that @WHO's Tomlinson applied, in 2005, for a patent on a device he invented for removing "excess foreskin" (i.e., normal, healthy foreskin) from specifically the "neonatal" penis? https://t.co/364ndKctHc – again, no evidence this reduces HIV risk. pic.twitter.com/FlNAfp4W6o — Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp) July 12, 2019

Earp notes that this is a huge financial conflict of interest:

How much money will Tomlinson earn from mass infant circumcision in African countries w. no existing tradition? In @WHO manual he touts his own invention to reduce risk of penile laceration & hemorrhage, which occurs "even in developed countries with excellent training programs." pic.twitter.com/Xjbg8b9oJC — Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp) July 12, 2019

P.S. Study thanking Tomlinson, inventor of "AccuCirc" device (https://t.co/8x80VGKTCI) & one of lead authors of @WHO manual for non-consensual circumcision touting his own device, recommending @WHO pre-qualification of AccuCirc for mass African scale-up: https://t.co/UY7Jys1uEl pic.twitter.com/nZB6eR3JSf — Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp) July 12, 2019

He also shows that WHO policy on male genital cutting contradicts their policy on female genital cutting:

@WHO now simultaneously claims Type IV ritual 'nicking' of vulva (which does not remove tissue) is *human rights violation* regardless of consent, culture, or religion, while decision 2 remove 1/3 or more penile skin system in non-consenting babies should factor culture/religion? — Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp) July 12, 2019

Earp goes on to say that WHO “has sacrificed all credibility” on the issue of female circumcision by supporting male circumcision.

He concludes:

I just want to follow up on this shocking conflict of interest case at @WHO, where the inventor of a newborn circumcision device, after applying for a patent, is invited to co-write the @WHO "manual" for performing newborn circumcision, touting his own device for mass use. https://t.co/eQTybNpA4u — Brian D. Earp (@briandavidearp) July 13, 2019

WHO has not issued any public response to these criticisms.

You can follow Brian Earp on twitter at @briandavidearp.