To secure acquiescence to the idea that circumcision actually does anything to prevent HIV transmission.

"AIDS Prevention Inspires Ways to Make Circumcisions Easier,"

reads the headline.





Already, the author is assuring his readers that yes, circumcision does in fact, prevents AIDS. No actual analysis of the "evidence" is needed, readers should just believe that this is a foregone conclusion.





Reads the caption under the picture of the "new" invention:

"‘LIKE A FINGERNAIL’ One new product, PrePex, uses a ring to block blood flow. After a week, the dead foreskin falls off or can be clipped."

"So donors are pinning their hopes on several devices now being tested to speed things up."





Or, rather, using WHO endorsement of male genital mutilation as HIV prevention, circumcision device manufactures have managed to secure a piece of the circumcision/HIV pie.





Continuing:

"Dr. Stefano Bertozzi, director of H.I.V. for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said it had its eyes on two, named PrePex and the Shang Ring, and was supporting efforts by the World Health Organization to evaluate them."









(And look who is doing the evaluating! None other than happens to be an inventor of various circumcision devices himself, namely the Evaluate? Or endorse?(And look who is doing the evaluating! None other than David R. Tomlinson , the "chief expert on circumcision" at the WHO, who also justto be an inventor of various circumcision devices himself, namely the AccuCirc device.)





Are Bill and Melinda Gates really interested in humanity? Or is this merely a PR endeavor?



The clincher:

"Circumcision is believe[d] to protect heterosexual men because the foreskin has many Langerhans cells, which pick up viruses and “present” them to the immune system — which H.I.V. attacks."





Here we see the New York Times, yet again, trying to merge science with quackery.





HIV most definitely attacks the immune system; this is an observable phenomenon that anyone can see and confirm for themselves. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that the Langerhans cells in the foreskin "picks up" viruses and "presents" them to the immune system.





Actually, scientific evidence proves quite the opposite: Not only do the Langerhans cells act as a natural barrier for HIV, they actually secrete Langerin, which destroys HIV on contact.





The claim that the Langerhans cells facilitate HIV transmission is categorically false.





The New York Times is "picking up" and "presenting" deliberate scientific falsehoods to the American public.



Let it be clear:

The idea that circumcision prevents male heterosexual HIV transmission is a belief; a belief that cannot be scientifically demonstrated. A "decrease" in HIV transmission can be "observed" in three hopelessly flawed, heavily skewed "studies" that fail to correlate with real world empirical evidence. That this "decrease" was indeed caused by circumcision, however, is a far-fetched belief that "researchers" have yet to substantiate. "Researchers" are trying to frame their cherished beliefs and traditions in "research," and that's not science.





The article continues:

"PrePex, invented in 2009 by four Israelis after one of them, a urologist, heard an appeal for doctors to do circumcisions in Africa, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration three weeks ago. The W.H.O. will make a decision on it soon, said Mitchell Warren, an AIDS-prevention expert who closely follows the process."





The inventors of the PrePex device are of Israeli origin which brings into question their true motives. The Jerusalem AIDS Project (JAIP) created Operation Abraham , which is an organization whose sole purpose is to promote circumcision any which way it can. They too have used the WHO's endorsement to travel all over the world to promote circumcision. Are they truly interested in public health? Or are they interested in safeguarding and promoting a religious ritual which is ever under scrutiny? Or is this purely an endeavor to cash in on the opportunity?







"From the initial safety studies done so far, PrePex is clearly faster, less painful and more bloodless than any of its current rivals. And it relies on the simplest and least-threatening technology — a rubber band. The PrePex plug piece continues:





The band compresses the foreskin against a plastic ring slipped inside it; the foreskin dies within hours for lack of blood and, after a week, falls off or can be clipped off “like a fingernail,” said Tzameret Fuerst, the company’s chief executive officer, who compared the process to the stump of an umbilical cord’s shriveling up and dropping off a few days after it is clamped."





Again, this is hardly innovative; the PrePex is nothing but a glorified tourniquet device. A number of other devices use the exact same principle of cutting off blood circulation to the foreskin, including the TaraKlamp , the Smartklamp , the Ismail Clamp , the Zhenxi Ring and the Shang-ring before it.



Focus on PrePex

I'd like to zero in on this Tzameret Fuerst woman. Who is she? Why is she so enthusiastic about circumcision? Particularly this new "PrePex" device? And why does it seem like she's more excited about getting millions circumcised, than she is about HIV prevention? Why is the fact that, even if "studies" were correct, circumcision is not "100% effective" an afterthought?







It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

~Upton Sinclair

Continues the PrePex ad:

It is done with topical anesthetic cream, and there is usually no bleeding. And PrePex can be put in place and removed by nurses with about three days’ training.





All really irrelevant afterthoughts... If there is no scientific proof that circumcision prevents HIV, and even given the "evidence" condoms still do a far better job, what does the minimalization and the simplicity of the procedure even matter...





The rings come in five sizes, A through E, Ms. Fuerst said, “and you won’t believe how high-tech the rubber band is.”





She's right! I don't!





"Each size must apply just enough pressure to cut off blood flow without being tight enough to cause pain"





Fuerst, does PrePex have an AIDS prevention method that DOESN'T involve cutting off part of my penis, please?







Continuing...

"The W.H.O., Mr. Warren said, is also evaluating the Shang Ring, a plastic two-ring clamp developed in China to treat conditions in which the foreskin becomes so tight that it cuts off urination."





And here we see the injection of a condition which necessitates circumcision, and another device that facilitates it. Are we even going to be given a scientific explanation as to what these "conditions" are? If they actually cut off urination, and they actually need circumcision viz Shang Ring?





What is the name of the condition where the foreskin becomes so tight it cuts off urination? What causes it? Is circumcision the only option? More gratuitous promulgation of non-science.



Moving forward:

"However, it requires cutting off the excess foreskin beyond the clamp, which means the circumciser must inject anesthetics directly into the penis and groin, wait for them to take effect, create a sterile surgical field and be trained in minor surgery."





“The Shang is not as fast, but it’s faster than full-fledged surgery,” Mr. Warren said. “And it hasn’t submitted as much safety data."





"In a safety study presented at an AIDS conference last month, scientists from Rwanda’s health ministry said they had used PrePex to circumcise 590 men. Only two had “moderate” complications; one was fixed with a single suture, and one required a new band in a different spot."





All useless information that draws attention more and more away from whether or not circumcision actually prevents anything... I'm sure with just the right amount of "research" one could invent a device that facilitates the extraction of the labia with only "moderate" complications...



Or better yet, come up with an actual solution that doesn't involve genital mutilation...



Continuing on:

"According to Dr. Jason Reed, an epidemiologist in the global AIDS division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 of 590, or 0.34 percent, is a tenth the typical complication rate of surgical circumcision."





More statistics to blind the reader with. That's 2 out of 590 in a controlled study. What does that look like for the rest of Africa outside of the scientific environment? And what does this figure look like at 20,000,000 men? One in 295 men will suffer complications. Over 20,000,000 men that these people plan to circumcise, that's about 67,800 men who will suffer complications.





And that's *if* the people writing these "studies" were writing the truth. Remember, they're trying to MARKET their device.





I'm also being kind in assuming that all 20,000,000 African men will have undergone circumcision using the PrePex device; surgery will still be used, and, given the WHO green light, tribes will continue to circumcise youth and men traditionally. The number of complications is going to exceed 70,000, as will the number of iatrogenic HIV transmission. (In Africa, visiting a health center in and of itself is a risk for HIV. Is Daniel McNeil Jr. not aware of this fact?)



All of this, when HIV can already be easily and effectively prevented via education and condoms???





There is another lie that Jason Reed is trying to slip by here; that 0.34 percent is a "tenth" of the typical complication rate of surgical circumcision.





What kind of circumcision could Jason Reed possibly be referring to? Adult circumcision? Child circumcision? What is being counted as a "complication?"





There are reasons to believe that CDC statistics on circumcision in the United States is flawed, namely that they report "zero deaths" when intactivists have a long list of deaths documented. They report an infinitesimally small number of "complications," when we have reports that botched circumcisions have been on the rise for the past few years. Is the CDC telling the truth? Or are they circumcising it?





Instead of investigating, the New York Times takes Reed's presentation of CDC statistics at face value. Let's hear it for American journalism!



Continuing:

"None of the men became infected."





That's great! Does circumcision prevent HIV? Is it even relevant in light of HIV prevention methods which already supersede it?



Continuing:

"On the 10-point pain scale, they reported [a]n average [of] only about 1 when the ring was placed and only 3 when it was removed (about the same level of pain caused by erections during the week they wore it).





By the end of the study, the two-nurse teams could do a procedure in three minutes.





By contrast, Dr. Reed said, the best surgical “assembly lines” — a practice being pioneered in Africa with American taxpayer support — can get down to seven minutes per patient, but only by getting six nurses and a surgeon into a tight harmony."





"Looking busy" is but a distraction from the main points:



Does circumcision prevent HIV? Even if it did, even if the science were correct, is it even worth it in light of less invasive, more effective methods of prevention that already exist? Is it ethical to promote deliberate genital mutilation in the name of "research" and "public health?" Would we ever promote female circumcision if we had the same "research" to support it? What if it could be made "painless" or "bloodless?" What if we could make it so it doesn't decrease a woman's sexuality? Would we consider female circumcision then?



Continuing:

"In theory, he said, breaking that into three two-nurse PrePex teams could mean circumcising around 400 men a day, rather than the 60 to 80 a busy team now does. And the surgeon could go do something more important."

Continuing:

"In fact, Dr. Reed said, American AIDS dollars for circumcisions often go toward an operating room with lights and an instrument sterilizer. Instead of circumcisions, hospitals are more likely to use it for procedures like saving women in obstructed labor"





"Which is understandable — of course that takes precedence,” he said. “But then the circumcisions don’t get done."





Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.





It doesn't make any sense to be spending millions on genital mutilation, when, even if the science is correct, would fail to live up to a condom. It doesn't make sense that there are other, more important issues to address; healthcare in general, mother-to-child HIV transmission, food, water, etc., and "experts" like Reed are more concerned that money isn't wastefully being spent on circumcision, for which there is already cheaper, less invasive, more effective ways to prevent HIV.





What is this all about? Is this about healthcare? HIV prevention?





Or is this purely about circumcision?





Some "experts" need to get their priorities straight.



Continuing:

"Robert C. Bailey, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who helped design Kenya’s circumcision efforts, opposes timesaving devices because training nurses in minor surgery has other benefits, he said. A trained nurse could close a wound or take out an appendix, for example. And the time-consuming parts of the process are counseling and H.I.V. testing, Dr. Bailey said, so 'doing it in five minutes instead of 20 is trivial.'





"But he conceded, 'If PrePex really doesn’t require anesthesia, that’s truly an advance.'"





This part of the article is a bit confusing, and I'm not sure I understand it myself.





First off, am I to understand that nurses are being trained in surgery OTHER than circumcision? But furthermore, am I to understand that circumcision is being used as an "opportunity" for counseling and HIV testing? Couldn't circumcision simply be skipped and men could be given counseling and HIV testing directly? Or are intact men simply incapable of receiving these things?



Imagine, for a moment, a dentist using a total tooth extraction as a pretext to hand people information on oral hygiene and dental care. But his patients still have to use false dentures.



Imagine the converse. What if we started offering circumcision to the women so that doctors can then “take the opportunity” to tell them about better hygiene practices and sex education?



The million dollar question is, since when does a man need surgery to learn how to wash his penis and use a condom properly? Does not being circumcised somehow impede a man’s learning of these concepts? Does not being circumcised somehow nullify the protective effect of condoms?



The article continues:

"Rwanda is training 150 two-nurse teams; it is a small country, but it serves as a bellwether for Africa because its health care system is well organized, government corruption scandals are rare, and it is heavily supported by donor funds."





Rwanda is also a country where HIV has been shown to be more prevalent amongst the CIRCUMCISED. According to a demographic health survey taken in 2005 , the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8% vs 2.1%.





"[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. And, incidentally, 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 Rwanda. (In America, 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth.) 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 Administration, Washington D.C., March 15, 2009,Hader once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.





Somehow, though, something tells me that the New York Times is not going to publish this part of the story.



The PrePex ad continues:

"Other, rival devices are not far along in safety testing or are failing it."





Hint hint... it's the PrePex, everyone!





"The Tara KLamp, manufactured in Malaysia since the 1990s, has created controversy in South Africa. It is a hinged plastic bracket the size of a small drinking cup. A plastic tube goes over the head of the penis, and the foreskin is pulled up it and painfully crushed by the bracket. Then the whole contraption must be worn at least five days. A 2005 clinical trial in South Africa was stopped early after the device caused far more injuries and infections than surgery did."





It is essentially the same exact contraption as the PrePex, and follows the exact same mechanism and principle of cutting off circulation to the foreskin, thereby facilitating its excision. Rest assured, though readers, the PrePex is the better design.





But again, a man needs a PrePex likes a fish needs a bicycle.



Continuing:

"The national health ministry has banned it in most of South Africa, but it is still used heavily in KwaZulu-Natal Province, which has the country’s highest AIDS rate and where the Zulu king, Goodwill Zwelithini, reversing 200 years of tradition, ordered that all Zulu men circumcised.





The W.H.O. knows about the stopped trial and is not considering the KLamp, Mr. Warren said."





Oh thank heavens! They don't seem to be too concerned that non-authorized devices and circumcision methods are being used in their name, though.





One must wonder as to the relevance of the Zulu king anecdote; is the author more concerned with HIV prevention, or with "reversing 200 years of tradition?" This really shows you where his heart actually is.



Reed continues:

"Dr. Reed said he had heard that another device, Ali’s Klamp, was being tested in Kenya under protocols that seemed to match W.H.O. requirements. According to Circlist.com, a circumcision information Web site, it is a Turkish device dating to 2007, and works on principles similar to those of the Tara KLamp and another device, the SmartKlamp, approved by the F.D.A. in 2004."





For all intents and purposes, all of these devices are essentially the same. They all function under the exact same principle of cutting circulation off to the foreskin. The PrePex is simply a different design.





Now, I'd like to take the time to correct a horrific error that this article commits, and that is present circlist.com as a mere "cirumcision web site."





What is Circlist? What do they do?





The fact that Circlist is being used as a reference in this piece, even though it doesn't rely on them for any facts, demonstrates how uninterested the New York Times is in logic and ethics. The site’s inclusion with a direct link to it is absolutely shameful. What a sick, disgusting shame that Daniel McNeil Jr. of the New York Times has decided to quote them as any kind of reliable resource.



Circlist is a circumfetishist organization. A circumfetishist is someone who has a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, and/or derives sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself. The Circlist organization has a website and discussion group for men who sexually fantasize about performing and receiving circumcisions, often on small children. Circlist members openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision, to the point of being a sado-masochistic fetish. Circlist has been long known to intactivists as a meeting place for circumfetishists, where they discuss the erotic thrill they experience from watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction and non-fictional stories about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions. They are a fetishistic organization comparable to NAMBLA, and yet, here they are, being given credibility on the New York Times.The fact that Circlist is being used as a reference in this piece, even though it doesn't rely on them for any facts, demonstrates how uninterested the New York Times is in logic and ethics. The site’s inclusion with a direct link to it is absolutely shameful. What a sick, disgusting shame that Daniel McNeil Jr. of the New York Times has decided to quote them as any kind of reliable resource.

SHAME on you, Daniel McNeil Jr. for daring to give publicity to this sick, disgusting group in the New York Times.



On to the end:

"PrePex was cleared by the F.D.A. because it was judged “substantially equivalent” to the SmartKlamp, Ms. Fuerst said. Proving equivalence in safety to an approved device is the fastest way to get approval, she said..."





Which seems to be her actual main concern...





"...although the technology is quite different."





No, the technology is the same, and it's rather old.



And finally:

PrePex’s ultimate cost is still being negotiated with donor agencies and foundations, Ms. Fuerst said, but may end up in the $15-to-$20 range, about the same as a surgical circumcision kit.

Even IF we lent any credibility to the latest twaddle some people dare to call "science," we have got to ask, why is the solution always circumcision?

Is there any reason why the so-called "researchers" aren't looking for ways to deactivate Langerhans cells, as opposed to cutting them off?

Is there any reason why PrePex is not looking for non-destructive ways to prevent HIV transmission, and instead facilitating male circumcision which just happens to be a cherished tradition in their own country of origin?





How is it conscionable to be spending millions of dollars on the promotion of an alternative to the most conclusively effective mode of HIV prevention known to us?

Why aren't the WHO, PEPFAR, PrePex etc. worried at all that the promotion of male circumcision is going to result in the grossest of violation of the most basic of human rights?

Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or "research" is still genital mutilation.

It's all happened before. And it's all happening again. But this time, it happened in New York.Yes, it seems, that since the WHO used three dubious "studies" to endorse male genital mutilation as HIV prevention, circumcision advocates, each with their own different interests, have been looking for ways to promote so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" full speed ahead. PEPFAR and Bill Gates are in Africa bankrolling so-called "mass circumcision campaigns." These have started a race to come up with an efficient gadget that will speed up circumcision. Eager circumcision advocates are trying to use the WHO judgement to get medical organizations around the world to endorse the practice of infant circumcision, and to recuperate public funding which once paid for it. In Australia, circumcision enthusiast Brian Morris can't seem to keep quiet about getting the Royal Australian College of Physicians to endorse "mandatory circumcision" for all boys. In America, Arleen Leibowitz laments the fact that 17 states have stopped Medicaid funding for infant circumcision.All of this hullabaloo surrounding an eminent "scale-up" of circumcision seems to be focused on one concentrated purpose:In recent months, a number of news outlets have run what appears to be an infomercial for a circumcision device, namely the PrePex device, developed by Israeli inventors.A video version of the PrePex infomercial was published on the BBC , which wasn't even viewable to Britons. Perhaps the BBC knew that if Brits saw this ridiculous excuse for journalism there would be an outcry demanding an explanation. A few days later, a more dumbed down version of the infomercial was published on the Washington Post in news article form. The message and the purpose remained the same; to move the audience past the evidence (or lack thereof), and focus attention on "mass circumcision campaigns," and how the new PrePex device is the answer.The PrePex company has managed to get the New York Times to publish an infomercial for them, masquerading as a news article. This article goes a step further than its predecessors, however, as it is actually now calling circumcision, an amputative procedure, an actual "VACCINE."I am going to go through the entire article and highlight all the deliberate misinformation that the New York Times tries to pass off as fact.Hardly innovative, the PrePex is nothing more than a glorified tourniquet device. A number of other devices use the exact same principle of cutting off blood circulation to the foreskin, including the TaraKlamp , the Smartklamp , the Ismail Clamp , the Zhenxi Ring and the Shang-ring before it."Like a fingernail" is an attempt to trivialize the foreskin. Tie offpart of the body and it will shrivel up and die. Reader, ask yourself; when was the last time you had to cut off circulation in your fingernails before you had to cut them off?Let's continue with the article:This seems more like wishful thinking on the part of the author, and the circumcision advocates he is writing the plug piece for. In actuality, "assembly-line circumcision" has been going on in the US for a few decades now. And actually, as per the CDC , the practice is in decline. This, I believe, is the real cause for concern for advocates of circumcision in the so-called name of disease prevention.Moving on:A deliberate lie, mashed together with a half-truth. "Studies" have shown no such thing.Let us begin with this half-assed quantification of circumcision as a "vaccine." It needs to be made clear:It may be true that health "experts" (Experts? WHAT experts? Who are they?) are scrambling to find ways to spread circumcision, but there is absolutely no "study" in the world that can demonstrate that circumcision functions anything like a vaccine.The worn 60% figure is never addressed. 60% of what? What did the supposed "studies" actually show?The "studies" supposedly involved 10,908 men, 5,411 of which were circumcised, and 5,497 which were left intact as a "control" group. By the end of the studies, 201 men contracted HIV. The famous 60% figure we hear repeated over and over comes from the comparison of 137 intact men vs. 64 circumcised men who contracted HIV. This figure quickly shrinks to an insignificant 1.37% however, when we factor in the rest of the 10,707 men who didn't get HIV. Circumcision is being heavily promoted using a ridiculously inflated number, but the New York Times etc. are touting it as gospel truth.No, even if the "research" were correct, circumcision could not hold a candle to condoms.Additionally, real world empirical evidence fails to correlate with the WHO's select studies.Let's continue...Which raises a few questions. The WHO endorsed these "studies" since 2006, and campaigns such as Soka Uncobe have been blasting the message in Africa for at least a year now. "Those foreskins are flying," assured Robert Bailey in a past article on the very New York Times. If the programs are being so "successful," how is it that there are efforts to "streamline" circumcision? Have organizers thought of the possibility that they may never even reach one or two million men, let alone 20? That despite all of the "science" and "research" thrown at them, the men may not be interested in having part of their penis cut off? Have they thought of plan B? Have they envisioned a future where HIV might be prevented WITHOUT surgery? Why does it seem like organizers in Africa are more concerned about spreading circumcision, than they are about spreading HIV awareness, and education in the use of condoms, which, even according to "research" would far supersede it?Continuing:And why on earth would you need RELIGIOUS practitioners of circumcision? What is this effort ACTUALLY about? Aren't circumcision advocates even going to try to conceal their ulterior motives anymore?The questions continue. KNOWING that surgeons and doctors are in short supply, and that healthcare is needed elsewhere, how is it circumcision advocates insist on exhausting this limited supply? How is it they're not looking for less invasive methods of HIV prevention that are as effective, if not even more so than circumcision?The article continues:"Like a fingernail" is an attempt to trivialize the foreskin. Any part of the body will shrivel up and die if you cut off circulation to it. Unlike the foreskin, or any other part of the body, fingernails are a dead part of the body, and don't need to be tied off to cut off circulation before trimming them. The umbilical cord does not need to be tied off either, as it too is a dead part of the body which will eventually shrivel up and fall off on its own.If my presumptions are correct, she is the wife of Oren Fuerst, co-inventor of this device. Millions of men circumcised means that millions of PrePex devices will be bought and used. She's cashing in on the HIV gravy train, and that's why she's so enthused.Let's see, at 20,000,000 men, that's $300,000,000 at minimum, and $4,000,000,000 at most.For a useless, extraneous device looking for a purpose, not bad.Not bad at all.The "science" behind this massive effort to stuff circumcision down African people's throats is horrendously flawed. Why news outlets simply publish lies without questioning their validity is perplexing. A question that I keep encountering on the blogosphere is "Whatever happened to actual journalism?" But that's a different discussion for another blog post.Contrary to what is published here in the New York Times, there is actually no demonstrable scientific proof that the Langerhans cells "pick up viruses and "present" them to the immune system." But let's just assume just for a moment, that the claims were true. Let's just assume for a moment, that the Langergans cells, as they claim, "presents HIV to the immune system."Let's ask other questions. Assuming the Langerhans cells behave the way circumcision advocates claim, is there a reason why "researchers," PREPEX etc. aren't looking into FEMALE CIRCUMCISION? It is irrefutable scientific fact that Langerhans cells are found in the genital mucosa in BOTH sexes. If the Langerhans cells "facilitate" HIV transmission for men, then it would also do so for women. Circumcision, would only be offering "benefit" to men; women would still be vulnerable to the viral load in semen.Which raises the question:The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.Consider this: There would never be enough "science" or "research" to endorse the promotion of female circumcision to prevent ANYTHING.It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were made "painless," "bloodless," and it didn't affect a girl's sexuality. It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were performed in the clean environment of the hospital, by a trained professional, using pain killers and the most pristine, and most "advanced" utensils. Why do "researchers" grope for reasons to promote male circumcision?The day will come when anyone whoever endorsed this despicable human rights violation will be too embarrassed to ever admit that they did.May god have mercy on their souls.