President Clinton's Event Disrupted by Anti-Circumcision Activists

Great comments all! Thanks Marc A.That's me, 2nd from the right, holding hands with Anthony Losquadro from Intaction.org - It was an honor to meet and protest with Anthony, David, Rob, Kevin, George, Nick, and Adam. Watch my story on video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvkSWUvTQXs

http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2012/10/open-letter-to-congress.html

http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2012/06/letter-to-us-global-aids-coordinator.html

http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2012/02/letter-to-joyce-foster.html

http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2011/01/domestic-violations-of-international.html

«... because this brutally harmful atrocity has seen such widespread and systematic practice in the United States of America, it truly fits the definition of a “Crime Against Humanity” as defined by the Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum, which defines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute recognizes rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, "or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" as crime against humanity if the action is part of a widespread or systematic practice.»

It seems all the population is misleaded by USA and the largest orgnizations such as U:N and Gates foundation.

There will be a strong chance of people around the world dropped their trust and confident into this organization, including Microsoft as they are promoting Jewism into Globalization.

So these organizations in a position to revisit their negative approaches, to keep their trustworthiness.

It's absurd that they are promoting circumcision to stop HIV instead of heavily focusing on CONDOMS, the only concept that's highly effective at stopping HIV. It's a enormous waste of US tax payer's money to promote circumcision to stop HIV, it's little more than cosmetic surgery. We need to educate the people of Africa about SAFE SEX and promote Condom use.

"Today's medical establishment generally supports circumcision, arguing that it has preventive effects for penile cancer and other diseases..."

This statement is misleading.

The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world, not even the AAP, recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

If you read the AAP statement, while they do claim "the benefits outweigh the risks," they also conclude that "the benefits are not great enough to recommend circumcision."

Shirking responsibility and placing the onus on naive parents isn't exactly the same as "support."

It is fallacious to expect lay parents to examine the same body of evidence, and come up with a more reasonable conclusion than that of entire organizations of medical professionals.

It is medically fraudulent that parents are being allowed to make a "choice" that is inconsistent with the conclusions of entire organizations of medical professionals, that doctors pretend that they can comply with such a "choice," and that public coffers are expected to reimburse them.

This is good news. Quit promoting mutilation of male genitals and get your head out of the sand. The more you know about the procedure, the more you are against it. Same goes for female genital mutilation and inter-sexed.

The mass circumcision campaign is both ridiculous and disgraceful. Adding to the horror of multitudes of Africans being fooled by the lies, circumcision is now being promoted on helpless infants. The American Academy of Pediatrics has foolishly bought into the flawed studies. The AAP's haste and religious bias has resulted in the most disgusting violation of human rights imaginable. Physicians are now being convinced to disregard their oath to do no harm and proceed with the torture of infants by forcing them to endure the permanent amputation of a functional part of their reproductive system. US parents are being fed lies and misconceptions, doctors are making big money, cosmetics companies are using foreskins for their products, infants are dieing at 117-230 per year from penile mutilation and millions of men are being robbed of their sex lives as nature intended. Shame on those who promote this madness.

I am SO happy to see this protest.  What absolute hypocrisy coming from the Clintons.  THANK YOU, intactivists.  Studies by the U.S. military find "circumcision" (genital mutilation) has NO effect on HIV.  Those studies in Africa were flawed and done by doctors who had an incentive to promote the procedure.  Dr. Dean Edel and numerous others have disputed those findings.  Search Dr. Dean Edell circumcision. 

The African circumcision studies are highly flawed and did not track the source of infection. Without this information, it cannot be said honestly whether circumcision had any effect on HIV transmission. The numerous biases inherent in the studies also were not adjusted for. About half the males became HIV positive without reporting sexual activity or with 100% use of condoms. Therefore, the studies prove nothing. Even if they were properly done, only a 1.3% absolute risk reduction was shown and this is clinically meaningless.  Studies in developed countries do not show any benefit to circumcision and actually show that HIV is more likely to occur in circumcised males. Mass circumcision campaigns in Africa are a dangerous distraction and a complete waste of U.S. taxpayers money. Provide clean water, healthy food, adequate health care, jobs, condoms, etc. first. Shame on the Clinton Foundation, Gates Foundation, etc. for not properly looking in detail at all the science, the ethics, and the motivation of the people promoting mass circumcision.

The African circumcision studies are highly flawed and did not track the source of infection. Without this information, it cannot be said honestly whether circumcision had any effect on HIV transmission. The numerous biases inherent in the studies also were not adjusted for. About half the males became HIV positive without reporting sexual activity or with 100% use of condoms. Therefore, the studies prove nothing. Even if they were properly done, only a 1.3% absolute risk reduction was shown and this is clinically meaningless.  Studies in developed countries do not show any benefit to circumcision and actually show that HIV is more likely to occur in circumcised males. Mass circumcision campaigns in Africa are a dangerous distraction and a complete waste of U.S. taxpayers money. Provide clean water, healthy food, adequate health care, jobs, condoms, etc. first. Shame on the Clinton Foundation, Gates Foundation, PEPFAR etc. for not properly looking in detail at all the science, the ethics, and the motivation of the people promoting mass circumcision. Circumcision prevents nothing except normal sexual function. Africans are not lab rats, they are people. Infants are persons who deserve the right to bodily integrity.

"Today's medical establishment generally supports circumcision"? Let me quote this statement from Germany’s official Paediatric Association, the Berufsverband der Kinder- und Jugendärtze (BVKJ): "The statement from AAP (DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-1989 Pediatrics; originally published online August 27, 2012) cited over and over again, contradicts earlier statements from the same organisation, without the necessity of referringto new research results. Since then, this AAP statement as been graded by almost all other paediatric societies and associations worldwide as being scientifically untenable."

The real problem in Africa is the failure of African men to keep their pants zipped.  Rape is almost a way of life, there.   In a South African poll 30% of the women reported having been raped, often multiple times.  27% of the men reported having raped women and girls, and even infants.  Again ...the first rape is seldom the last.   This is why African women comprise 60% of all AIDS cases.

PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, plans to spend up to 3 BILLION dollars circumcising Africans ... 80 million males by the year 2025.  Originally the plan's goal was "Volunteer Medical Male Circumcision" VMMC, but more recently PEPFAR has begun concentrating on mutilating the genitals of intant males ... at a rate of 3,000,000 infants every year.  The only voice those children have in this lurid affair is screams of pain.

"Today's medical establishment generally supports circumcision,..."
This is not true. Outside the US, medical associations such as the Royal Australasian College of Physicians are somewhat negative, and some such as the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) condemn it outright. Even the AAP falls short of recommending it (and it cherrypicks studies and ignores their findings).
"... arguing that it has preventive effects for penile cancer..."
Penile cancer is one of the rarest of cancers, being even rarer than male breast cancer. It strikes mainly old men who have neglected their hygiene and probably smoked. The AAP's circumcision policy says it is an abnormal (phimotic) foreskin, not a normal one, that contributes to penile cancer, which is actually more common in circumcised men than non-phimotic intact men. The use of "penile cancer" as an excuse for male circumcision is shroud-waving.
"...and other diseases."
- which are rare, of late onset, and/or readily prevented by other means or treated as they occur.

Chelsea Clinton is right that circumcision and condoms are not mutually exclusive, but: -
* Circumcision can only have any effect when condoms are not used, and condoms alone are far more effective than circumcision alone.
* Men are abandoning condoms because they think circumcision has made them immune, and because it has made them less sensitive. Circumcising men makes it harder for women to insist on condoms - it disempowers women, something Clinton says he is against.
* Circumcision offers no protection to women against the much greater risk of infection by men, and one study (by Wawer, et al. in Uganda) started to show that circumcising men may INCREASE the risk to women, but that was cut short before it could be confirmed.

Not only do country-against-country comparisons fail to show circumcision protects men against HIV, so do much stronger man-against-man comparisons: in 10 out of 18 countries for which USAID has figures, more of the circumcised men have HIV than the non-circumcised. The survey was done twice in Zimbabwe, before and after a circumcision campaign began, with the same result (more HIV in the circumcised) both times.

Briefly the problems with the three African trials include: -
* safe-sex warnings for the experimental (circumcised) groups that the control (non-circumcised) groups did not get, resulting in shorter sexually active time and more condom use by the experimental groups
* several times as many men lost from study, their HIV status unknown, than were known to be infected (and finding you were HIV+ after a painful and marking operation you'd been told would protect you would be a strong incentive to leave)
* no contact-tracing, and hence no evidence that transmission was actually (hetero)sexual, while "medical" transmission is a serious problem in Africa.

The reason all these wealthy people are giving money to promote this crap is that they know Circumcision is dying and they want to keep it going so they can feel good about there circ.... 

1- What is Clinton doing with Secret Service? Isnt that supposed to fully end, 10 years after the "President" left office?  If so, is he paying their salaries? Does Former President Jimmy Carter, still have Secret Service? As a tax payer, I dont think anyone should get any extra "lifelong" perks, when they leave office (excluding the 10 year Secret Service for the Former President) 

2- If Clinton is supporting a pro-circ stance, he should prove his is circ'd and if not, should be forced to under go the procedure, as BABIES, go through it, no anestisia.....

3- As others have mentioned, the "Real" study is the USA, the highest Circ rates, and the highest HIV rates... Make Clinton talk his way out of that one !

Either wear a condom or mutilate your genitals. You'd think it'd be a no brainer.

Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the biggest scandal of the controversy. In both instances the most sensitive and most erogenous zone of the human body is amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, what counts primarily is the cutting of human sexuality. The imposition of control by the patriarchy.  A good look at a book on embryology will show the development of the nerves and tissue and how they are the same.

What is lacking in all the talk about circumcision is discussion of its archeological dimension - that it is the left over of human sacrifice. What kind of god is it that demands that of an infant? If the Bris constitutes the identity of the male, what about the identity of a Jewish girl? Or is this an entirely homosexual ceremony?


  Also, unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the “blood libel.” Thus, it's time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? that traumatizesthe child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the clitoris,and only serves the UltraOrthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here  a link to an archive of the entire German and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn's two pieces  . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever.
 
http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html

http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/10/michael-wolffsohns-foreskin-of-heart.html
  
http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name

            

Bravo Anthony Losquadro, Barefoot Intactivist and all who speak truth to power. Your voices will continue to be heard around the world until the violent assault on children known euphemistically as "circumcision" is understood.

The medical community has never investigated the long-term outcomes to men from circumcision imposed on them as children. The Global Survey of Circumcision Harm (www.CircumcisionHarm.org) documents these adverse physical, sexual, psychological and emotional outcomes. Human rights violations occur when: a) circumcision is imposed on a child with a perfectly normal penis who is too young to understand, consent or escape the surgical alteration; and b) flawed studies are used in public campaigns to coerce adults to undergo this form of genital cutting.

How can Clinton not see that most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth?  In half of African nations it is the CIRCUMCISED who have markedly higher HIV incidence.  

The Experiment has been ongoing for more than 50 years.  The results are in.  Cut men (men that have had parts of their p@nis cut off as a baby) get HIV and STDS at a higher rate -- natural (intact) EU has much lower HIV and STD rate than cut US.

Africa provides similar real world data from the ongoing genital mutilation campaign.  In Uganda, since they started cutting men's genitals, new infections have increased by 11.5 per cent between 2007/8 and 2010/11.  “The HIV prevalence rate among circumcised males between the ages of 15 and 49 in Zimbabwe is higher than that of the uncircumcised male" after a Bill Gates funded circumcision drive.  This is use of a great deal of money for loss of pleasure and a wounding of men with no health advantage.

As to the condom issue, the knowledge of the p@nis cutting affecting sexual pleasure, sensation  and function goes back years.  There is NO IF as to SEXUAL HARM, it is a matter of HOW BAD IS IT for any particular man.  Male genital cutting leads to less use of condoms.