Worse, actually. Bear with me while I plow through these two seemingly off-topic abstracts:
Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse?
Stallings R.Y., Karugendo E.
Introduction: It has been postulated that female circumcision might increase the risk of HIV infection either directly, through the use of unsterile equipment, or indirectly, through an increase in genital lacerations or the substitution of anal intercourse. The authors sought to explain an unanticipated significant crude association of lower HIV risk among circumcised women [RR=0.51; 95% CI 0.38,0.70] in a recent survey by examining other factors which might confound this crude association.
Methods: Capillary blood was collected onto filter paper cards from a nationally representative sample of women age 15 to 49 during the 2004 Tanzania Health Information Survey. Eighty-four percent of eligible women gave consent for their blood to be anonymously tested for HIV antibody. Interview data was linked via barcodes to final test results for 5753 women. The chi-square test of association was used to examine the bivariate relationships between potential HIV risk factors with both circumcision and HIV status. Restricting further analyses to the 5297 women who had ever had sexual intercourse, logistic regression models were then used to adjust circumcision status for other factors found to be significant.
Results: By self-report, 17.7 percent of women were circumcised. Circumcision status varied significantly by region, household wealth, age, education, years resident, religion, years sexually active, union status, polygamy, number of recent and lifetime sex partners, recent injection or abnormal discharge, use of alcohol and ability to say no to sex. In the final logistic model, circumcision remained highly significant [OR=0.60; 95% CI 0.41,0.88] while adjusted for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer.
Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.
Introduction: Observational studies suggest that male circumcision could protect against HIV-1 acquisition. A randomized control intervention trial to test this hypothesis was performed in sub-Saharan Africa with a high prevalence of HIV and where the mode of transmission is through sexual contact.
Methods: 3273 uncircumcised men, aged 18-24 and wishing to be circumcised, were randomized in a control and intervention group. Men were followed for 21 months with an inclusion visit and follow-up visits at month 3, 12 and 21. Male circumcision was offered to the intervention group just after randomization and to the control group at the end of 21 month follow-up visit. Male circumcisions were performed by medical doctors. At each visit, sexual behavior was assessed by a questionnaire and a blood sample was taken for HIV serology. These grouped censored data were analyzed in an “intention to prevent” univariate and multivariate analysis using the piecewise survival model, and relative risk (RR) of HIV infection with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was determined.
Results: Loss to follow-up was <11%; <1% of the intervention group were not circumcised and < 2% of the control group were circumcised during the follow-up. We observed 45 HIV infections in the control group and 15 in the intervention group, RR=2.77 (95% CI: 1.56 4.91; p=0.0005). When controlling for sexual behavior, including condom use and health seeking behavior, the RR was unchanged: RR=2.93 (p=0.0003).
Conclusions: Male circumcision provides a high degree of protection against HIV infection acquisition. Male circumcision is equivalent to a vaccine with a 63% efficacy. The promotion of male circumcision in uncircumcised males will reduce HIV incidence among men and indirectly will protect females and children from HIV infection. Male circumcision must be recognized as an important means to fight the spread of HIV infection and the international community must mobilize to promote it.
Auvert, B., et al. “Impact of male circumcision on the female-to-male transmission of HIV.” 3rd IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment. 2005.
The HIV prevalence in Tanzania is about 5% ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Tanzania ), which, when combined with the 0.60 odds ratio for FGM in the first study, results in a relative risk of 0.61. But since the “risk factor” in the first study is the presence of GM while the risk factor in the 2nd study is defined to be the absence of GM, the two numbers measure reciprocal quantities. Taking the reciprocal of the RR of the first study results in a RR (HIV assuming not being GM’d) of 1.64.
Translation: MGM as practiced by western medical doctors in sub-Saharan Africa vs FGM as practiced in Tanzania has about twice the impact on HIV incidence in the GM victim.
Forgetting for a moment the confounding cultural correlates involved in this research, why does it matter? Obviously I’m not promoting genital mutilation or pleasure deprivation of either gender. Emotional alienation and lack of pleasure accounts for a hell of a lot that’s wrong with this world. See http://violence.de/ to understand the detailed neurological science behind that statement. That people actually need PhD scientists to tell them this patently obvious truth is a measure of our mental colonization, as is the NIH’s initial funding and subsequent censorship of this research. The fact that pleasure and love are what makes life worth living doesn’t have to be delineated and statistically dissected to be obvious to a child, at least a non-abused and neglected child. The obtuseness of American culture in this regard only reflects our own state/medically dominated upbringing.
I’m posting this (by now ancient) news to illustrate several things: for one, the continuing obscurity of this information demonstrates the effect of cultural bias in blinding Americans and American medical “authorities” to the anatomical (and thus the moral and ethical) similarities between MGM and FGM. But more to the point, if twice the amount of immunological cellular phenotypes (langerhans cells, the genital portals to HIV infection) are amputated in MGM, the strong implication is that twice the number of erogenous cells are also being trashed. The cells that morph into the genitals originate from the same fetal cells with the same phenotypical characteristics (immunological and neurological) before the fetus becomes gendered. If there are X number of erogenous nerves per langerhans cell in some small region of the inner labia, for instance, the same ratio holds in the corresponding region of the male foreskin. Topologically, the clitoral foreskin and inner labia would seem to correspond to structures in the inner male foreskin which were finally publicly admitted to exist by the medical establishment when they were mapped out and published in 1999 in the British Journal of Urology ( http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/ ) while the outer labia and surrounding skin map to the outer male foreskin and scrotum. The glans clitoris maps to the glans penis. Here’s a visual illustration to drive the point home:
The strong implication of all this is that neurologically, to the extent that 1) the distribution of langerhans cells tracks the distribution of erogenous neurons or is at least not inverse to it and 2) HIV susceptibility is proportional to the number of langerhans cells exposed to sexual fluids, MGM as practiced by American medicine amputates about twice the number of erogenous nerves as FGM type II (the dominant form of FGM in Tanzania), otherwise known as “excision”. Neurologically, medical MGM is analogous to infibulation without the amputation of the glans clitoris or sewing the wound shut. The only remnant of the sensory-rich epithelial tissue in a circumcised penis is the band of scar tissue between the base of the glans and the beginning of the normal outer skin which covers most of the shaft of the penis.
Not surprisingly, the absence of the frictionless gliding and (more easily accessible) multi-orgasmic functions of the male foreskin also has an adverse impact on female sexual enjoyment. http://cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
But it gets better: MGM significantly increases vaginal abrasion and it turns out that intact epithelial vaginal tissue is an effective barrier to M->F HIV transmission:
Lancet. 2009 Jul 18;374(9685):229-37. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60998-3.
Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised controlled trial.
Observational studies have reported an association between male circumcision and reduced risk of HIV infection in female partners. We assessed whether circumcision in HIV-infected men would reduce transmission of the virus to female sexual partners. …
The trial was stopped early because of futility. 92 couples in the intervention group and 67 couples in the control group were included in the modified ITT analysis. 17 (18%) women in the intervention group and eight (12%) women in the control group acquired HIV during follow-up (p=0.36). Cumulative probabilities of female HIV infection at 24 months were 21.7% (95% CI 12.7-33.4) in the intervention group and 13.4% (6.7-25.8) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 0.62-3.57; p=0.368). …
Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months, and transmission risk may be increased with early post-surgical resumption of intercourse. Longer-term effects could not be assessed. Post surgical sexual abstinence and subsequent consistent condom are essential for HIV prevention. …
Translation: MGM increased M->F HIV transmission by 60% at 24 months. Despite the authors’uncertain interpretation, the increased risk of M->F transmission from MGM is likely to be enduring because of the abrasion factor created by MGM:
Parameters of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection of Human Cervical Tissue and Inhibition by Vaginal Virucides doi: 10.1128/JVI.74.12.5577-5586.2000 J. Virol. June 2000 vol. 74 no. 12 5577-5586
Abstract: Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the most frequent mode of infection worldwide. However, the immediate events between exposure to infectious virus and establishment of infection are still poorly understood. This study investigates parameters of HIV infection of human female genital tissue in vitro using an explant culture model. In particular, we investigated the role of the epithelium and virucidal agents in protection against HIV infection. We have demonstrated that the major target cells of infection reside below the genital epithelium, and thus HIV must cross this barrier to establish infection. Immune activation enhanced HIV infection of such subepithelial cells.
Furthermore, our data suggest that genital epithelial cells were not susceptible to HIV infection, appear to play no part in the transfer of infectious virus across the epithelium, and thus may provide a barrier to infection. …
The net effect of MGM on HIV prevalence in a population is probably best illustrated by the USA itself, which has the highest rate of HIV among the 25 most developed countries and the second-highest rate of MGM (second only to Israel) in the industrialized world. http://members.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/MGM/HIV_Developed_Nations.txt
Israel is a special case wrt to HIV because of its narrow ethnicity and restrictive immigration policies. But for completeness, it is #12 in the above list. Also for completeness, here is a list of the 15 most sexually promiscuous western industrialized countries (OECD countries with populations over 10m): https://web.archive.org/web/20111011162807/http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article5257166.ece The USA is #6 in promiscuity. Clearly, one could say that at best, MGM is not an effective measure against HIV. But in terms of overall STD infection rates, the USA is “among the highest in the industrialised world”: http://www.bmj.com/content/317/7173/1616.3.full
A more thorough treatment of MGM and HIV utilizing older data can be found here: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
Note that American medicine is alone in the world in perpetuating this forced sacrificial ritual as a routine medical practice. Furthermore, the medicalization of MGM has made a science of it, with substantially more erogenous nerves being amputated than with a typical religious MGM.
But it gets even better still. It turns out that the primary infection vector for HIV in Africa probably has nothing to do with sex at all. It has to do with western medical “charitable” vaccination campaigns:
Unsafe healthcare “drives spread of African HIV”
Since the 1980s most experts have assumed that heterosexual sex transmitted 90% of HIV in Africa. In the March International Journal of STD and AIDS, an international team of HIV specialists presents groundbreaking evidence to challenge this consensus, with “profound implications” for public health in Africa.
In a series of articles, Dr David Gisselquist, Mr John Potterat and colleagues argue that the spread of HIV infections in Africa is closely linked to medical care. In their unique study of existing data from across the continent they estimate that only about a third of HIV infections are sexually transmitted. Their evidence suggests that “health care exposures caused more HIV than sexual transmission”, with contaminated medical injections being the biggest risk. …
What’s especially remarkable about this medically-induced holocaust is that the WHO knew exactly what would happen and they did it anyway:
What do the Gates foundation and other “aid” organizations that fanatically promote MGM in Africa have to say about all this? Nothing, because the agenda has nothing to do with reducing HIV receptor sites in men. If the world’s financial elites were concerned with preventing disease and mortality in Africa they could simply refrain from looting African economies into genocidal destitution, ( http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2017/05/video-war-by-other-means/ http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2015/08/confessions-of-an-economic-hitman-john-perkins/ ) something they obviously have no intention of doing.
Genital mutilation of either gender is about reducing EMOTIONAL receptor sites to prevent the formation of the primal bond that perpetuates our existence and empowers our families’ love and resistance to external domination. It is a tool of mass subjugation and social control dating back at least to ancient egypt, where circumcision was the mark of slaves, because imprinting helplessness, terror and primal betrayal on children and weakening the bonds of future marital stability, the human capacity for ecstatic union and the resultant will to resist oppression are useful first steps in demoralizing, disempowering, atomizing and controlling human communities and, in the modern day, allowing corporate parasites to harvest the economic hemorrhage resulting from broken and outsourced substitutes for human relationships and mutual support, such as fast food, day care, multiple housing units and furnishings from marital separation and divorce, two working parents, increased medical expenses from stress and poorer health and nutrition, more car and transportation expenses, fewer inhouse repairs leading to more purchases etc. All made possible with interest-bearing bank loans and and carrying associated insurance policies and government taxes and fees. We are being herded and sheared like sheep. In that respect, America is far more colonized than Africa ever was. But they’re working on it.
The War on Empathy, Love and Family
The War on Sex