MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
Writer seriously questions HIV study recommendations -10 June 2000
In response to study by Robert Szabo and Roger V Short published in the British Medical Journal.
I would like to comment on the article "How does male circumcision protect against
HIV infection?" by Robert Szabo and Roger V. Short.
I find the conclusions reached by these Australian researchers incredible. It is
difficult to believe that intelligent individuals would reach such preposterous
conclusions that mass circumcisions would eliminate or prevent a variety of diseases
including the spread of the HIV virus.
It is clearly another study designed to promote and legitimize circumcision. It is an
attempt to save the albatross of which so many males have become victims over the
decades. The practice of circumcision is rapidly declining and falling into disrepute.
The end of this dehumanizing and barbaric practice is long overdue.
One can only conclude that the study is a catharsis providing the authors with a
means to vindicate their own circumcision. Intact males do not have the need to
validate their wholeness.
Perhaps the authors of the study would state why they did not carry out their study
in the USA or Israel where the majority of men are circumcised. Why didn't they
research why circumcision has not prevented the spread of AIDS in these two
countries? And if it did, how great an effect did it have?
Recently, the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta stated that the USA had the
greatest rate of increase and most rapid spread of AIDS in the developed nations,
surpassing many European countries where circumcision rates are only a fraction of
what they are in the USA. Several studies in the state of New York and a recent
study done by the University of Chicago found no correlation between the spread of
AIDS and circumcision.
Several years ago, an Israeli newspaper reported that a hooker spread AIDS to
thousands of men, in Israel where most men are circumcised. Circumcision should
have prevented large numbers of these men from getting the AIDS virus, as we are
told by the Australian researchers. Perhaps the researchers would explain why
circumcision hasn't prevented the spread of AIDS in Israel, if circumcision is such an
important factor, as we are lead to believe? Would not warning males to take
precautionary measures be more effective and logical?
Do Robert Szabo and Roger Short really believe that millions of males should be
circumcised and lose vital erogenous tissue in order to prevent a few cases of AIDS?
Are they suggesting that all teenage or adult males will be promiscuous, become
drug users or engage in practices which may put them at risk of contacting AIDS?
Males who engage in practices which put them at risk - in whatever situation - are
aware of the risks that they are taking. If they are not, would not logic dictate that
an effective education program is more desirable than mass amputations?
We are plagued by studies which seek to legitimize circumcision. For years we were
told that circumcision would prevent prostate cancer. Today it is the second leading
cause of death in Canada and the USA. Circumcision would prevent penile cancer,
we were told. Today statistics in the USA have shown that penile cancer is an age
related disease and is also found in circumcised men even though they were
circumcised as infants. Urinary tract infections are deadly for males, but easily
treated in females. These are just a few examples of scare tactics used to persuade
parents into circumcising their sons. All very convincing - but none of them
legitimate.
For more than a century males have become victims of a practice for which there
were plenty of excuses - but no valid medical reasons. It is not circumcision which
needs to be studied, but rather the advocates of circumcision and why their desire
to mutilate another's genitals never ceases.
We live in a civilized and democratic society where most of us have the intelligence
to decide what is in our own best interests. If we decide to engage in practices
which may put our lives at risk - so be it . How many decisions are these researchers
prepared to make on our behalf? How many body parts need to be amputated? We
do not need some totalitarian grand daddy researchers making decisions for us.
In a democracy each individual has the right to choose what he wants to do with
his/her own body, not Robert Szabo nor Roger Short.
Sincerely,
John Sawkey
Retired teacher/ principal. Currently Editor and Publisher