Joint Harvard/Berkeley policy paper says drop ABC, adopt male circumcision

The points made in this paper to be published in the journal Science, are simply incorrect. In short, they are the opposite of the truth in HIV prevention. The authors urge dropping the ABC approach in Africa and focusing on male circumcision and campaigns to encourage the reduction of sexual partners.

If anything, this academically dishonest diatribe on what the authors say doesn't work, particularly viz condoms, is evidence of the authors' own agenda to promote circumcision for its own sake. Their reasons can only be explained as a personal infatuation with the act itself.

It is amazing to me that leading schools such as UC-Berkeley and Harvard have been the locus of this activity. It makes a mockery of academic freedom when biased, dangerous, and scientifically unsupported agendas rise to the top of such institutions' efforts.

At what point do people like Halperin, Potts, and their cohorts cross the line into the camp of deniers of HIV as the cause of AIDS, 9/11 government conspiracy theorists, and other assorted circus clowns? The level to which these people are capturing the attention and imagination of real policy makers is reminiscent of the beet juice and vitamin policies of South Africa's health ministers during the 90s.

[Note: I've done some minor editing and adding throughout for clarity.]

And the media obsession with circumcision continues in the Times of London.

The BBC has picked up the story as well, adding this sensible quote, "Roger England, chair of small Grenada-based think tank, Health Systems Workshop, said too much is being spent on HIV compared with other diseases which kill more people.

"He said globally HIV causes 3.7% of mortality but received 25% of health aid."

Where is the coverage of the antidote to Halperin's hysteria as demonstrated in Future Medicine?

Link: 05.08.2008 - More focus needed for effective HIV prevention strategies in Africa, says new policy paper.

Comments

[Claire]

Why did Science Magazine publish this? The use of 3-cent condoms to decrease HIV transmission is both more effective per act and more cost effective than either male or female circumcision. Circumcision itself can be an entry point for the HIV virus into the patient , if equipment is not sterilized properly. This has been documented in young victims of FGM.

The surgical intervention offers NO PROTECTION to women, and at the same time reduces their negotiating power in requesting condoms.

In the short term, this publication will help Halperin et. al. score a few points toward tenure at their otherwise respected universities. In the long term, this premature and ill-considered suggestion is similar to the Tuskegee Experiment (USA, 1932-1972) but on a much larger scale.

[Joe]

It's hard to understand how such grossly misleading statements can be made like those in this article. It is as if they intend to undermine all the hard won progress made in Africa over the past 20 years. How can they say little progress has been made? How can they say that circumcision is the corner stone of prevention when circumcision can't stand on its own? Condoms can stand on their own. Being faith to your wife, girl friend, husband, or Boy Friend could stand on its own. What they are doing here boarders on criminal.

[SunkenShip]

Insane. It's clear that these men are in love with circumcision and could care less about the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Seriously, they chastise the abstinence policy and purport to replace with a policy that merely ENCOURAGES people to reduce their partners? What's the difference? One policy says don't have sex, and the other policy says have sex with only one person. Either way, many people are likely to not listen.

[IntactwhitemaleUSA]

I think these guys are getting desperate to keep their fetish going. Really, when their opinion (and that's all it is light of the facts) flies in the face of both reason and observation, it can't be too long until the whole sorry house of cards falls. Reasonable people can see through their motives if they are given enough time and facts to think this question through.
KEEP hammering the facts home, we can win this, KEEP GOING!