Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni warned against using male circumcision as a safe-guard against HIV infections:
PRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni has cautioned Ugandans not to consider male circumcision as the remedy and automatic control of HIV/AIDS infection.
He said messages promoting the practice were misguiding and may put the lives of many people in danger since it had not been proven to be scientifically true.
He said if male circumcision was the answer to HIV prevention, then Ugandans who conduct circumcision as a traditional belief or a religious practice would not contract the disease.
He, however, said there is proof that these people had contracted HIV and the disease prevails in their communities.
The President emphasised abstinence from premarital sex and faithfulness in marriage as the guarantee to a life free from HIV.
Museveni makes a great point: if circumcision prevented HIV in any way, then men already circumcised should never contract the disease. Yet that is not the case. In the United States, at least 70% of males are circumcised, yet a large number of men contracted the disease. Likewise, many African nations practice male circumcision, yet the rates of HIV and AIDS in Africa are incredibly high.
That alone should disprove the “science” showing that circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS, particularly since the “science” is based on an incomplete study. The circumcised men were recently circumcised and could have simply abstained from sex while the uncircumcised men continued to have unprotected sex. The study was stopped once the preliminary data showed a difference in the HIV acquisition rate between the two groups, apparently without any attempt to determine why that occurred. Instead, the researchers declared that circumcision prevents HIV, which prompted several countries to consider mandating circumcision.
There simply is no evidence supporting the theory that circumcision decreases the chances of getting, let alone preventing, HIV or AIDS. Indeed, the same scientists arguing for mass circumcision continually state that men and boys will still need to use condoms because circumcision does not protect against other STDS. It seems rather odd that circumcision could prevent only one type of STD. However, in men and boys still need condoms, why circumcised them at all? Circumcision does not make condoms any more effective than they already are.
Hopefully people will attempt to replicate the “results” of the incomplete study rather than just keep citing it. Perhaps if they test it themselves and see there is no real difference, then maybe fewer people would advocate mutilating boys and men solely for the purpose of protecting women from HIV and AIDS.