Maravi

(ZIMEYE) Timothy Stamps rubbishes UN circumcision program

Timothy Stamps rubbishes UN circumcision program
By Tidi Kwidini
Published: July 24, 2012

President Robert Mugabe’s personal health advisor, and former cabinet Minister for Health, Timothy Stamps, has rubbished claims from a UN backed study that has concluded that male circumcision reduces HIV transmission.

Stamps’ comments come at a time when the country recently embarked on a massive government sponsored foreskin cutting crusade with the hope of lessening the chances of HIV/AIDS transmission. The crusade this year has also seen more than fifty of the country’s male MPs being compelled to go under the knife.

Stamps told a Standard journalist that it did not make any difference to the adult prevalence rate. He further stated that the studies undertaken on circumcision had shown that countries such as the US with a higher number of circumcised men had a high HIV prevalence rate.

“Instead of channelling funds towards circumcision, the money must be used to save pregnant mothers who die in huge numbers in this country,” he said.

Dr Timothy Stamps

“When we are losing 960 mothers for every 100 000 pregnancies, should circumcision be a priority?” Stamps added.

A careful study needed

But in response to an article published by ZimEye in May, a senior HIV specialist based in London, Dr Charles Mazhude issued a caution against the arguments being brought forward against circumcision saying a careful study should be conducted before practitioners recommend the contrary.

“The UN recommendations for circumcision are based on several published studies which have been peer reviewed. Amongst my fellow clinicians and specialists in the area of HIV/AIDS, circumcision remains recognised as one of several interventions that could reduce transmission rates. The Ministry of health therefore seems to have taken an evidence based stance in promoting this intervention,” Mazhude said.
“I totally agree that recommending the opposite requires a clear and careful analysis – confusing the message could be counterproductive,” he added.

Contradictions and Evidence

Some practitioners who are opposing circumcision like Dr Stamps are concerned about the behavioural effects circumcision could possibly have on society as opposed to the biological. They say the current circumcision drive, encourages illicit sexual behaviour which actually increases peoples’ chances of contracting HIV.

Dr Stamps’ views and arguments are suspected to be motivated by a study conducted by Boyle & Hill (2011) who have been castigated by scholars for allegedly undermining findings from three landmark randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that demonstrated both individually and collectively that male circumcision reduces an individual man’s risk of acquiring HIV by 60 percent.

The Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the basis of current UN Health recommendations which have been suggested to high HIV prevalent African countries like Zimbabwe.

According to Webster Mavu and Dr Joshua Dziba of the US based HIV AIDS Zimbabwe Charity(HAZ), Boyle & Hill (2011) maintain that circumcision diverts resources from other known preventive measures such as condoms (which are 80 percent protective).

Webster Mavu and Dr Dziba however, reveal that circumcision is being promoted in conjunction with condom promotion not instead of it. “When WHO/UNAIDS recommended that Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision(VMMC) be implemented in countries with high HIV but low MC prevalence, they made 10 other recommendations, which have policy and programmatic implications for rolling-out VMMC,” says Webster Mavu.

A number of issues are handled by HAZ in which they state their evidence and arguments that apart from just being implemented, circumcision must actually be accelerated. HAZ has issued this study paper now accessible from their website and titled “To circumcise or not to circumcise: That is the question.”

Though research has concluded that circumcision does not prevent chances of being infected by the HIV virus it reduces the likelihood by about approximately 60%, showing that there is still at least a 40% chance of acquiring HIV; and the arguments together with a search for the truth continue. (ZIMBABWE, ZimEye)

Labels: CIRCUMCISION, FRAUD, HIV/AIDS

posted by MrK @ 1:20 PM