Stopping government funded circumcision in the USA through DOGE?

JL0101 · 2025-02-21T12:35:51+00:00

I just heard some news that DOGE is cleaning up now with all kinds of unnecessary funding and other wastes of money, also looking into Medicaid next and even...

MAGA4SKIN24

OneManArmy

intact

OneManArmy

Lionize a cowardly assassin. Yeah, go with that.

DustyTrombone2

bjhjcfnm only the dumbest of the dumb still believe that. Only those that profit off the circumcisions usually selling the skin or people who think that Black people are literally subhuman. Africa has the highest percentage of circumcised men of any continent yet it also has by far the highest rate of HIV and other STDs. That bit of knowledge should answer anybody’s questions if not, then they’re racist

MAGA4SKIN24

DustyTrombone2

cflubbs

MAGA4SKIN24

This confuses me. Was her English husband circumcised? Or had she never seen her husband’s dick? To be so dumbfounded that your uncircumcised husband doesn’t want to cut his kid seems strange. But if he’s not circumcised, she would have learned about the truth by the time she was pregnant. I don’t know

MAGA4SKIN24

cflubbs

TheJediMan

OneManArmy

American right-wingers and British right-wingers are the worst people ever when it comes to the circumcision topic. They don’t let any other conversation in and focus solely on trans people. It’s fucking disgusting how hypocritical these assholes are and they get away with it. None of the big right-wing twitter/youtubers have ever bothered to make a video about it and most of them exploit David Reimers name to bash trans people.

OneManArmy

TheJediMan

Yep, all of the “child mutilation” talk from the right ALWAYS excludes circumcision from them and is a dog whistle to be anti-trans. Plus the whole power grab shit from DOGE and Trump. Simply put, I’d rather be circumcised than live under a Fascist regime that Trump is trying to make things. And I love my wiener.

DustyTrombone2

Candace Owens finally got something right:

OMG LOOK LOOK LOOK THE RIGHT WING IN AMERICA ARE THE ONES WHO ARE ANTI-CIRCUMCISION ONES!!!!

Look we get it. I think it’s great that people on both political sites in the United States are waking up to how awful circumcision is. The United States is politically way behind every other western industrialized country though. The fact that there are only two political parties and the left-wing party is center right tells you everything. If the United States wants to be taken seriously, it needs to take all of its money out of politics, and it needs to have instant runoff voting. I doubt that will happen anytime soon, but it looks to be destructing pretty quickly so maybe it will be pretty soon.

The fact remains though that blue states like California have the lowest rates of circumcision. Where as the most uneducated and most MAGA state, West Virginia, has the highest.

zigzag

intact yet every time you google it since 2007 WHO, UNAID, etc. Have been promoting circumcision and praising it for fighting aids. Multiple doctors push it constantly and multiple studies are done year after year praising it in africa. Funny how aids is still a problem in africa even though millions of males have been coerced to get mutilated. Americans are #1 supporting africa mutilation.

intact

zigzag

It’s the money.

That $10 million for Mozambique circumcisions? Like most of the USAID grants, the bulk of that money would have ended up in pockets in and around Washington, D.C.

California leads the nation in intactness for several reasons. It was one of the first (if not the first) states to remove RIC from the Medicaid reimbursement list. Private insurance followed.

Also, a heavily Mexican- and Latin-American population that has no tradition of RIC.

As for left-right politics, well, if you’re anti-RIC you’d be wise to make friends wherever you can find them. If RFK, Jr., proves instrumental in getting RIC out of Medicaid nationally, we will have Donald Trump to thank.

Bonemail666

neezduts*24896 Sorry, but these are the findings of systematic reviews of multiple randomized controlled trials. It is literally the highest quality of scientific evidence available. [Login to see the link]

Candace Owens is a serious contender for least credible person on Earth. I absolutely guarantee you she could not explain basic methods of science, or even basic rules of logical inference, if you put a gun to her head. And yet she has a confident opinion on every topic under the sun. If you intentionally raised a child to be an ignoramus you wouldn’t come close to what Candace has managed accidentally with her own brain.

neezduts*24896

Bonemail666 Wrong again my g you’re not looking at what I said, those studies looked at the places where there were tandem programs and while this type of study is considered amongbthe highest types of evidence its not a high level of evidence itself as cherrypicking is a thing, I can show you similar types of evidence pertaining to how sex supposedly feels better with a condom, or how FGM works against HIV and STD’s, etc. It is among the highest types of evidence we can produce, doesn’t mean it is always of high quality. There are UN WHO declarations in their INTERNAL MEMOS and similarly circulated guidelines that circumcision is ineffectual on their own and needs to be paired with another procedure to have a y effect, but then is its the other procedure or circumcision that has the effect then? Plus the UN WHO had also put out a statement regarding how HIV rates and injuries have gone up in areas where the program was administered due to the lack of SUPPORTIVE measures like safe sex ed and testing, and antiviral ability. Do not fall for their traps when they are inconsistent in an of itself.

Bonemail666

intact I’m sorry, but this is all inaccurate:

USAID’s voluntary medical male circumcision is not routine infant circumcision; the program [Login to see the link].

There is public accounting on how the money is spent – millions of circumcisions are performed every year across numerous African countries, at a cost of around $150 per procedure. That is where the bulk of the money is spent – at hospitals and clinics in these countries.

I am all for ending RIC, but voluntary circumcision in countries with 20% HIV prevalence is another story. As I say, the data indicates that circumcision reduces transmission by 60% – these are the findings of [Login to see the link], the absolute pinnacle of scientific evidence.

If your concern for children extends beyond than RIC, you should view RFK Jr. as one of the most dangerous people on Earth. In all of human history, no medical or public health intervention has saved more lives than vaccination, yet RFK is working to undo that progress.

cut-cocks-are-ugly

Bonemail666

Bonemail666 As I say, the data indicates that circumcision reduces transmission by 60%

Not to sound like a smartass, but you might wanna learn how percentages work, and also the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. Whenever someone claims something like “Blank reduces risk of blank by 50%, 80%, 200%,” etc., you need to ask the question of “50% of what? What’s the original number?” Sure, 50% sounds likes a lot, but not if it’s simply going from 0.5% to 0.25%, which is actually pretty much what we have going on with these figures.

They claim a 60% reduction (Which it doesn’t even reduce it by that much anyway, they just made that number up. And yes, researchers are allowed to lie about shit.), but it’s a 60% reduction of 2.5%, meaning that it only reduces your chance of contracting HIV from a measly 2.5% to a measly 1.2%… That’s only a difference of 1.3%… … … Yeah, that’s pretty insignificant… Not really worth chopping your dick up over, when you can just practice safe sex and avoid fucking people with AIDS.

Now, I mean this in the nicest way possible, please stop appealing to authority, stop trying to fearmonger, and stop believing in completely made up, fabricated, cherry-picked data. There are other things I could nitpick about what you said, but I’m really not trying to be hostile, and simply want to correct you.

Also, pic related: [Login to see the link]

zigzag

Bonemail666 The WHO, UNAID, etc. Is pushing RIC in africa. Google EIMC (early infant male circumcision) and you’ll see countries that has VMMC programs are trying to implement EIMC as well. This is always the case like in the US claiming its safer and cheaper then adult circumcision. That’s why I’m against this bs. Also VMMC is also targeted to adolescent ages 10 up not just 15 up. Doesn’t matter it’s sadly happening regardless what we believe didn’t really join a porn forum to argue circumcision in africa lol.

intact

Bonemail666 As I say, the data indicates that circumcision reduces transmission by 60% – these are the findings of [Login to see the link], the absolute pinnacle of scientific evidence.

You must love circumcision to believe that.

The double-blind, placebo-controlled study is the best humans have come up with.

In the case of circumcision, it’s already been done between the U.S. (experiment) and Europe (control). In fact, even better, it’s essentially triple-blind: We didn’t even know we were conducting an experiment.

Seventy years and hundreds of millions of circumcisions later, the STI and HIV stats for U.S. vs. Europe are virtually the same. That also applies to any other malady that circumcision is supposed to cure or prevent.

Circumcision is a boondoggle no matter whether its victim is an infant boy or grown man.

These Tuskegee-style experiments on poorly educated black people prove nothing.

JL0101

cut-cocks-are-ugly

that’s absolutely right! even if the 1,3% would be actually right, which I doubt, cause the number is so low, that there is surely a margin of error and there is probably no difference at all - it would still mean the Chance to get AIDS is only 1,3% points higher and that 60% is - while it is mathematically correct to say it that way - completely manipulative and would people believe it actually gives you a 60% protection, while a condom would be 99% or whatever. that is so wrong on so many levels and probably causes more HIV than if those people would have just been left alone.

Also: If you let them cut your foreskin off, in the best scenario you maybe reduce a HIV risk by questionable 1,3% points - but at the same time you get a (probably even higher) percentage of very serious complications like losing your whole cock, making it completely useless or even death. and in 100% of the cases you do end up with a mutilated penis that doesn’t have all its previous functions anymore, that’s for sure.

Bonemail666

What did I say that betrayed any confusion about relative risk? A 60% reduction in relative risk means that if 100 uncircumcised men would have acquired HIV, only 40 circumcised men would in the same conditions. This is a substantial effect at a population level– like [Login to see the link]

Using condoms and avoiding sex with HIV-infected partners is not alway an option in contexts where (e.g.) men often refuse because they find condoms reduce pleasure, or they’ve been fed misinfo about condoms spreading HIV, or where condoms are simply not available.

I’m appealing to multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of same – literally the furthest thing from an appeal to authority or fabricated/cherry-picked data.

By contrast, your image is obvious propaganda. Look at those bullet points - e.g., ‘trials were terminated early once statistical significance was reached.’ The trials were ended early because circumcision was found to be so effective that it would be unethical to retain a control arm where patients are not offered circumcision. And it contains blatant contradictions: one bullet point says, “Circumcised cohort could not copulate 4-6 weeks post-circumcision as the wound healed” Another says, “Circumcision offered no protection to women - increasing their risk as the wound healed” Which is it— is the healing period supposed to be increasing or decreasing risk transmission? In fairness, I can’t accuse you of appealing to an authority with this unattributed nonsense.

xevv

I have a link to a reddit thread that goes into detail in the whole HIV thing.

There’s links to several critiques of those studies from several authors, as well as dozens upon dozens of studies showing that circumcision doesn’t prevent any STDs. Articles from several local African news sources have suggested that circumcision hasn’t helped combat HIV rates. This was split into two comments, so you’ll have to click the link and view the replies.

I also have links to two more newer studies that have been published sometime after that comment was made, which show again that circumcision doesn’t prevent HIV:

[Login to see the link]

Also, I find it very odd that every systematic analysis almost exclusively cite the same studies from pre-2010 when almost every newer study has generally shown that circumcision doesn’t prevent STDs. Just saying.

JL0101

wow, that’s really some mental gymnastics here.

seems like some guys here rather have millions and millions of boys continuously and unnecessarily tortured and mutilated right after birth than god forbid having the wrong party doing something against it, if there is the chance.

so do you want to end this child abuse or is it more important to you that your “only left-wing politicians are against circumcision”-worldview doesn’t have a chance to get shaken up?

at least at this open window of opportunity everything that could be done to convince the current government that this shouldn’t be funded any longer should be tried - and if they still want to fund it, then you still can blame them for it and have 1 more reason to hate them.

Bonemail666

JL0101 Go back and read what I said: I did not say that we should support these projects in Southern Africa because the GOP supports them. I said that we should support them because, according the highest quality scientific evidence available, these projects have prevented >500,000 HIV infections.

xevv

intact I’d also like to add that the 60% figure is bullshit and [Login to see the link] is correct. The studies were ended early when data technically reached statistical significance, but they still haven’t reach clinical significance. Those studies still don’t quite have enough data to factor out margin of error.

This is talked about in the reddit thread I linked to.

And if I recall correctly, two of the African randomized trials lasted 2 years. One of them lasted 4 years. That’s actually pretty short, all things considered. Clinical trials normally take a decade or longer.

« Previous Page Next Page »