Wednesday, June 25, 2008

AIDS ambulance-chaser fears losing lucrative boondoggle; wants your foreskin now

jun 25th, 2008

a lot of people have been making money by exaggerating the impact of AIDS in india, and none more so than this christist female.

it was truck drivers she blamed first, and now it is call center guys. how about a better source: drug-abusing christist-fundie nagas and khasis from the northeast?

she and other christist religio-medical entrepreneurs got a lot of funds from various sources by shouting "aids is coming! aids is coming", but this is now tailing off, so new tactics are needed.

their projections of an AIDS epidemic in india have been shown to be highly exaggerated. no doubt there are cases, but far fewer than these alarmists suggested.

now suniti solomon wants your foreskin. i find the christist obsession with foreskins hilarious, no doubt a vestige of the alleged jesus christ's 18 alleged foreskins, including the one that was given as a 'wedding ring' to 'saint' catherine.

or maybe there is actual money to be made from it these days.


Dr S Solomon, an India-based AIDS "expert" with extensive Western funding and
connections ( ), at an
international conference (see report below) reported a rise in promiscuity and,
therefore (no facts, only anecdotal "confessions"), of AIDS amongst young
Indians. She advocated male circumcision as "the only tool" to deal with this
and emphatically blamed "Hindu fundamentalists" as coming in the way.

First, the efficacy of male circumcision as an anti-AIDS tool is still very
controversial (see extracts below).

Secondly, a measure that is far from having been accepted in the West as an
anti-AIDS tool is being touted internationally by a West-funded agent as "the
only tool" for India. Why?

Thirdly, any resistance to this tool is being ascribed by her internationally to
"Hindu-majority" India. Why?

Female circumcision as an anti-AIDS measure, for which there appears to be some
qualitatively comparable data, is being recommended neither by Dr Solomon (a
woman) nor by any Western women themselves nor by Western agencies. Why not?

Dr Solomon is "fine" with increasing sexual promiscuity in India because it a
"recent liberal value". Do her medico-pharma-commercial Western donors advocate
increasing sexual promiscuity in their own countries? She seems to think
abstinence is "conservative" and so "hampers" the only anti-AIDS tool she
advocates for India - male circumcision. Why?

It may be noted that male circumcision in India will necessarily be of Hindus
(Muslims are circumcised at birth), and never mind that "it is likely to do more
harm than good". And though Dr Solomon declares at an international forum that
"Vaccines have failed. Microbicides have failed", she continues to work for -
and get paid by? -Western agencies experimenting with vaccines and microbicides
in India. Why?
It is easy to blame, as Dr Solomon does, "Hindu-majority India" for obstructing
Western medico-pharma-commercial initiatives to save ourselves from a scourge
that ravages the West, but Hindus, with long experience of rapacious Western
colonialism, are certainly entitled to examine the teeth of Western gift horses.

When we learn there is an enormously lucrative and growing demand for human
foreskins in Western markets with huge profits to be reaped by the West
(, it is a reasonable
inference that Western commercial interests and their agents in India see
millions of uncircumcised Hindu males as a harvest ripe for the cutting.


extracts from :

"The multi-country Mishra study concluded that circumcision may actually
increase transmission of the AIDS virus, however, which is what many earlier
studies found. The Brewer Study published in March, 2007, also concluded that
circumcision in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania increases the transmission of

"Has America's high rate of male circumcision helped prevent HIV/AIDS in the

The United States has one of the highest rates of male circumcision and also one
of the highest rates of HIV infection in the developed world, suggesting that
circumcision is not helping. Conversely, Finland and Japan have some of the
lowest rates of circumcision and also some of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS. In
Australia, the AFAO has now concluded that male circumcision has no role in the
Australian HIV epidemic."

"If a fully informed consenting adult feels that circumcision is right for him,
then that's a personal choice he should be allowed to make. In practice, though,
most circumcisions are forced onto others against their will, and even voluntary
adult circumcision is likely to do more harm than good. "


"Infant circumcision in the US is largely covered by health insurance. It
declined rapidly in the UK after the National Health Service was set up in 1947,
and doctors delivering babies were no longer able to charge extra for doing

The International Coalition for Genital Integrity's Medicaid Project surveyed
all US states in 1999, and was able to account for 181,292 circumcisions costing
a total of $20,255,217. According to HCIA-Sachs, Medicaid funded a total of
310,403 circumcisions, implying a total cost to the US taxpayer approaching

Intactivists commonly claim that greedy doctors promote infant circumcision for
purely financial reasons. There is clear evidence for this. The same survey
found that where Medicaid paid more than $US60, circumcision was nearly twice as
likely as where it paid less than $US50......But the financial incentive to
circumcision is not only from the payments for the operation. The foreskin
itself is valuable....."


"It's taken the Muslim world a couple of decades, but people in leadership
positions have started to tackle the reality of HIV/AIDS among Muslim
populations......`Islam and Muslims exacerbate the spread of AIDS,' said
Professor Amina Wadud of Virginia Commonwealth University"


"The World Health Organisation said: "If male circumcision is confirmed to be an
effective intervention to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV, this will not mean
that men will be prevented from becoming infected with HIV during sexual
intercourse through circumcision alone. Nor does male circumcision provide
protection for sexual partners against HIV infection.""


See also "Related Posts" at\


Expert: New AIDS threat emerging in India among 'call center Romeos'

Sun, Jun 22 11:18 AM


Suniti Solomon, who detected the first HIV case in India in 1986, told an
international medical conference Saturday. The United Nations, however, still
estimates there are some 2.5 million Indians living with HIV and AIDS now.

"India has reached a plateau of the infections," Solomon told the
International Congress on Infectious Diseases, which ends Sunday. Her concern
now is the call centers, where many of the young staff work at night to
correspond with the daytime working hours of their American and European

"They have all the money. They huddle together in the night.

They are young, they are sexually active, so naturally they start," Solomon,
who runs an AIDS center in the southern city of Chennai, told The Associated
Press in a separate interview. She said at least three or four call center
workers visit her clinic every week to get tested for HIV because they are
worried after having unprotected sex.

It is estimated that India's call centers employ some 1.3 million people,
mostly youths fresh out of school and colleges, earning a starting salary of
25,000 rupees (US$600) a month, more than a government doctor's paycheck. "You
will see call center Romeos are a major high risk for HIV," Solomon said.

There are no figures for how many call center workers are infected with HIV.
Citing confessions by the visitors to her center, Solomon said groups of young
men and women rent apartments along the beach during the weekends and end up
having multiple-partner sex. "If they are having sex just among themselves, and
all are non-infected it is fine.

But if there is one person who has gone out of this group and brought in the
virus, it will spread to everyone," she said. While the "call center Romeo"
situation is a reflection of recent liberal values, India's anti-AIDS fight is
also hampered by society's coexisting conservatism, Solomon told the conference.

She said this is evident in Hindu activists' opposition to circumcision which
is proven to help inhibit HIV transmission on the grounds that it is against
tradition and religion of Hindu-majority India. Solomon said she does not expect
India to accept circumcision for preventing HIV infections.

A recent government study to gauge the acceptance for circumcision triggered a
massive backlash by Hindu fundamentalists, who called it "obnoxious" and "a
conspiracy." "If you go out into the streets and say I will do this
(circumcision) to reduce HIV, there will be a chaos," she said.

"Vaccines have failed. Microbicides have failed.

This is one tool we have in hand but we can't use it.".


Harish said...

wow so now clipping ur dick is supposed to prevent AIDS, maybe solomon can show some evidence before spewing bs.

There is no conclusive scientific evidence that clipping ur dick to please some non existent god has any benefits or prevents anything at all except maybe experiencing the normal pleasure in sex that nature intended u to experience.

As for those losers who have orgies and get aids, who cares, u made ur bed now lie in it u stupid scum.

Matra said...

Sad to read about statements made by Dr Suniti Solomon. She was a Hindu actually when she married Dr Solomon Victor a Cardio-thoracic surgeon.

Dr Victor was very reputed and respected and passed away a couple of years back.

Dont know whether she converted or not. This is typical attitude of fresh converts especially those who did after marriage.

AGworld said...

We have a saying in marathi "naveen mussalman joraat namaz mhanto"

A converted muslim says namaaz the loudest.
[implicitly, louder than a born-muslim, principally to demonstrate his ideological loyalty]

Shahryar said...

Extract from Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars by Kurt Kleiner
05 June 2008

Circumcision is one of the less painful forms of mutilation, but it is also less effective at reducing sperm competition. Wilson suggests, however, that the lack of a foreskin could make insertion or ejaculation slower, meaning brief, illicit sex is less likely to come to fruition and lead to a pregnancy.

Younger men, he says, willingly submit to having their reproductive ability reduced because they benefit socially from the older men, by forming alliances, and by gaining access to weapons or tribal lore.

The older men have also gone through the ritual, and seen their own reproductive effectiveness reduced. But if a man with, say, four wives wants to ensure that any children his wives produce are his, there is pressure to make sure other men can't successfully impregnate them.

The husband's own reproductive ability is impaired, but continuous and repeated access to his wives makes up for it, while any genital mutilation is a greater handicap to an interloper trying to sneak brief occasional sex with his wives.

"An older married man must form alliances, or associate with younger or unmarried men at some point, and it would be better to associate with and invest preferentially in those who are least likely to threaten his paternity, especially in societies where cuckoldry is rife," says Wilson.

"Men who demand genital mutilations as part of the price for alliance and investment would be less vulnerable to exploitation of such relationships and loss of paternity to peers."

Wilson has now tested the idea. If the sperm competition theory is correct, he reasoned, then male genital mutilation should be more common in societies where men tend to have multiple wives, especially those in which the wives live apart from the husband.

The mutilation would also probably be carried out in a public setting, witnessed mostly by other men, and performed by a non-relative. Men who refused would face social sanctions.

Wilson searched anthropological databases and found that his predictions were borne out: 48% of highly polygynous societies practice some form of male genital mutilation, and in societies in which wives live in separate households that increases to 63%.

Only 14% of the monogamous societies in the database practice male genital mutilation.

It might also be the case that selection works at a group level, so that societies that enforce mutilation are more stable because of less conflict over paternity, Wilson says.

David Barash, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Washington in Seattle, US, says that the paper makes a convincing case.

"Wilson has tackled a perplexing question and come up with a persuasive preliminary answer to an evolutionary enigma: why do men submit to procedures that seem to reduce their fitness?" he says.

Journal reference: Evolution and Human Behavior (vol 29 p 149)