Full Text of Circumcision Rate Falling News

This is the full text. Good news that the rate is in free fall, frightening and sickening that 6.5 million innocent American boys were mutilated between 2006 and 2009. Gloria

By Mitchel L. Zoler
Elsevier Global Medical News

Breaking News

VIENNA (EGMN) – Circumcision rates for newborn boys in the United States
dropped steadily and markedly over the past 4 years, based on the largest
review of U.S. rates ever done.

Circumcision rates fell from 56% in 2006 to 33% in 2009.

The review, which included more than 6.5 million U.S. newborn boys during
the period, also showed that adverse event rates following newborn male
circumcision were “extremely low,” and that the most common adverse events
were “mild and easily corrected,” Charbel El Bcheraoui, Ph.D., said at the
18th International AIDS Conference.

“Severe male circumcision-related adverse events are extremely rare,” said
Dr. El Bcheraoui, an epidemic intelligence service officer in the division
of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The dramatic decline in circumcision rates during 2006-2009 continued a
trend that began in the United States earlier in the decade, although the
fall appeared to accelerate recently, he said. He attributed the drop to a
1999 statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics that said existing data
were not sufficient to recommend routine newborn male circumcision
(Pediatrics 1999;103:686-93).

Another factor may be that following the AAP statement, several states
withdrew Medicaid coverage of newborn male circumcision, Dr. El Bcheraoui
said. An earlier report by him and his CDC associates documented that during
1979-2006, the U.S. newborn male circumcision rate was relatively stable,
with an average rate of 61%.

The recent fall in U.S. circumcision rates coincided with reports from three
African-based randomized controlled trials in 2005-2007 that showed
circumcised men had a 50%-70% reduced risk for acquiring HIV infection,
compared with uncircumcised men. These findings led the World Health
Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS to recommend
male circumcision as an important intervention to reduce the risk for
heterosexually acquired HIV infection in 2007. The CDC and AAP are now
independently interpreting the application of these recent findings on HIV
transmission to the United States based on U.S. prevalence rates of HIV and
circumcision, he said.

The new study also analyzed 90-day outcome data on 258,189 boys and men aged
1 or older who underwent circumcision during 2006-2009, and found that
adverse events occurred much more frequently in this age group, “an
important new finding,” Dr. El Bcheraoui said.

His study used data from the largest U.S. consolidator of electronic health
care reimbursement claims, which included data on 117 million unique U.S.
patients annually undergoing short hospital stays, and data from more than
800,000 unique U.S. health care providers. In this database, 6,571,500
newborn boys underwent circumcision during 2006-2009. To estimate the
incidence of circumcision-associated adverse events, the researchers tallied
the rate of any of 41 different ICD-9 and CPT codes that could be such
events during the 90 days following circumcision. They also compared these
rates in 18,330 infants circumcised within the first month of life with a
matched set of uncircumcised infants.

The data showed that the rates for a range of adverse events, such as
mishaps, correctional procedures, and infections were substantially lower in
boys less than 1 year old, compared with boys aged 1-9 years, and with boys
and men aged 10 years or older. For example, mishaps occurred in none of the
boys aged less than 1 year or aged 1-9 years, but in 158/100,000 boys and
men aged 10 years or older. The rate of correctional procedures was
58/100,000; 2,544/100,000; and 1,709/100,000 in the three age groups,
respectively. Infections occurred at a rate of 154/100,000; 5,664/100,000;
and 4,527/100,000 in the three age groups.

The case-control analysis identified only two types of adverse events that
were more common in circumcised newborn boys, compared with matched
uncircumcised infants: repair for incomplete circumcision, and lysis or
excision of penile adhesions. All other adverse events tallied either
similar rates among the cases and controls, or were significantly more
common among the controls.

“This is the largest study to examine the incidence of male circumcision
adverse events to date. It is highly representative [for the United States],
with a large data set” and with a large number of potential adverse events
tracked, Dr. El Bcheraoui said. One of the strengths of the study was its
longitudinal design, which followed subjects for 90 days following

Dr. El Bcheraoui and his associates said they had no disclosures.

30 thoughts on “Full Text of Circumcision Rate Falling News

  1. Wow. I’m excited and gladdened that the rate has fallen so drastically. On the other hand, the tone I get from this article is very negative. I suspect there will be a mega-push to reverse the trend by the medical community based on faulty premises and falsehoods. EVERY child who has a circumcision has multiple adverse affects.
    NOW is the time for thoughtful citizens to push HARDER for transparency, truth, and full disclosure about the effects of circumcision on an individual and on the society he lives in. To hold ground, we MUST fight harder than ever to educate. Celebrate the good news but this is clearly not the time to relax efforts or get complacent.

  2. Your absolutely right Ruthe. This is both good and bad. Good that the African studies appears to have no effect on US circumcision rates. Bad that we can expect the AAP/CDC to uptake these studies to compel circumcision babies who don’t have sex. This report is pro-circumcision as they try to better the circumcision rate by going back to 1979 to show a 61% rate. Given me a break!

    They further their pro-circ stance by saying “mishaps occurred in none of the boys aged less than 1 year or aged 1-9 years,”. How can that be? Impossible I would say. Did they cherry pick? Don’t we have reports contrary to this? One can bet they will use this to continue to say “circumcision should be done in the newborn period” (so the child can’t voice a protest). And what do they term a mishap? Anesthesia mishaps? Which could explain these numbers: “but in 158/100,000 boys and men aged 10 years or older.” This group will also be more forthcoming voicing their complications than the other two groups.

    “All other adverse events tallied either similar rates among the cases and controls, or were significantly more common among the controls.”
    What nebula talk is this? What can possible be an adverse effect being intact? UTI? Infection from forced retraction? And given the pro-circ tenor here, it is suspicious they don’t take the opportunity to highlight the “other adverse events” more common in the controls.
    They completely don’t mention PTSD and purposely avoid meatal stenosis.

    Here again. so much for ethics.

    If the decline is a factor of a few states not funding circumcision, then imagine the rate if all states didn’t fund. At least they didn’t say rates are lower due to “uncircumcising immigrants”. And of course, no credit is given to educated parents.

  3. As outlined at the Genital Autonomy / 11th. International Symposium on Circumcision, Genital integrity, and Human Rights:
    Pro-circucision rang throughout the 2010 International AIDS Conference. All anti-circumcision studies presented for inclusion were rejected. Intact America reported from the conference a very hard push to raise (“imperative”) $1 million to circumcise 800,000 males. Conversely, Intact America’s booth at the conference reported all but two doctors are skeptical of the African HIV/circumcision trials.

  4. Thanks for your input, Frank, much appreciated. The U.S. is the laughing stock of the scientific community world wide for the blinders they have about this insane practice of cutting infant boys for whatever disease is currently in vogue. Here’s an example from Britain:



    Dr Colm O’Mahony, a sexual health expert from the Countess of Chester
    Foundation Trust Hospital in Chester, said the US had an “obsession”
    with circumcision being the answer to controlling sexually transmitted

  5. The way I read the article, 6.5 million boys were included in the study, which is not to say that 6.5 million boys were circumcised. Out of those 6.5 million boys over the term of the study, 33% were circumcised in 2009.

  6. Speaking of circumcision…I was talking to a lady the other day who has had her sons circ 🙁 I told her I was against circumcision and did not see the justification for this torturous proceedure.. She said any of the nurses that work in nursing home say if you want to save your dignity when you are old…get circumcised. Because its awful and degrading to have a nurse have to clean around the forskin. I had never though of this situation…still Im glad I have not circumcised any of my 6 sons….What do you think??? Is it such a hassle in older age or is this just a small minority?

    • There’s plenty of ‘indignities’ that happen if you are in a nursing home, having to wash an intact man’s penis is small potatoes, in my opinion. Plus, there are way more old women in nursing homes, vs old men.

    • Women are far more prone to getting urinary and genital infections than men, especially with age (as any health professional will confirm). So, shall we remove the FEMALE prepuce from girls to simplify female hygiene? No need! – A pharmacy medicine works equally in both genders. Circumcision does not improve hygiene. Hygiene is a personal choice. Women and men (whether circumcised or not) need to practice basic body hygiene.

  7. It’s a very good question, Anna. One of the things about having an amputation that makes no sense in a culture is that people will then make up reasons to justify the butchery. Would those same nurses say the same thing about their female patients who have many folds in their labia?

    NOCIRC has made a downloadable pamphlet to respond to this ignorance:


  8. It should be getting a lot of media attention that the circumcision rate plummeted down by 23% in just a 3 year period and for the first time in many decades most baby boys are not being circumcised in the U.S. When was the last time that the majority of baby boys weren’t being circumcised in the U.S? I think it must have been the 1920’s or longer ago. Because the U.S. media is ignoring this that shows how biased they are. If the circumcision rate had jumped up by 23% I’m sure that would get a lot of coverage in the U.S. media.

    In my opinion for most males circumcision does little or no good, but circumcision does a lot of sexual damage. For just one thing circumcision cuts off the most pleasurable parts of the inner foreskin. To me it is horrifying that so many people in the U.S. see nothing wrong with cutting such pleasurable parts off the genitals of babies. The U.S is the only country in the world where it is common to circumcise baby boys for non-religious reasons. But finally perhaps more Americans are waking up to how harmful and evil of a ritual circumcision is in this country.

  9. Janet, I used to be on Amnesty International’s email list about 5 years ago, but quit after they demonstrated a pro or at least indifferent attitude to infant male circ, and that male circ had nothing to do with female circ.

    Re the study, it only refers to newborn circ and it would be good to know rates after that period. Without that the figures don’t mean much and I would love to believe them but I dont.

  10. “As outlined at the Genital Autonomy / 11th. International Symposium on Circumcision, Genital integrity, and Human Rights:
    Pro-circucision rang throughout the 2010 International AIDS Conference. All anti-circumcision studies presented for inclusion were rejected. Intact America reported from the conference a very hard push to raise (”imperative”) $1 million to circumcise 800,000 males. Conversely, Intact America’s booth at the conference reported all but two doctors are skeptical of the African HIV/circumcision trials.”

    The UN, UNAids, UNICEF etc. have all been hijacked by pro-circumcising doctors.

    This Vienna HIV conference was nothing more than a pro-circumcision campaign. There is much evidence that debunks the latest “studies,” but it wouldn’t have been published at the conference because that would undermine their efforts to circumcise everyone.

    The irony; the slogan for the conference was “Rights here, right now.” Michel Sidibe kept raving about a “a voice to those voiceless.”

    Where are human rights for healthy, non-consenting children who aren’t even at risk of STDs?

    Where is the “voice to those voiceless?”

    The UN, UNAaids, UNICEF etc. have all been infiltrated and there is nothing we are going to do to get in.

    What we need to do is gather other doctors and medical bodies from other countries and decry the UN’s pro-circumcision non-sense.

    The Dutch have released an excellent policy regarding circumcision:


    There is some action that seems to be happening in Norway as well:


    Doctors in the UK have said that the US is obsessed with trying to legitimize circumcision.

    Something needs to be done to halt the circ/HIV gravy train.

    Furthermore, we need to fight so that medical organizations reject further “studies” on MGM. A few studies exist in favor of FGM, but bodies like UNAids and UNICEF would not as much as CONCIDER them, let alone use them to recommend “mass female circumcision campaigns.”

    Let’s work to nip this century old circumcision pseudo-science in the bud.

  11. Yes, Janet, these responses are so helpful. These are the thoughtful, smart, well educated men who are the pillars of the intactivist movement. Bless each and every one of them for “being there” and caring.

  12. The figures in this article don’t add up. There were slightly over 2 million boys born in the USA annually in the years 2006-2009 for a total of about 8 million.

    The article states “In this database, 6,571,500 newborn boys underwent circumcision during 2006-2009.”

    If 56% were circed in 2006 and 33% in 2009 that is 6.6 million – 1.1 million – 700,000 = 4.8 million.

    That means in 2007 and 2008 there were more newborns circumcised than who were born.

    If 6,571,500 doesn’t refer to circumcisions, it doesnt refer to total births, unless 1.4 million are missing from the database. What is this figure?

  13. I didn’t circumcise my son and it was a battle to prevent it from happening. Thank you for the intactivism, seriously. I am so glad that I protected my son from a barbaric and unnecessary ritual.

    I too fear a push to reverse this trend. I just don’t know why they are so hell bent on mutilating our sons. Being circumcised is not going to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Being circumcised is NOT a condom. Why do they want our sons to feel a false sense of security thinking that they can have sex with whatever they want and not need to wear protection? What are they up to? Who are they working for? Why the focus on the USA? Are they trying to bring the circumcision levels up for Europe?

    Also, did they ever stop and frickin’ THINK that maybe the reason why more uncircumcised men in Africa get AIDS is because circumcision in Africa is a RELIGIOUS RITUAL? Duh! Obviously someone who is circumcised is going to be less likely to have recreational sex and contract AIDS because they are either a Muslim, Christian, or a Jew! They can’t admit that, though. That makes religion look good.

    Gimme a break. Not at you, Ms. Lemay. I am just frustrated with this doctor.

  14. Did the “researchers” think about how people over ten years of age are not only more likely but are actually the only ones capable of reporting post-operative problems? The younger the victim, the less likely they will be capable of communicating or even understanding a problem. I did not notice such consideration in their article.

    There is very little true science in the world.

  15. @ Janet & Bill concerning AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
    BANG Bay Area iNtacivists Group (facebook) tried to platform male circumcision to include this as one of AI’s causes.What took place was dirty manipulations. Timing was everything. AI postponed our presentation which included doctors from around the world specialists on circumcision. This time-slot postponement was made so that the body of procircers attending/presenting other topics could be available and present to vote us out. It was disgusting. Afterward aside, we were told by a man and woman within the organization being empathic and maybe ashamed at how AI operates. that we would do better by working from within the organization. This would take 2-3 years (they said). We saw this as being impossible with the way AI operates. When AI called to renew my membership I laughed and showed my disgust. On this subject I secondly remember we could have passed our cause if more people opposed to forced circumcision had attended. I think 20 people would have done it. But then who knows what shenanigans AI would come up with.

  16. What is probably the most important time to be heard is coming up. We need PEOPLE, INTACTIVISTS and WARM BODIES, to be present outside of the Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco October 2-5, where the AAP American Academy of Pediatrics is holding there annual conference. We have one shot to show the AAP that the public is against circumcision both male and female (remember they thought to allow female circumcision type 4). The AAP Circumcision Task Force is about to give their opinion. Our concern is the task force is headed by longtime a circumisionist. Activists know it takes 50 demonstrators to be news worthy. I hate to think there aren’t 50 people in the Bay Area willing to stand by their convictions on male circumcision.

  17. Pingback: September Favorites « Birth a Miracle Services

  18. USA is the only country prepared to fund this circumcision surgery among African countries. It is also the one preaching about benefits of circumcision, which l do not see. The USA is desperate to keep this procedure going and they are now advocating for it among Africans so that they can say, ‘even in Africa the procedure is gaining popularity.’

  19. I can’t believe ANYONE can think that circumcision prevents ANYTHING, especially SDTs. I guess the STD I got from a circumcised guy was just my imagination. Or the two UTI’s I got from him.

  20. I wish you Americans all the best in your endeavours to give infant circumcision the boot. The practice used to be common in the UK before the 1950s. Nowadays, it’s uncommon here (except among Moslems and Jews), and no medical association is interested in seeing it re-introduced to these shores! In central Europe (e.g. Norway, Scandinavia, Poland, Denmark), the circumcision rate is under 2% of the male population. It’s ironic how the US “pro-circ” lobby preaches circumcision benefits, when evidence from comparative international medical studies shows that the USA (which is 80% circ’d in its sexually active male population) has a WORSE affliction of HIV and most other STDs than the non-circumcising countries of western and central Europe, most of which keep careful statistics on their incidence of STDs. Yet Europe is just as promiscuous as the USA.
    People who would like facts and statistics on the transmission of HIV throughout Europe (and Israel) I recommend to google/search the online pdf. booklet: “WHO HIV/AIDS in Europe”: (http://www.euro.who.int/document/e87777.pdf). As you will see, there really isn’t a heterosexual HIV epidemic anywhere in Europe, although I suppose there “SHOULD” be one, seeing that our circumcision rates are so low (and we’re not that good at wearing condoms either) !

    I’m still waiting for “pro-circers” to clarify this “conundrum”! But of course they avoid it.

  21. 1/ The ritual of circumcision identifies a person’s religion – Jewish or Muslim.

    2/ The main idea of circumcision is to prevent the excessive amount of enjoyment that can be had from masturbation.

    3/ Masturbation may interfere with breeding and slow the growth of the religion (that wants as many followers as possible – strength in numbers).

    4/ All babies have to take their chances in this world – some are born into religions that practice the mutilation of a child’s genitals. There is nothing we can do to change these practices.

    5/ The best we can do is to protect the children of non-Jews and non-Muslims from this inexcusable act of barbarism – and just feel sorry for the rest.

    6/ Foreskin is the same kind of skin, as the eyelid and serves the same purpose. It is there to constantly keep the the penis head lubricated and flushed.

    7/ I imagine the very origin of circumcision has a lot to do with living naked in a desert full of sand. I can’t think of any logical reason other than that. I mean why would a god want babies foreskins as offerings?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *