R700m needed for circumcisions

daveza

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
49,736
Reaction score
21,477
Location
Durbanville, Cape Town
http://www.news24.com/Content/South...-03-2010-04-03/R700m_needed_for_circumcisions

Durban - The KwaZulu-Natal department of health will need R700m to roll out its male circumcision programme to help combat HIV infections.

The department had already started conducting circumcisions in state hospitals on a small scale and it had asked the US President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) to provide R700m towards the programme, said spokesperson Chris Maxon.

"We have started conducting circumcisions at state hospitals but we will need R700m to do it on a bigger scale. That is the reason why we have approached Pepfar," he said.
Click to expand...

R 700 Million - that's a lot of foreskins.
Perhaps some enterprising crafter could find a use for these.

PS: We are really going to spend R 700 million on circumcisions ?? :erm:
 
How about they leave everyone uncircumcised and save R700m?

Is it really necessary?
 
R700million :eek:

Knowing SA that will be just the tip . . .
 
Oh great - I can't have decent roads - but I can spend money on this.... if you want to chop it off, pay for it yourself :wtf:
 
Actually its R100 million for circumcisions and R600 million for cronies.
 
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/320/7249/1592

In his otherwise excellent review of the AIDS epidemic in the 21st century, Fauci presented no new strategies for preventing the spread of the disease.1 He made no mention of male circumcision, yet there is now compelling epidemiological evidence from over 40 studies which shows that male circumcision provides significant protection against HIV infection; circumcised males are two to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV.2 Furthermore, circumcision also protects against other sexually transmitted infections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea, 3 4 and since people who have a sexually transmitted infection are two to five times more likely to become infected with HIV,5 circumcision may be even more protective. The most dramatic evidence of the protective effect of circumcision comes from a new study of couples in Uganda who had discordant HIV status; in this study the woman was HIV positive and her male partner was not.6 No new infections occurred
Click to expand...
http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Network/v20_4/NWvol20-4malecurcumsion.htm
If health officials recommend circumcision to reduce HIV risks, some men might incorrectly assume that circumcision offers excellent protection against HIV. As a result, many of them may adopt risky sexual behaviors, such as not using condoms, having multiple sexual partners, or having sex with high-risk partners. The overall effect could increase the spread of HIV.
Click to expand...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-and-aids
Two studies focused on young urban men (ages 18 to 24) in Kenya and South Africa, whereas a third concentrated on a larger cross-section of rural men (ages 15 to 49) in Uganda. Over 11,000 men volunteered for the trials with one group receiving circumcision on enrollment and a control group delaying surgery until the end of the study.
Click to expand...
:wtf:


You decide if you want to take the risk.

Sound like population contol to me.
 
Last edited:
it's to pay for the four skin divers, get it, foreskin divers!!!!!!!!!!!

i crack myself up!!!!!
 
wtf it only protects u 70 percent of the time . U wana know why there no vaccine? Cos one of the reasons is it only protects u 50% of the time. How is 50 different from 70. Stupid clowns in government . The whnle soap saga again . -.-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X