It is well-known that male circumcision is neither the least invasive nor the most effective method of achieving HIV prevention and control (1-3), yet the CDC and WHO continue to spout misleading relative risk reduction statistics and conclusions from flawed studies as proposed justifications for VMMC (“Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision”) in Africa (3-5)

The human prepuce has sensory, sexual, protective, and immunological functions (2, 8, 9), and these functions are permanently precluded by circumcision.

Who is responsible for the push for VMMC? The VMMC campaign, which started in 2008, is largely driven by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (12). The persistence of the UNAIDS, WHO, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in promoting VMMC has distracted from other HIV prevention and treatment methods which are actually helpful and sequesters money that would have otherwise been given to effective HIV prevention measures such as access to condoms, better public education, and antiretroviral therapy.

A deeper look into the implementation of the VMMC campaign reveals an even more upsetting reality—it has undoubtedly caused much more trouble than it has helped.

In response to the growing number of African men who have wished to keep their genitals intact, coercive measures have been adopted by the UN and WHO: money and food vouchers as incentives aimed at pressuring impoverished Africans into circumcision, despite the fact that this money does not even cover the costs associated with postoperative care (12). Even more disturbing, UNAIDS gives aid and grants to governments on the basis of meeting circumcision quotas, inspiring these governments to deny services to intact (uncircumcised) men and even barring them from holding positions in public office (12). Stemming from the pressure and monetary incentive from UNAIDS—which is primarily funded by the United States and other developed countries—the Ugandan and South African governments have advertised circumcision through misleading and offensive campaigns, in which they depict men with intact 2 genitals as unhygienic and sexually-unappealing to women (12). Due to the combination of these social factors, the behaviour of UNAIDS has indirectly promoted the violent circumcision attacks targeting people, tribes, and minorities based on their intact genitals

The export of circumcision from the United States to developing countries represents a form of cultural imperialism as it is motivated by an attempt to spread American tradition, culture, and influence to areas perceived as culturally inferior (17)