If a student were to submit these drafts for consideration as a senior undergraduate or master’s thesis, they would fail based on their lack of scholarship.

On December 2, 2014 the
New York Times
and other news outlets announced the release and contents of the draft recommendations. Later that day, I received the draft in an e-mail. I was given until January 16, 2015 to provide a review of the recommendations.

“We are very concerned that the CDC is on the way to losing credibility. The CDC must not see itself as ‘special’.

The CDC Foundation is a pHarma money launderer

After revelations that the CDC is receiving some funding from industry, Jeanne Lenzer investigates how it might have affected the organisation’s decisions

This information is very telling and raises concerns over the recently published CDC Recommendations for Routine Infant Circumcision and suggestions by physicians to boys and men for later life circumcision to prevent HIV/AIDS. These recommendations fly in the face of the scientific evidence they themselves submitted to justify them. The studies relate to the also spurious studies justifying the campaign to circumcise African men for that purpose.
It is apparent that strong pressure from the American Academy of Pediatrics is behind their recommendations, as they mimic the AAP's own 2012 reversal of their prior policy statement that RIC was not recommended. It is also apparently the case that these reversals follow a drastic drop in RIC in the USA, with significant economic impact on doctors and hospitals, as well as industries that supply the surgical equipment for this medically unnecessary procedure on healthy genital tissue of minors, the most commonly performed surgery in the U.S.
This bears further investigation as to the financial and lobbying dynamics behind these policies and recommendations.
I know for one, I no longer have confidence in the positions and recommendations of the CDC.
Sincerely,
David J. Biviano, Ph.D.