PING! Ron Lowe aka TLC Tugger!!! Respond please!

[windinghighway]

Ron Lowe, aka TLC Tugger, made a lot of silly statements in recent
posts to the "Why is this a debate?" thread -- mostly stuff he seems
to have copied and pasted from anti circ websites apparently without
understanding it. As usually happens when he posts here, his errors
were exposed and he retreated without defending himself or admitting
his errors. I'd love him to try to respond to all the questions Jake
Waskett and I had for him, but of course he won't.

One statement he made really does require a response, though. Ron
Lowe, aka TLC Tugger, twice asserted that HIV is markedly more common
in circumcised men than uncircumcised in half the countries of
Africa. Here are the exact quotes:

>Stats from about half the nations in Africa show that the circumcised
>have markedly higher HIV incidence

and again:

>The supposed reduced HIV risk from being circumcised is NOT born out
>in any real-world scenario.
>In half the African nations it is the
>circumcised who have markedly higher HIV incidence.

Now, if this were true it would be a fact of enormous significance.
It would mean that the WHO and all the other national medical
authorities who are working to circumcise vulnerable populations are
embarked on a terrible mistake. It would mean that all the many
studies showing higher rates of HIV in uncircumcised African countries
have been disproved at a stroke. It would mean, in fact, that
somebody may be MORE likely to be protected from HIV with a foreskin
than without!

There is an ethical issue here, because it would be quite wrong to
mislead people about their likelihood of getting a lethal disease by
carelessly providing false information. Also, it would be unseemly
for TLC Tugger, who has a financial interest in commercial
contraptions aimed at those who dislike circumcision and prefer
foreskins, to make an egregious mistake on this topic.

So Ron, could you please clear this up?

First, what do you mean by "markedly" more likely?

Second, which are the "half the countries of Africa where the
circumcised have higher rates than the uncircumcised? There are 54
countries in Africa, so would you please name at least 27 where this
is the case?

Also, would you like to reconsider your statement that "The supposed
reduced HIV risk from being circumcised is NOT born out
in any real-world scenario"? Not in any? Really?

[Prediction, folks: He will check his secondary sources as usual for
the information, but he wont find it. And why? Because they dont
have it. And why? Because it's just not true. And what will he do
then? He'll either give some grudging, petulant response, or he'll
keep his mouth shut. Wait and see...]

Meanwhile, anybody who missed it and wants to see how deep in doo doo
you can get when you dont know what you are talking about should
review Ron's contribution and the responses in the "Why is this a
debate"? thread. Its a beaut!

[omar...@rocketmail.com]

Me Ron Low does not respond because he knows he tells untruths. I
looked at his website tlctugger. He sells cheap plastic devices for
$80 to men who want more foreskin!!!! How much is his profit on
this?? If you know this you know why he tells misinformation about
foreskins.

[timcurranAZ]

The only way to challenge the truth about foreskins and HIV is to invent stuff that just isn't true. To state that circumcised men have higher HIV rates than uncircumcised in most African countries is irresponsible. Also it's a stupid kind of lie because people have to be really ignorant to believe it and it's so easy to show its false. Trouble is: there are some dumb folk out there who WOULD believe it and then think it's better to do unsafe sex with foreskins.

[windinghighway]

[windinghighway]

On Sunday, June 17, 2012 3:54:51 PM UTC-4, timcurranAZ wrote:

Actually I doubt if he invents lies -- more likely he uncritically copies stuff from anti circ websites. He really ought to correct this one and apologize because its so egregious an error. Dont hold your breath though.

[Casaman]

This Tugger is just making stats up out of thin air which is silly considering how well the facts are known. I've worked most of my life in North Africa (mostly Tangier but also with stints in Alexandria and Tunis). Cicumcision is 100 percent in North Africa and AIDS is practically unknown. That isn't for lack of sex either because no matter what the koran says almost all the boys bugger each other from puberty on and half the men bugger boys any chance they get. That's what happens when women aren't available. I read just the other day that AIDS rates in South African countries without circumcision run 20 percent or even more. Incidentally if you have been in countries with desert, sand dunes, and winds you will know that the goddam sand gets in EVERYWHERE. It gets in your hair and eyes and clothes amd fingernails and arse crack and food and mouth and sheets and as French Legionaires and Rommel's and Monty's men found in the Western Desert, it gets in foreskins too if you have them, and it scratches and irritates like hell. The Arabs and Berbers knew a thing or two about that and it makes me laugh when these "intactivists" who know NOTHING about real world conditions want everybody to be uncircumcised!

[Omar B]

Le dimanche 26 août 2012 17:22:35 UTC, Casaman a écrit :
> This Tugger is just making stats up out of thin air which is silly considering how well the facts are known.

He sells plastic and tape for 80 dollars for men who want a new foreskin. That is the reason.

> Incidentally if you have been in countries with desert, sand dunes, and winds you will know that the goddam sand gets in EVERYWHERE. It gets in your hair and eyes and clothes amd fingernails and arse crack and food and mouth and sheets and as French Legionaires and Rommel's and Monty's men found in the Western Desert, it gets in foreskins too if you have them, and it scratches and irritates like hell. The Arabs and Berbers knew a thing or two about that and it makes me laugh when these "intactivists" who know NOTHING about real world conditions want everybody to be uncircumcised!

If you live in the desert with a foreskin you have big trouble.

[Parker]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:23:56 PM UTC-4, Omar B wrote:

>
> If you live in the desert with a foreskin you have big trouble.

UK army encouraged circumcision in WW1 and WW2. I think US army did too. Found this referencehttp://www.medicirc.org/summary.html :


During World War II, particularly during the North African desert campaign, the combination of sand and lack of hygienic conditions proved disastrous to uncircumcised men. The loss of these soldiers to active duty in combat areas resulted in prophylactic circumcision being performed on many recruits at training centers. A World War II medical report from the U.S. Army referred to the “enormous man-hour loss from disease peculiar to the uncircumcised man,” and stated that “hospital admission from paraphimosis, phimosis, balanitis and condyloma accuminata during 1942 – 1945 totaled 146,793. Had these patients been circumcised before induction, this total would probably have been close to zero”. A similar though less well-documented loss to active duty occurred in uncircumcised servicemen in Operation Desert Storm during the Gulf War.

[David Edwards]

What I don't get is, if he's selling a gadget to guys who are circed already why does he try to defend foreskins with all this crap about how they don't stink, don't have health probs and stupid stuff like that? Isn't it better to say hey, your already circed but you can get it back with my artificial foreskin that doesn't have all the stink and disease probs of the original! That would make more sense and he wouldn't have to come up with all this other bullshit that nobody believes anyway.

[barle...@outlook.com]

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 11:02:42 AM UTC-4, David Edwards wrote:

> What I don't get is, if he's selling a gadget to guys who are circed already why does he try to defend foreskins with all this crap about how they don't stink, don't have health probs and stupid stuff like that? Isn't it better to say hey, your already circed but you can get it back with my artificial foreskin that doesn't have all the stink and disease probs of the original! That would make more sense and he wouldn't have to come up with all this other bullshit that nobody believes anyway.
>

Good point but he's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer! Check out his claim that foreskins don't contribute to HIV -- he obviously hasn't a clue what he's talking about and he gets skewered by others who do!

[TLC Tugger]

On Monday, December 22, 2014 8:21:15 AM UTC-6, barle...@outlook.com wrote:
>> Check out his claim that foreskins don't contribute to HIV <<

Apparently a reference to the FACT that in half of African nations it is the circumcised who have markedly higher HIV prevalence? Deal with it.

Perhaps also in response to the FACT that in the only controlled circumcision trial of male-to-female HIV transmission (Wawer/Gray Uganda 2009), the men they cut infected their female partners 50% MORE often than the men they left intact did.

I don't argue about whether removing half the surface of an appendage reduces the risk of cooties attacking that appendage. It might. My case is that informed adults can decide for themselves.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. It IS the best part. You don't have to agree. You only have to acknowledge that the opinion that matters is that of the penis owner.

-Ron Low

[Oliver]

On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 1:32:39 PM UTC-5, TLC Tugger wrote:
> On Monday, December 22, 2014 8:21:15 AM UTC-6, barle...@outlook.com wrote:
> >> Check out his claim that foreskins don't contribute to HIV <<
>

> Apparently a reference to the FACT that in half of African nations it is the circumcised who have >markedly higher HIV prevalence? Deal with it.

It's not a fact, its fiction. You seem to be amazingly ignorant on this subject considering you see yourself was some kind of expert.

The first poster here asked you to list the 27 + African countries where you think the uncircumcised have markedly higher HIV prevalence.

That was in 2012 and we are still waiting. I predict you will never provide such a list because it does not exist.

>
> Perhaps also in response to the FACT that in the only controlled circumcision trial of male-to-female HIV transmission (Wawer/Gray Uganda 2009), the men they cut infected their female partners 50% MORE often than the men they left intact did.
>

That is not correct and I see this was clearly pointed out to you in your disastrous previous attempt to assert this claim. Here is the correction that was posted in response to your misuse of this material: (groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.circumcision/why$20is$20this$20a$20debate/alt.circumcision/5vNIyUw09NQ/k9qpFq64XjkJ)

"First, the article is here:

"http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%
2960998-3/abstract

"17 of 93 partners of circumcised men became HIV+ (so 76 didn't)
8 of 70 partners of uncircumcised men became HIV+ (so 62 didn't)

"Now, the correct procedure is to formulate a null hypothesis (that there
is no underlying association), and to calculate how likely it is that
such a result would have occurred by chance.

"Now, go to the following page and enter these values in clockwise order:
17 76 8 62.

"http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/contingency1.cfm

"The result, you will see, is a p value of 0.2760. Put another way,
there's a 28% chance of seeing such a result if the null hypothesis is
true. By convention, a p value of more than 0.05 is considered not
significant. "


So, far from the study showing that the circumcised men infected partners more often, it proved nothing of statistical significance. If you disagreed with that conclusion you should have challenged it and proved it wrong-- not misused the numbers again later.

It is well established that the greatest HV risk associated with uncircumcised men is not that they are more likely to infect female partners, but that female partners are more likely to infect them. The foreskin receives rather than spreads the infection, partly because it harbors the virus in a warm, moist environment, partly because it is subject to tears large and small, but mostly because the virus directly infects the langerhans cells there.

The link between foreskins and HIV has been well known for more than 25 years now. For example Cameron et al found in 1989 that of 400 Kenyan men who visited prostitutes with high rates of HIV, the uncircumcised were over EIGHT times more likely to be infected. This and about 30 other observational studies which also implicated foreskins in the spread of HIV led to separate, random controlled experiments in three countries to settle the issue once and for all. Those trials proved that circumcision reduces the man's chances of infection of by about 60 percent.

You really should stick to selling your foreskin contraptions and stay out of the whole area of foreskins and HIV, which is clearly way beyond your competence.

[SHBos...@inbox.com]

On Friday, December 26, 2014 1:40:42 AM UTC-5, tlctugge...@gmail.com wrote:
>



> Among those where I recall the circumcised having markedly higher HIV incidence are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania.
>


Hullo all, please forgive the intrusion here, I just want to correct the statement about Swaziland that got pointed out to me. I know that country very well and it's not correct uncicumcised have higher HIV rates there than circumcised. (I don't know about the other countries mentioned there)

These are the correct numbers from a 2012 Swazi government survey,

Circumcised men with HIV 16.4 percent
Uncircumcised men with HIV 25 percent

If you take the whole population with the women the number is over 30 percent infected which is one of the highest in the world!! This is where you can find the numbers: https://www.k4health.org/sites/default/files/SHIMS_Report.pdf

It is a terrible crisis in Swaziland. You see sick people everywhere and orphans and funerals every day. Everything is affected, work, schools, families, hospitals, shops, everything. Everybody worries about it all the time.

Circumcision cuts the chances of infection so the US government has donated over 24 million dollars to circumcise 150,000 -- 200,000 thousand men in the next five years. It doesn't sound like a lot but it is a small country where tradtionally the men were not cirucmcised. Already about 20 percent have been circumcised and the hope is to get this up to 70 percent in five years, plus half of all infants too. I found this TV report if anybody is interested, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/us-will-spend-245m-circumcise-men-swaziland

[Oliver]

On Friday, December 26, 2014 1:40:42 AM UTC-5, tlctugge...@gmail.com wrote: >

> I don't have nearly enough time to piss back at all the nonsense here. I assume folks who wonder about the available stats for circumcision and HIV prevalance in African nations will look it up.
>


You've had three years since the question was asked. Isn't that enough time?

> Among those where I recall the circumcised having markedly higher HIV incidence are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, and Tanzania.
>

As usual you are clueless. The study you are desperately relying on is Mishra et al, Levels and spread of of HIV Seroprevalence and Associated Factors: DHS comparative reports 2009, but you have misunderstood or distorted it. Here are some of your errors.

1. This study does not find as you claim that circumcised men are more likely to have HIV in over half the countries of Africa. It found that in 10 African countries.

2. The study has been widely criticized as methodologically naive and is contradicted by nearly all other studies of this subject (including 21 of 27 African studies), plus three random controlled trials which have shown definitively that circumcision reduces chances of HIV infection by around 60 percent.

3. A subsequent (2010) study using the same DHS data base corrected the one you are relying on, and found that being uncircumcised is "significantly associated with risk of HIV infection" and that this risk increases with number of lifetime partners (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21243923). Why did you ignore that corrective?

4. You are wrong in your claim that in Ghana circumcised men have higher HIV rates. The report you are relying on says exactly the opposite.

5. You are wrong in your claim that in Swaziland circumcised men have higher HIV rates. The report you are relying on doesn't even mention Swaziland despite your claims that it does, and as a previous poster has pointed out, in Swaziland exactly the opposite it true.

If you would like to explain why you rely on this one outlier report rather than the scientific consensus, I would be very interested to learn what it is about its methods that so impresses you. But I guarantee that if we get into a debate on the validity of the report, I will make a complete fool of you.

Would you like to take up that challenge, Ron Low/TLC Tugger?

[Pat Lastingham]

On Thursday, December 25, 2014 11:35:57 AM UTC-5, Oliver wrote:

> The foreskin receives rather than spreads the infection, partly because it harbors the virus in a warm, moist environment, partly because it is subject to tears large and small, but mostly because the virus directly infects the langerhans cells there.
>

That is correct. For a more technical discussion of how the virus directly infects foreskin cells, see this September 2014 journal article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192839/

It is a long article that evaluates all the scientific evidence, but this is the conclusion (MC is the abbreviation for male circumcision, LC for langerhans cells, and IFS for inner foreskin):


"This review summarises research on the bio-physical mechanisms for protection provided by MC for men from heterosexual HIV transmission. Although there is substantial body of knowledge on the topic, there are still unresolved areas regarding the exact mechanism of protection. Undoubtedly, with all the evidence summarised above, this mechanism is complex with numerous factors working together to facilitate this well documented protection from HIV. Based on the evidence from the summarised studies, the mechanism of HIV transmission through the penile tissues stems as follows. When HIV-1 infected cells come into contact with foreskin, especially with IFS, they make synapses with the epithelial cells. This results in HIV-1 budding and subsequent capture by epidermal LCs through dendrites. This is followed by transfer of virus to T cells to initiate local expansion, HIV dissemination and systemic infection. The large surface area of the foreskin increases the chances of synapse formation by increasing number of contacts, while subprepusal wetness can facilitate the process by keeping the virus alive. This process is facilitated by abundant HIV target cells found in IFS and their higher responsiveness through altered cellular protein expression in response to external stimuli. Chemokines present in genital fluids further change the spatial distribution of HIV target cells (especially LCs) favouring connections with HIV infected cells. Furthermore, presence of concurrent STIs and microbiome under the prepuce and induced inflammation therein amass the target cells into dermal and epidermal tissues to facilitate the process. The closeness of target cells and their dendrites reaching closer to apical surface enhance the HIV infection process further. Physiological factors such as mechanical friction during sexual intercourse that cause micro-trauma can also provide easy access for the virus. Removal of foreskin by MC disrupts most of these mechanisms and helps achieve protection for men from sexual HIV transmission. Investing in research to increase our understanding of the mechanisms of HIV transmission and protection against heterosexual HIV acquisition in men should be a priority that supplements the judicious implementation of MC programmes in high HIV prevalence settings."

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

shut up, jake.

[harriet....@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 5:49:49 PM UTC-8, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> shut up, jake.

What sort of response is that for heaven's sake? It seems most shallow. I showed this website to my son in law who is a University biologist. He knows this article and says it's very important because it explained how AIDS viruses get into the system through foreskins.

If you disagree with the article surely you should explain why using the same science. Not just say Shut up.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Jake has a history here at alt.circumcision. His fellow Gilgal Society friend was convicted of sexual assault of a child. The Gilgal Society is (was) a organization of self-identified "circumsexuals"--people who find sexual pleasure in fantasizing about circumcision. Go ahead, defend Jake the circumcision freak in the name of science.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/981/0/former-knights-of-malta-member-pleads-guilty-to-abuse-of-young-boys

Besides you probably know all of this already. The style of your posts is indistinguishable from the continuous parade of people posting on this site with western female names claiming to champions of genital cutting. You're probably Parker or Uckster.

[harriet....@yahoo.com]

You try to smear everybody who favors circumcision by some vague association with a child molester somewhere. This is quite disgraceful and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself! There is no "Jake" or "Gilgal" or anybody else mentioned in my post or anywhere except in yours!

May we please return to the point of my post which you managed to lose? A contributor posted a scientific report on the exact mechanism the AIDS virus uses to get into the system through the foreskin. You responded to that with "Shut up".

Please reply to my original request which was was, If you disagree with the article surely you should explain why using the same science, not just say Shut up.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

If men or women want to have parts of their genitalia removed for fear of HIV, or for any other reason, they certainly should have the right to do so.

[Oliver]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 12:17:13 PM UTC-5, harriet....@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 2:56:59 PM UTC-8, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 9:45:54 AM UTC-5, harriet....@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 5:49:49 PM UTC-8, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:

> >
> > Jake has a history here at alt.circumcision. His fellow Gilgal Society friend was convicted of sexual assault of a child. The Gilgal Society is (was) a organization of self-identified "circumsexuals"--people who find sexual pleasure in fantasizing about circumcision. Go ahead, defend Jake the circumcision freak in the name of science.
> > http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/981/0/former-knights-of-malta-member-pleads-guilty-to-abuse-of-young-boys
> > Besides you probably know all of this already. The style of your posts is indistinguishable from the continuous parade of people posting on this site with western female names claiming to champions of genital cutting. You're probably Parker or Uckster.
> >


> You try to smear everybody who favors circumcision by some vague association with a child molester somewhere. This is quite disgraceful and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself! There is no "Jake" or "Gilgal" or anybody else mentioned in my post or anywhere except in yours!
>

It is disgraceful Harriet, but Jack is a really nasty piece of work and this kind of hateful smear is typical of him. This is his guilt-by-association reasoning:

A certain man in Britain is a convicted child molester.
This man belongs to a pro circumcision organization there.
Anybody else who was ever associated with this organization must be his "buddy" .
Any such buddy must also be a child molester or at least a sympathizer
Anybody posting here is really a "buddy" if Jack deems it so without any evidence.

Pat posts a link to a research article on HIV and foreskins.
Jack responds by telling that poster to "shut up"
Harriet asks why Jack responds so rudely.
Jack responds with a link to the molestation case, and says to this innocent grandmother, "Go ahead, defend the circumcision freak"


It's disgusting. It's petty, small minded, and vicious. Jack is obsessed with this molester -- he has posted the link to the child molestation case several times on alt. circ, as if one man's crime is an argument against circumcision and and indictment of anybody who favors it. It is so slimy.

Harriet you are new here. To understand Jack you have to know that he is deeply misogynistic. He despises and fears women and is intolerant of any criticism by female posters. If he gets into an argument with a man he retreats like a whining cur, complaining that they are not being nice to him. But if a WOMAN contradicts him he resorts to the kind of put downs and vicious attacks that you just experienced. This has been documented here before.

Just the appearance of women here makes him crazed. Look what he complains about, "A continuous parade of people posting on this site with western female names claiming to be champions of genital cutting." Notice that its the "continuous parade" of FEMALE names that upsets him. Not the parade of hundreds of men, he doesn't seem to have noticed that.

But let's look at this "continuous parade", this multitude of women that so upsets Jack. I checked the two most popular threads of the past six months, this one and "Why do Foreskins Smell After Washing", to see how many female posters there were. Other than "Pat", who could be male or female, there is a grand total of: FOUR! -- Harriet, Xanadu, Shelley, and Cab -- and one of these doesn't champion "genital cutting". So this "continuous parade" consists of just THREE identifiable women!! Jack's misogyny is so intense that his fevered imagination has multiplied them many times over. He seethes with hostility at a parade of women who don't even exist.

He did exactly the same when you showed up, Harriet. He ranted, "It's amazing how many women who "traveled to Europe when they were young" and had lots of sex manage to find this obscure corner of the internet." But there aren't "many" women who did or said that, you are the only one. He is so incensed by your presence and story that he has enlarged you to sooooooo many women that he is literally "amazed" at how many you are!! One female critic sent Jack almost out of his mind.

Also notice how he is "amazed" that mere WOMEN can find this website. Thousands of men have found it, but that doesn't amaze him. But WOMEN -- how on earth could they get here on their own? He's literally mystified.

In fact Jack's opinion of women is so low he can't even believe your gender. To find your way here and post here coherently you must be man! He says the style of your post is "indistinguishable" from that of two male posters, Uckister and Parker. But the styles are totally different! Parker is British and uses British spellings and colloquialisms, like "arse" for ass. He calls people "mate" and refers to "blokes". Somehow Jack didn't notice that. Uckister's style is quite different from Harriet and from Parker. Uckister writes American english. Harriet is always quite polite to Jack when they disagree. She says things like "What kind of response is that, for heaven's sake?" or "I'm sorry but I have to disagree," or "May we please return to the point". Uckister's style is completely different and VERY impolite. He goes for the jugular with cuss words about Jack's brains and drinking problem: "Jack you are just too fucking stupid to be worth arguing with. Go have another drink." and "You utter moron" and "Christ you are stupid" and "Go have another drink, imbecile". Jack is so consumed with his hostile fantasies that he thinks these three styles are "indistinguishable"!

All Jack's guilt-by-association and misogyny are just a smoke screen for the fact that he can never debate the real issues here. For example he has twice avoided Harriet's question about why he just says "shut up" to scientific evidence of how HIV infects uncircumcised men.. He doesn't want to admit the health danger of foreskins so he just blusters at women and tries to link critics to a criminal.

[parke...@yahoo.co.uk]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 12:53:35 PM UTC-5, Oliver wrote:

>
> But let's look at this "continuous parade", this multitude of women that so upsets Jack. I checked the two most popular threads of the past six months, this one and "Why do Foreskins Smell After Washing", to see how many female posters there were. Other than "Pat", who could be male or female, there is a grand total of: FOUR! -- Harriet, Xanadu, Shelley, and Cab -- and one of these doesn't champion "genital cutting". So this "continuous parade" consists of just THREE identifiable women!!
>

It's hard to count accurately when you're drunk.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

You think so? I don't have any trouble with it.

[parke...@yahoo.co.uk]

Drunken fool Jack, the facts show you do can't count at all when you're drunk which seems to be most of the time. You probably also think you don't have any trouble driving drunk right?

Jeez you even posted here to tell us about the lighting conditions in some bar where you were moping around smashed out of your skull. You got so drunk you thought that it would be a great idea to post that information to a circumcision discussion group. What a loser.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

You have to admit: a bloody mary for breakfast really puts the spring in your step.

[parke...@yahoo.co.uk]

On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 at 1:32:39 PM UTC-5, TLC Tugger wrote:
>
>
> Foreskin feels REALLY good. It IS the best part.
>

> -Ron Low

>
> Foreskin feels REALLY good. It IS the best part.

> -Ron Low


This is complete crap! I never heard anybody anywhere say the foreskin is the best part of the dick and I bet you won't find that in any medical text book either. EITHER you have some something very wrong with the shaft and head of your dick so you can't feel anything with it, OR you're just trying to drum up business among the ignorant for your so called foreskin restoration business!!!

I got circed in my twenties and a good thing it was too. The difference in hygiene is like night and day and sex is MUCH better esp oral sex! Women I went with before and after were the biggest fans of the change! There were a couple of girls who didn't want to suck me at all before and afterwards they couldn't keep their mouths off it.

[lucylo...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 3:29:45 AM UTC, parke...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> I got circed in my twenties and a good thing it was too. The difference in hygiene is like night and day and sex is MUCH better esp oral sex! Women I went with before and after were the biggest fans of the change! There were a couple of girls who didn't want to suck me at all before and afterwards they couldn't keep their mouths off it.

i bet....google foreskin image...take a look at some... then imagine putting them in your mouth....

[Casaman]

Mr Low has the facts about his sample wrong but also how does he get from 10 countries to more than half the countries in Africa I wonder. In my experience Americans are quite ignorant of the rest of the world and I have been told it results from geography not being taught in schools there for many years now.I have met one American who thought Africa is one country where they speak Swahili and several who think Morocco is in the middle east and others who think South Africa is a region not a country. I bet Mr Low thinks there are only twenty countries in Africa and the survey covered all of them. Really there are over 50.

[Casaman]

Le mardi 23 décembre 2014 19:32:39 UTC+1, TLC Tugger a écrit :


> Foreskin feels REALLY good. It IS the best part. You don't have to agree. You only have to acknowledge that the opinion that matters is that of the penis owner.
>
> -Ron Low

This is what I do not understand. From what I read Mr Low you were circumcised at birth so you really have no idea as "penis owner" what a foreskin feels like let alone if it is the "best part". I do not understand how you can make such a sweeping claim (unsupported by any medical science or popular belief) based on your own circumcised penis.

[Casaman]

Le samedi 7 janvier 2012 15:51:42 UTC+1, windinghighway a écrit :

> There is an ethical issue here, because it would be quite wrong to
> mislead people about their likelihood of getting a lethal disease by
> carelessly providing false information. Also, it would be unseemly
> for TLC Tugger, who has a financial interest in commercial
> contraptions aimed at those who dislike circumcision and prefer
> foreskins, to make an egregious mistake on this topic.
>

Exactly!

[Parker]

LOL! Ron Low doesn't know ANYTHING about foreskins! After all, he claims that smegma has a "sweet aroma".....that's right, it's his actual words, smegma has a sweet aroma!!! He certainly has never smelt one and I bet he's never touched one either. He doesn't have one of his own, he says the owner's opinion is all that matters, that the foreskin "feels really good. It's the best part". But he doesn't even have one!! LOL!!!

Casaman, Ron Low will dodge explaining himself but so far as I can see there's only two possible explanations.

EXPLANATION ONE. There is something wrong with his own dick which has almost no sensation. He used his contraption to stretch skin on his penis to give himself a fake foreskin and now the teeny bit of feeling in that bit of skin is the best part of his dick. He doesn't realise what he's missing on the rest of his abnormal dick and thinks the tingle in his fake foreskin is the best sensation there is.

EXPLANATION TWO. He is a total bullshitter. His business is selling tape and plastic to men who want to "restore" their foreskin, by stretching other skin on the penis. To get people to buy his contraption he needs to convince them they are missing something really good so he will say anything to make this stretched skin sound desirable. Even though he obviously hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about.

Take your pick. Either way I think he's really pathetic.

[Uckister777]

I think I've found out where Ron Low aka TLC Tugger got his bullshit statistic. HIs phrase about "Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland" having higher HIV rates for circumcised contains known errors of countries so I thought I would google the exact phrase and see where he could have found it.

Turns out Ron Low has been posting this phrase over and over to so many forums I couldn't even count them all! But back in 2009 I found what seems to be the original. The EXACT phrase appears (with no reference to back it up) in a post by a Mark Lyndon in a forum where Ron Low posted right after him at almost the same time. So it seems Ron Low just carelessly copied that phrase and has been repeating it ever since. Here's where I found this gem: www.aidsbeacon.com/news/2009/09/25/study-confirms-link-between-male-circumcision-and-hiv-prevention/

When Ron Low is challenged about this statistic which is at odds with just about all other research and WHO findings he can't give an answer. This thread posed that question in Jan 2012. He STILL won't answer it and now we all know why. He never even read the original. He didn't know what he was talking about. Now he's cornered.

Ron Low just bleats that he doesn't have time to provide an answer ... after more than three years! That's funny because he sure finds time to spread that misinformation over and over. He whines that it's a "FACT"...but he can't give a reference to prove it. His claim has FACTUAL errors pointed out in this thread, but he won't address any of them.

It's bad enough that he splatters his ignorance about HIV and circumcision all over the internet.

What's worse is he doesn't have the guts to admit he is wrong.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

I don't think Ron has read alt.circ for years.

[parke...@yahoo.co.uk]

On Monday, April 13, 2015 at 1:55:26 PM UTC-4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't think Ron has read alt.circ for years.

Jack, Of COURSE you don't think Ron has read alt.circ for years! But that's because you're a drunken fool! Scroll up if you are sober enough, and you will see that Ron did read stuff and posted about it here less than four months ago. Practically every post since then has been a reply to Ron except for your inane crap but you are too blotto to notice. Try visiting sober some time?

[Urban Kaletsky]

i believe the data below will cast light on the discussion about circumcision and hiv in Africa.


CIRCUMCISION RATES IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES WITH LOWEST HIV RATES

COUNTRY CIRC % HIV RATE

Algeria..................98.0.................. 0.1
Benin.....................98.0..................1.1
Burkina Faso..........89.0..................1.0
Congo DR..............97.0..................1.0
Djibuouti...............99.0..................1.3
Egypt.....................94.6..................0.1
Eritrea....................99.0................. 0.7
Ethiopia.................92.0..................1.3
Gambia..................98.0..................1.3
Ghana....................96.0..................1.4
Guinea...................99.0 .................1.7
Liberia....................94.0..................0.9
Libya......................96.6..................0.3
Mali........................99.0..................0.9
Mauritania..............99.1 .................0.4
Morocco............. ...99.0..................0.1
Niger......................99.0..................0.5
Senegal..................98.0...................0.5
Sierra Leone...........94.0..................1.5
Somalia..................99.0..................0.5.
Tunisia...................99.5..................0.1



CIRCUMCISION RATES IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES WITH HIGHEST HIV RATES

COUNTRY CIRC % HIV RATE

CAR.......................55.0...................4.7
Lesotho..................48.0 ................23.1
Mozambique...........60.0................11.1
Tanzania.................69.0..................5.1
Uganda...................25.0..................7.0
Botswana................14.0.................23.0
Malawi....................21.0.................10.8
Namibia..................21.0.................13.3
South Africa............35.0.................17.9
Swaziland................8.0..................26.5
Zambia....................13.0................12.7
Zimbabwe...............10.0.................14.7


There is a clear and dramatic relationship between circumcision status and hiv infection. This pattern has been reported in numerous observational and statistical studies. Three random controlled trials have confirmed the relationship. The World Health Organization recommends circumcision in countries with high HIV rates. Several African countries currently have circumcision programmes.

Mr Ron Low has widely publicised his view that in most African countries circumcised males are at higher risk of HIV than uncircumcised.

I invite him to reflect upon the above figures and then share with us the fruits of that reflection.


[Sources: http://www.photius.com/rankings/2015/population/hiv_aids_adult_prevalence_rate_2015_0.html; http://www.photius.com/rankings/circumcised_men_country_ranks.html; http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf; circs.org estimate reproduced https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.circumcision/H_mYGEYXYPs]

[Casaman]

I googled this Ron Lowe - TLC Tugger fellow and he is all over the internet posting messages and promoting his product, quite obsessively actually. He has posted here many times and I would not doubt for a minute that he checks here regularly to see what is said abut him. In my opinion he is just too much of a moral coward to apoligise for all his (to put it politely) misinformation. I find it shocking that somebody posing as an expert on foreskins can can just make up so called facts at will and spread them to the public.

[harriet....@yahoo.com]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 8:22:17 AM UTC-7, Casaman wrote:


>
> I googled this Ron Lowe - TLC Tugger fellow and he is all over the internet posting messages and promoting his product, quite obsessively actually. He has posted here many times and I would not doubt for a minute that he checks here regularly to see what is said abut him. In my opinion he is just too much of a moral coward to apoligise for all his (to put it politely) misinformation. I find it shocking that somebody posing as an expert on foreskins can can just make up so called facts at will and spread them to the public.
>

I have found that a true test of somebody's character is the ability to admit when they are wrong and take responsibility for error. If they cannot do that, it's a sign of other character defects too.

[harriet....@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 9:34:26 PM UTC-7, Parker wrote:


>
> LOL! Ron Low doesn't know ANYTHING about foreskins! After all, he claims that smegma has sa "sweet aroma".....that's right, it's his actual words, smegma has a sweet aroma!!! He certainly has never smelt one and I bet he's never touched one either. He doesn't have one of his own, he says the owner's opinion is all that matters, that the foreskin "feels really good. It's the best part". But he doesn't even have one!! LOL!!!


I googled some of his past posts and I must say he seems to be very ignorant about foreskins, which I suppose you could expect from a circumcised heterosexual male, except that he seems to have set himself up as some kind of public expert! Would you believe he actually claimed the foreskin is "self cleaning" because it gets flushed out with "sterile" urine? He wrote this,

"Indeed the foreskin of every mammal on earth is self-cleaning. If
this were not the case, how does one imagine that these specimens
survived evolutionary processes to be among us today? I guess it
comes down to what you want to define as clean. I'm speaking of clean
in terms of good health. Sterile urine leaving the body is sufficient
to keep the space within the foreskin flushed clean and healthy under
natural circumstances....Just as not using underarm deodorant is not a "health" issue, allowing your body to let smegma accumulate is perfectly healthy and natural.... a normal healthy penis can also have a lot of smegma if
its owner just wishes to leave it natural"

So all an uncircumcised man has to do to keep his penis clean is to urinate?? I am 100 per cent sure this man has never smelled smegma on an uncircumcised penis! (Urine isn't sterile by the way and the stale urine smell on uncircumcised men is most unpleasant)

[Oliver]

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 9:13:53 AM UTC-4, harriet....@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 9:34:26 PM UTC-7, Parker wrote:

>
> I googled some of his past posts and I must say he seems to be very ignorant about foreskins, which I suppose you could expect from a circumcised heterosexual male, except that he seems to have set himself up as some kind of public expert! Would you believe he actually claimed the foreskin is "self cleaning" because it gets flushed out with "sterile" urine?
>

LOL! Ron Low is soooooooo clueless about foreskins! And urine too apparently. If urine is that good at cleaning I wonder if he ever takes a bath in it, to get the whole-body benefits?

He could add a urine-based shampoo and a urine-based soap to his product line. After all if urine can clean a foreskin as he claims, it can clean anything!

[Quentin]

I was looking for information on HIV in Israel yesterday -- and came upon another statistical deception by Ron Low!

Low repeats this trick many times on the internet, mainly in the form of letters or comments on news items. He tries to minimize differences in HIV rates by comparing circumcised Israel's HIV rate with that of uncircumcised Japan. He doubtless selected Japan because it has the lowest rate he could find for any uncircumcised country in the world:

"HIV is more rare in Japan where almost nobody is circumcised than it is in Israel where 95% are cut."

"In non-cutting Japan, AIDS is more rare than in 95%-cut Israel."

"AIDS is as rare in non-cutting Japan as it is in 95% cut Israel."

"Isreal has about the same HIV incidence as Japan (where circumcision is very rare)"

And so on and on and on.

I can play that game too, just by selecting different countries of my own:

"Less than 1 percent have HIV in circumcised Israel, but 25 percent have it in uncircumcised Swaziland."

There -- I have picked statistics to make it seem the chances are at least 25 times as great, by choosing the uncircumcised country with the highest rate instead of the lowest!

Instead of playing games with statistical outliers, we should just let the FACTS speak for themselves:

ALL countries with very high rates of HIV -- over 6 percent -- have low circumcision rates -- below 35 percent.

ALL countries with high circumcision rates -- over 95 percent -- have very low rates of HIV -- below 2 percent.

Low must know this surely? If not, he does now, and he should go back to those outlets and ask them to print a correction.

[Oliver]

Yes, it does make a difference when for comparative purposes you use the lowest or highest number in a series! Low must know that a legitimate comparison must use average numbers -- not one selected because it is atypical and misleading.

Low also assumes that the Israeli rate reflects israelis (jews and arabs) who are all circumcised. But Israel has a large population of illegal migrants from other countries including some with high HIV rates. From 1981 to 2010 there were 6,579 HIV cases in Israel. But 2,717 of them (41%) were migrants from other countries! Most of the other cases involved IV drug abuse or homosexual intercourse where circumcision is irrelevant. Only 796 (12%) of all the HIV cases were heterosexuals who were not immigrants from high-HIV countries or iV drug users.

So in fact, the rate among circumcised heterosexual israelis (jew and arab) is negligible, as we would expect in a circumcised population.

Meanwhile, in uncircumcised Japan the HIV rate has doubled since 2000!

It seems Israel and Japan were two more bad choices by Ron Low, who never seems to know what he's talking about.

(See: http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/23833144/Thirty-years-of-HIV-in-Israel:-current-epidemiology-and-future-challenges; http://www.japantoday.com/category/opinions/view/hivaids-awareness-in-japan-still-lacking)

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

Israel has a large population of illegal migrants? Considering the security situation there, that's hard to believe.

And what fraction of these illegal migrants are circumcized? This figure is key to your argument.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 5:42:09 AM UTC-5, Quentin wrote:

>
> ALL countries with very high rates of HIV -- over 6 percent -- have low circumcision rates -- below 35 percent.
>
> ALL countries with high circumcision rates -- over 95 percent -- have very low rates of HIV -- below 2 percent.
>
> Low must know this surely? If not, he does now, and he should go back to those outlets and ask them to print a correction.

From an epistemological perspective, reading uncited figures posted on an anonymous internet forum can hardly constitute "knowing" something. How about citing your sources?

For one, how many nations have 95%+ male circumcision rates? I am assuming that these are socially conservative Muslim nations--Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran. What does the epidemiology of an STD look like in Saudi Arabia? How many sexual partners do people in Saudi Arabia have? Without controlling for promiscuity, your numbers aren't interesting. At least reveal your source--why should anybody simply take your word for it?

[Pat Lastingham]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 2:54:50 PM UTC-5, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:


> Israel has a large population of illegal migrants? Considering the security situation there, that's hard to believe.

Israel's problems with illegal migrants and attempts to deport them have been widely publicized for many years.

Since the 1990s more than a million foreign laborers, legal and illegal, have gone to Israel and we may assume many have had sexual relations in that country. There are currently about 250,000 migrants there, half of them illegal. This includes about 60,000 Africans who have entered through the Sinai desert since 2006. The Israeli government has repeatedly tried to deport migrants. For example in 2003-5 Israeli authorities deported 150,000, many of them from the Philippines, China, Romania, Thailand, Ghana, and other African countries. In 2009 Israel began another operation to deport a further 300,000 illegal migrants. Last year the Israel government was criticized for deporting over 6,000 Sudanese. It was recently reported that Israel is offering a combination of cash and threats to 45,000 Eritrean and Sudanese to induce them to leave.

See for example:

http://www.irinnews.org/report/85270/israel-crackdown-on-illegal-migrants-and-visa-violators
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/world/middleeast/israel-court-condemns-policy-of-detaining-migrants.html>
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/world/middleeast/thousands-of-migrants-forced-to-leave-israel-rights-group-says.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/world/middleeast/05workers.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/toughening-its-stance-toward-migrants-israel-pushes-africans-to-leave/2015/05/14/e1637bce-f350-11e4-bca5-21b51bbdf93e_story.html

> And what fraction of these illegal migrants are circumcized? This figure is key to your argument.

Actually the contributor did not make an argument. He merely recited facts to show that 41 percent of HIV cases in Israel are among migrants from other countries and that the rate among heterosexual Israeli citizens is negligible. There is no argument about this.

However in answer to your interest in the circumcision status of the migrants: we may be sure that the circumcision rate is significantly lower than that of Israelis. Those from China, Thailand, and Europe are from non-circumcising cultures. Many of the African migrants are Christian or animist people fleeing persecution by Muslims and are typically from non-circumcising cultures, e.g. in Chad and south Sudan. Given their lower rate of circumcision we would expect a higher rate of HIV, which is what we find.

[harriet....@yahoo.com]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:07:19 PM UTC-8, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> From an epistemological perspective, reading uncited figures posted on an anonymous internet forum can hardly constitute "knowing" something. How about citing your sources?
>

Dear Jack, have you been following this discussion? If you go back a few posts to one by Urban Kaletsky you can find the references there, that is obviously where those figures come from, the sources are listed.

> For one, how many nations have 95%+ male circumcision rates? I am assuming that these are socially conservative Muslim nations--Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran. What does the epidemiology of an STD look like in Saudi Arabia? How many sexual partners do people in Saudi Arabia have?
>

LOL do you really think those "conservative" Muslim men keep it in their pants?? If you believe that you must also believe that republicans who are against gay rights never have gay sex or televangelists who holler about adultery never go with prostitutes!!! Jack what do you think those Saudi men are doing with their Filipino maids and Pakistani house boys and those fourth "wives" that they marry for an hour or a month and then get rid of by saying, I divorce you! three times? I will give you three guesses to see if you can get it right!

You are very naive! Harriet

[e.mont...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 at 1:32:39 PM UTC-5, TLC Tugger wrote:

> Apparently a reference to the FACT that in half of African nations it is the circumcised who have markedly higher HIV prevalence? Deal with it.

> -Ron Low


Man, that is so weak! Who you think your fooling beside yourself? EVERYBODY knows you made a fake claim. Or you would give the source. You can't and EVERYBODY knows you can't. What a doofus.

[H.G.]

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 6:42:06 AM UTC-4, Casaman wrote:

I am a penis owner with a foreskin and it sure isn't the best part! actually its the worst part! I don't see the point of foreskins actually. I try to keep mine retracted so it feels like I'm cut but when I have the $$$$ I will get cut. I don't know where this Low guy gets off telling everybody else the foreskins the best part. He's not a foreskin owner how would he know?

[Oliver]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 3:07:19 PM UTC-5, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> From an epistemological perspective, reading uncited figures posted on an anonymous internet forum can hardly constitute "knowing" something. How about citing your sources?
>

LOL "From an epistemological perspective"....a classic case of somebody misusing a big word he doesn't really understand in the hope it will make him appear intelligent....but achieving the opposite!

Anyhow Jack, as you are so interested in epistemology, please give us your "epistemological perspective" on the main topic here: Ron Low "knowing" that HIV is more common in circumcised than uncircumcised men in Africa, based on figures he cannot cite from a source he refuses to give?

That is the subject of this three year old thread, so please don't keep us in suspense any longer! Share with us your epistemological insights on Ron Low's claim! Looking forward......

[parke...@yahoo.co.uk]

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:57:03 AM UTC-5, Oliver wrote:
> On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 3:07:19 PM UTC-5, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> >
> > From an epistemological perspective, reading uncited figures posted on an anonymous internet forum can hardly constitute "knowing" something. How about citing your sources?
> >

>
> LOL "From an epistemological perspective"....a classic case of somebody misusing a big word he doesn't really understand in the hope it will make him appear intelligent....but achieving the opposite!
>

Too true, that's exactly what I thought when I saw it! The drunken fool is very impressed by "sophisticated" words. I remember when somebody used "unseemly" here he got excited about it. This is what he told the person, "Saying "unseemly" makes you sound sophisticated". Then guess what -- 3 days later he was using "unseemly" here himself!! He couldn't wait to impress us with his sophistication too!

I reckon he belongs to some Word of the Month Club where he learns a new "sophisticated" word to impress regular folk like us with. Then he uses his shiny new words for a thread in his name to make sure we get to see it and be oh. so impressed! I saw he put up one headed "Dialectics" and another called "Histology". Wow!! Amazing!! Such big words Jack!!! But maybe it went over our heads because your "Dialectics" got only 14 views and "Histology" got only 15 views. (Compare this thread which has over 6800 views or the stinky foreskin thread which as over 27,000). Nice try though.

[parke...@yahoo.co.uk]

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 2:57:03 PM UTC, Oliver wrote:
>

> Anyhow Jack, as you are so interested in epistemology, please give us your "epistemological perspective" on the main topic here: Ron Low "knowing" that HIV is more common in circumcised than uncircumcised men in Africa, based on figures he cannot cite from a source he refuses to give?
That is the subject of this three year old thread, so please don't keep us in suspense any longer! Share with us your epistemological insights on Ron Low's claim! Looking forward......
>

Why don't you answer, Jack? You're usually so quick with your pompous opinions especially if you think somebody didn't back up their claims. What's wrong? Lost your tongue?

[parke...@yahoo.co.uk]

Jack? Still tongue tied? Surely you haven't been in your usual alcoholic stupour all this time! What's the problem? For YEARS your buddy Ron Low has yelled from the rooftops that AIDS is more common in circed than uncirced in most African countries. But no source from Ron, he won't give one, he makes excuses, he flat out refuses. You always demand sources for facts like that. What's the problem this time Jack?

Come on Jack. Put down the drink and tell us what you think. From your "epistemological perspective" if you like!!! ROFLMAO!!!

[Uckister777]

While you're at it Jack, why not give us your opinion on Ron Low's continual assertions that the foreskin is the best part of the penis? That's a bold claim considering the only evidence he gives is "the opinion of the owner"... but he doesn't have a foreskin himself so by his own logic his own opinion doesn't count. You're super quick to ask everybody else for proof of claims. Why don't you ask Ron Low for a reliable source for this critically important claim?

You have bragged several times about how intelligent you are, so I'm naturally eager to see how your fine mind processes a problem in epistemology...

[macho...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 7, 2012 at 6:51:42 AM UTC-8, windinghighway wrote:
> Ron Lowe, aka TLC Tugger, made a lot of silly statements in recent
> posts to the "Why is this a debate?" thread -- mostly stuff he seems
> to have copied and pasted from anti circ websites apparently without
> understanding it. As usually happens when he posts here, his errors
> were exposed and he retreated without defending himself or admitting
> his errors. I'd love him to try to respond to all the questions Jake
> Waskett and I had for him, but of course he won't.
>
> One statement he made really does require a response, though. Ron
> Lowe, aka TLC Tugger, twice asserted that HIV is markedly more common
> in circumcised men than uncircumcised in half the countries of
> Africa. Here are the exact quotes:
>
> >Stats from about half the nations in Africa show that the circumcised
> >have markedly higher HIV incidence
>
> and again:
>
> >The supposed reduced HIV risk from being circumcised is NOT born out
> >in any real-world scenario.
> >In half the African nations it is the
> >circumcised who have markedly higher HIV incidence.
>
> Now, if this were true it would be a fact of enormous significance.
> It would mean that the WHO and all the other national medical
> authorities who are working to circumcise vulnerable populations are
> embarked on a terrible mistake. It would mean that all the many
> studies showing higher rates of HIV in uncircumcised African countries
> have been disproved at a stroke. It would mean, in fact, that
> somebody may be MORE likely to be protected from HIV with a foreskin
> than without!

>
> There is an ethical issue here, because it would be quite wrong to
> mislead people about their likelihood of getting a lethal disease by
> carelessly providing false information. Also, it would be unseemly
> for TLC Tugger, who has a financial interest in commercial
> contraptions aimed at those who dislike circumcision and prefer
> foreskins, to make an egregious mistake on this topic.
>

> So Ron, could you please clear this up?
>
> First, what do you mean by "markedly" more likely?
>
> Second, which are the "half the countries of Africa where the
> circumcised have higher rates than the uncircumcised? There are 54
> countries in Africa, so would you please name at least 27 where this
> is the case?
>
> Also, would you like to reconsider your statement that "The supposed
> reduced HIV risk from being circumcised is NOT born out
> in any real-world scenario"? Not in any? Really?
>
> [Prediction, folks: He will check his secondary sources as usual for
> the information, but he wont find it. And why? Because they dont
> have it. And why? Because it's just not true. And what will he do
> then? He'll either give some grudging, petulant response, or he'll
> keep his mouth shut. Wait and see...]
>
> Meanwhile, anybody who missed it and wants to see how deep in doo doo
> you can get when you dont know what you are talking about should
> review Ron's contribution and the responses in the "Why is this a
> debate"? thread. Its a beaut!



Is it not ridiculous to try to prevent AIDS by cutting off healthy undiseased tissue when the tissue that is cut off contains substances that fight against viruses such as HIV? Keeping the foreskin and education is safer than circumcision. If a man is foolish enough not to use a condom, or if the condom breaks, he can be safer with the foreskin than without it. Heterosexual uncircumcised men who wait ten minutes and wipe with a dry cloth are safer than circumcised men.
"If we were to express the efficacy of delayed washing in the same way that the results of PrEP trials were reported, that is as relative risk reductions, this would mean that not washing immediately, but waiting for at least 10 minutes after intercourse before washing can reduce the risk of infection by 83%. Compare this to the 44% efficacy of Truvada in the iPrEx trial, the 39 % efficacy of tenofovir gel in reducing the risk of infection in women in the Caprisa 004 trial, and the 38-66% efficacy reported for circumcision over 24 months."
http://dontgetstuck.Wordpress.Com/2012/05/09/have-we-ignored-a-very-simple-procedure-that-could-significantly-reduce-the-risk-of-sexual-transmission-of-hiv-to-men-from-women/

[Uckister777]

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 4:36:49 AM UTC, macho...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> Is it not ridiculous to try to prevent AIDS by cutting off healthy undiseased tissue when the tissue that is cut off contains substances that fight against viruses such as HIV?

No, because although langerin produced by the foreskin has some antiviral properties, there is not enough of it and the HIV viruses easily overwhelm this defense --and then proceed to infect the victim through the langerhans cells of his foreskin. If you cut off the foreskin you cut off the langerin -- but you also cut off the langerhans cells which are the target for HIV infection! DUH.

>Keeping the foreskin and education is safer than circumcision. If a man is foolish enough not to use a condom, or if the condom breaks, he can be safer with the foreskin than without it. Heterosexual uncircumcised men who wait ten minutes and wipe with a dry cloth are safer than circumcised men.
> "If we were to express the efficacy of delayed washing in the same way that the results of PrEP trials were reported, that is as relative risk reductions, this would mean that not washing immediately, but waiting for at least 10 minutes after intercourse before washing can reduce the risk of infection by 83%. Compare this to the 44% efficacy of Truvada in the iPrEx trial, the 39 % efficacy of tenofovir gel in reducing the risk of infection in women in the Caprisa 004 trial, and the 38-66% efficacy reported for circumcision over 24 months."
> http://dontgetstuck.Wordpress.Com/2012/05/09/have-we-ignored-a-very-simple-procedure-that-could-significantly-reduce-the-risk-of-sexual-transmission-of-hiv-to-men-from-women/

Good luck with your campaign to "educate" all uncircumcised men to wash their dick ten minutes after vaginal sex, along with a warning they shouldn't do it before ten minutes, or forget to do it afterwards, in the hope it will save them from HIV infection. Nobody else seems to be taking up the challenge.....

Anyway your sources are out of date.

For a more UP TO DATE and SCIENTIFIC discussion of how HIV infects langerhans cells despite the presence of langerin, see this article by Morris and Wamai in the International Journal of STD and AIDS March 2012 vol. 23 no. 3 153-159. www.std.sagepub.com/content/23/3/153.short

For a more UP TO DATE and SCIENTIFIC discussion of exactly how HIV directly infects foreskin cells, see this 2014 article by Jayathunga et al., www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192839/

[Casaman]

Le mardi 16 février 2016 15:57:03 UTC+1, Oliver a écrit :


>
> Anyhow Jack, as you are so interested in epistemology, please give us your "epistemological perspective" on the main topic here: Ron Low "knowing" that HIV is more common in circumcised than uncircumcised men in Africa, based on figures he cannot cite from a source he refuses to give?
>

Oliver, Jack will never answer that question because there no way to do it without admitting his pal Ron Low is a fool or a fraud. Sadly, both are just propagandists not interested in rational discussion.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 9:57:03 AM UTC-5, Oliver wrote:

Obviously there's no way to scrutinize Ron's conclusion (that HIVcir > HIVuncir) without the study report.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

I know nothing about Ron Low except that he stood on the anti side of the debate. I have no particular alignment with him/her/them.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

If I'd know you were waiting so eagerly I'd have answered sooner.

[Uckister777]

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 9:42:24 PM UTC, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Obviously there's no way to scrutinize Ron's conclusion (that HIVcir > HIVuncir) without the study report.

Oh you finally noticed that after three years? But if somebody on the other side makes a claim that you think needs a citation you yelp for one immediately, don't you?

The issue isn't just that Ron Low hasn't, can't, and won't give a source --- We all know he doesn't have one. It's a moral issue, Jack. DESPITE KNOWING HIS INFORMATION IS FALSE he keeps spreading it in various online outlets all over the world, including countries with very high HIV rates, with callous disregard for the medical consequences.

When asked for a source for his astonishing claim that HIV is markedly more common in circumcised than uncircumcised men in half the countries of Africa, he's given just two responses:

1. "Apparently a reference to the FACT that in half of African nations it is the circumcised who have markedly higher HIV prevalence? Deal with it."

2 "I assume folks who wonder about the available stats for circumcision and HIV prevalance in African nations will look it up."

The rest of the time he just runs away.

On the evidence, the man is dishonest, reckless, and cowardly. You've ignored this for three years in a thread devoted to this very topic, while regularly badgering others for citations.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 8:48:08 AM UTC-4, Uckister777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 9:42:24 PM UTC, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Obviously there's no way to scrutinize Ron's conclusion (that HIVcir > HIVuncir) without the study report.
>
>
> Oh you finally noticed that after three years? But if somebody on the other side makes a claim that you think needs a citation you yelp for one immediately, don't you?

I think folks are generally more critical of the "other" than of their own ideology. Maybe you are an exception.

>
> The issue isn't just that Ron Low hasn't, can't, and won't give a source --- We all know he doesn't have one. It's a moral issue, Jack. DESPITE KNOWING HIS INFORMATION IS FALSE he keeps spreading it in various online outlets all over the world, including countries with very high HIV rates, with callous disregard for the medical consequences.
>
> When asked for a source for his astonishing claim that HIV is markedly more common in circumcised than uncircumcised men in half the countries of Africa, he's given just two responses:
>
> 1. "Apparently a reference to the FACT that in half of African nations it is the circumcised who have markedly higher HIV prevalence? Deal with it."

When folks shout the word "fact", I become immediately more skeptical.

>
> 2 "I assume folks who wonder about the available stats for circumcision and HIV prevalance in African nations will look it up."
>
> The rest of the time he just runs away.
>
> On the evidence, the man is dishonest, reckless, and cowardly. You've ignored this for three years in a thread devoted to this very topic, while regularly badgering others for citations.

Well, it looks like you've got the Ron Lowe Problem covered.

[Kim]

On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 03:32:39 UTC+9, TLC Tugger wrote:

> Foreskin feels REALLY good. It IS the best part. You don't have to agree. You only have to acknowledge that the opinion that matters is that of the penis owner.
>
> -Ron Low

If this was the best part men would not cut it off! I am Korean and in South Korea almost all men are circumcised. Until 1945 all Korean men were uncircumcised. Then in the Korean War 1950-1953 nearly six million American soldiers were stationed in Korea. There were no American women there so they had sex with Korean women and some with Korean men. When they saw the advantages of a circumcised penis the Koreans wanted it too. Starting 1950 it quickly became normal to circumcise all Korean boys. Seriously Ron Low -- do you believe that millions of Korean fathers who were all uncircumcised and knew all about foreskins decided to cut off the best part of their son's penises? If you believe that I must respectfully question your sanity.

[mehdi...@gmail.com]

That's a really good point. There was also a circumcision surge in the USA right after WW2. In the early 20th c most American men were uncircumcised but many suffered foreskin problems in war conditions so the military circumcised them. These men were so pleased they told others about it and word got around. When they got back from the war almost that whole generation circumcised their boys. In a few years US rates reached their highest ever.

I wonder how Ron Low explains that when he says the foreskin is the "best part" of the penis. Millions of men with foreskins don't decide to cut it off their sons if it's the best part!

[tomdav...@gmail.com]

This little group who go around saying there's no connection between HIV and uncircumcised cocks are just like the little group who deny that HIV causes AIDS disease.

Both times the medical community proved the link and moved on but a bunch of fanatics refuse to accept the evidence. They promote false denials which if accepted, can lead people to become infected unnecessarily.

In the 1990's a scientist called Duesberg promoted the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and a group of amateurs rallied round him. They even claimed that HIV drugs were causing AIDS symptoms. That would't matter much except that our South African president Thabo Mbeki who is a scientific amateur believed this crap. There was hardly any AIDS in South Africa when he took over but he convened a meeting of AIDS denialists who claimed HIV testing was unnecessary and that AIDS should be treated with vitamins, vegetables, yoga, music therapy etc instead of pharmacy meds. Mbeki announced that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and for years our government regarded those meds as poison and wouldn't recommend or pay for them. Better to eat beetroot they said! There was practically no HIV testing or conventional AIDS treatment in SA for years.

You know what the result was? Now SA has the largest AIDS epidemic in the world. More than 6 million of the population has HIV. Lack of anti HIV drugs is estimated to have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Of course Duesberg and Mbeki don't give a damn about that and still claim they are right! That's fanatics for you,facts don't matter to them.

Now here's another group of crackpot scientists and mostly ignorant amateurs like this Ron Low denying all research on how uncircumcised cocks spread HIV. Fortunately in SA we won't listen and won't make the same mistake again! Govt policy now advocates circumcision against HIV for all males. President Jacob Zuma got circumcised himself and tells everybody how great it is and that all men should do the same. The biggest non-circumcising tribe were the Zulus but the paramount chief Goodwill Zwelithini has called on all Zulus to practice circumcision to fight HIV and for better hygiene and sexual pleasure. It's routine now for Zulu boys.

I think it's just disgusting that some people who don't even know what they are talking about risk other people's health and maybe even their life, to spread the misinformation that circumcision doesn't help prevent HIV. Mr Low please check the info from the US Center for Disease Control and from the World Health Organization and then do a public retraction. I see people sick with AIDS in SA all the time and it is heartbreaking, you really should try to understand the damage reckless wrong info can do!!

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

tomdav...@gmail.com

...............

No one has posted here as Ron Lowe for years. And I don't recall anyone posting here saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

[tomdav...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 2:32:00 PM UTC+2, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:

> No one has posted here as Ron Lowe for years. And I don't recall anyone posting here saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Ron Low posted here about 18 months ago (xmas 2014).
I didn't say anybody posted here saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
You seem to be confused but from what I see here you have a serious drinking problem?

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

tomdav...@gmail.com

............

Oh, then maybe he'll respond to you.

[tomdav...@gmail.com]

You should read this whole discussion from the start which is what I did. That's how I knew Ron Low was in this discussion before but you didn't. I know he knows about it because he was here and I bet he still pays attention to it. He's a well known person who got caught out with a whopper and won't take responsibility for it, so it just keeps getting worse for him doesn't it? You know, its the same old story. If he'd confessed right at the start it would all be forgotten but instead, he doubled down on the lie then went into hiding and look what happened. More people came and then they brought up more dubious statements of his so it just keeps getting worse for him. He probably thought it would just go away, but now more than 7700 visitors came here, and of course the more that come the more visitors it gets. Yes, If he had any sense he would respond wouldn't he?

Try to understand this is more important than somebody getting facts wrong and not admitting it. Ron Low posts to sites all over the world including Southern Africa using false information to try to stop people following medical advice about a killer disease! I'm in the country with the most HIV cases in the world, where most people don't get proper treatment. It breaks your heart to see it. This isn't about an online debate for scoring points, its about the real world!!

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

tomdav...@gmail.com
- show quoted text -

You should read this whole discussion from the start which is what I did. That's how I knew Ron Low was in this discussion before but you didn't. I know he knows about it because he was here and I bet he still pays attention to it. He's a well known person who got caught out with a whopper and won't take responsibility for it, so it just keeps getting worse for him doesn't it? You know, its the same old story. If he'd confessed right at the start it would all be forgotten but instead, he doubled down on the lie then went into hiding and look what happened. More people came and then they brought up more dubious statements of his so it just keeps getting worse for him. He probably thought it would just go away, but now more than 7700 visitors came here, and of course the more that come the more visitors it gets. Yes, If he had any sense he would respond wouldn't he?

Try to understand this is more important than somebody getting facts wrong and not admitting it. Ron Low posts to sites all over the world including Southern Africa using false information to try to stop people following medical advice about a killer disease! I'm in the country with the most HIV cases in the world, where most people don't get proper treatment. It breaks your heart to see it. This isn't about an online debate for scoring points, its about the real world!!

...........

If a grown man wants to have part of his penis cut off, or any other part of his body, no one should stand in his way unless he is somehow mentally disabled or intoxicated.

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

tomdav...@gmail.com
- hide quoted text -

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 12:15:59 AM UTC+2, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> tomdav...@gmail.com
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 2:32:00 PM UTC+2, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > No one has posted here as Ron Lowe for years. And I don't recall anyone posting here saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
>
> Ron Low posted here about 18 months ago (xmas 2014).
> I didn't say anybody posted here saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
> You seem to be confused but from what I see here you have a serious drinking problem?
> ............
>

> Oh, then maybe he'll respond to you.

You should read this whole discussion from the start which is what I did. That's how I knew Ron Low was in this discussion before

.............

BTW, friend of mine spent a week, years ago, in S.A. and Botswana and she still talks about what an amazing trip it was. Personally, I know very little of the history (natural or political). I do know that M. Ghandi was inspired to lead the resistance against British colonialism (so the story goes) after being subjected to racism during a S.A. trip (India is the land that captures my imagination.)

[tomdav...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 7:51:29 PM UTC+4, jackpi...@gmail.com wrote:
> tomdav...@gmail.com

> BTW, friend of mine spent a week, years ago, in S.A. and Botswana and she still talks about what an amazing trip it was. Personally, I know very little of the history (natural or political).

You should visit one day! It is a beautiful country with amazing variety. Tourists love it. Suffering unfortunately from a totally corrupt government Run by a gang of criminal thieves and the corruption goes from them all the way down. The are crashing the economy and the currency which is awful for us but great for tourists because if you come with dollars or euros everything is cheap, cheap cheap!!

SA has also got the highest number of HIV cases in the world because the previoius president Thabo Mbeki got conned by foreign naysayers into believing HIV doesnt' cause AIDS so for years there was almost no testing, no education, no AIDS drugs.

Finallyl we have a big campaign against HIV which includes offering circumcision. Supported by US govt, World Bank, Bill Gates Foundation etc. That's because of recommendations from World Health Organization based on scientific evidence that circumcision reduces chance of infection by 60 percent. Researchers found this advantage stays even five years after circumcision. A good investment!

A few crackpot scientists questioned the research and the scientific community proved them wrong. BUT a group of ignorant non scientists like Ron Low spend god knows how many hours posting misinformation to online forums to try to talk men out of having the operation.

If Low and his friends want to talk men out of circumcision that's their right, nobody can complain about that. They DONT have to a right to do it with a pack of made-up statistics like this favourite of Low about HIV being more common in uncircumcised men!!! It is so damn irresponsible and it could even cost some people their life for gods sake! I have seen other fake made up numbers from him too. Somebody should make a list of them all and post them wherever Low posts so people can get the facts. This is so important in undeveloped countries where people can be quite ignorant and don't have good sources for information . Or are not good at knowing what is crap and what isn't.

The World Health Organisation circumcision project in 14 African countries that these amateurs try to disrupt is expected to save 3.4 million lives and save 18 blllion dollars in care costs. Millions of men have already been circumcised voluntarily in these countries and anything I see or read in the media has them (and their wives) very happy about it and not complaining! They don't love their foreskins, it's just foreign interferers who do!

This is World Heath Organisation Fact Sheet, http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/fact_sheet/en/

Voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention

Fact sheet: July 2012

Key facts

Medical male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by approximately 60%.
Since 2007, WHO and UNAIDS have recommended voluntary medical male circumcision as an additional important strategy for HIV prevention, particularly in settings with high HIV prevalence and low levels of male circumcision, where the public health benefits will be maximized. Fourteen countries in eastern and southern Africa with this profile have initiated programmes to expand male circumcision.
Medical male circumcision offers excellent value for money in such settings. It saves costs by averting new HIV infections and reducing the number of people needing HIV treatment and care.
A one-time intervention, medical male circumcision provides men life-long partial protection against HIV as well as other sexually transmitted infections. It should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package of services and be used in conjunction with other methods of prevention, such as female and male condoms.

Overview

Male circumcision is surgical removal of the foreskin - the retractable fold of tissue that covers the head of the penis. The inner aspect of the foreskin is highly susceptible to HIV infections. Trained health professionals can safely remove the foreskin of infants, adolescents and adults (medical male circumcision).

Compelling evidence for recommendations

In 2007, WHO and UNAIDS issued recommendations on medical male circumcision as an additional HIV prevention strategy based on strong and consistent scientific evidence. Three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya, Rakai District, Uganda, and Orange Farm, South Africa have shown that medical male circumcision reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV from women to men by approximately 60%.

The most recent data from Uganda show that in the five years since the Uganda trial was completed, high effectiveness has been maintained among the men who were circumcised, with a 73% protective effect against HIV infection.

Maximizing public health benefit

WHO and UNAIDS recommended the intervention be added in countries with high HIV prevalence, generalized heterosexual HIV epidemics, and low levels of male circumcision where the intervention is likely to have the greatest public health impact. Fourteen priority countries with this profile are striving to scale up voluntary medical male circumcision: Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Medical male circumcision for HIV prevention offers excellent value for money. Recent modelling studies found that reaching 80% coverage among men 15 - 49 years old in the priority countries – by performing approximately 20 million circumcisions - would cost US$1.5 billion and would result in net savings of US$16.5 billion by 2025 due to averted treatment and care costs. Achieving, and maintaining, 80% coverage through 2025 would avert 3.4 million new HIV infections.

[tanab...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 7:20:04 AM UTC+4, Kim wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 03:32:39 UTC+9, TLC Tugger wrote:
>
> > Foreskin feels REALLY good. It IS the best part. You don't have to agree. You only have to acknowledge that the opinion that matters is that of the penis owner.
> >
> > -Ron Low
>

The reason he says it is <the best part> is he sells devices to <restore> foreskin. Think about this, if he told the truth it is just useless and smells bad who would want to buy what he sells? He says it is <the best part> to make men think it is better than the head of their penis!! then they will buy it he hopes.

He has no proof to claim this so what can he give for proof? Just say the penis owner opinion matters but he has no foreskin being circumcsied as an infant so how can he know>?

Salesman not scientist!

[jackpi...@gmail.com]

tanab...@gmail.com

..... . . .. . . . .....

A person's sexuality should not be divided into parts and each part judged in isolation. Any biological system is comprised of interactivities, some of which science understands, some not yet.

[tanab...@gmail.com]

Some parts are better than others, for if you are forced to choose which will you lose, your foreskin or the head of your penis, then we will know which you think is the best part!

[Pat Lastingham]

Despite being corrected numerous times, Ron Low continues to repeat exactly the same misinformation in letters to online newspapers in less developed countries. Here is a familiar item he wrote to a Zimbabwe newspaper Newsday last month:


"September 12, 2016
In the only controlled trial of male-to-female HIV transmission and circumcision (Wawer / Gray Uganda 2009) they researchers found that the men they cut infected their female partners 50% MORE often than the men they left intact did."


Low has crudely manipulated the numbers but he must know, if he has read the report he cites, that the researchers actually found no statistically significant difference between the two groups. This was the actual conclusion of their report: "Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months" -- nothing like what Low claims.

In an earlier exchange on alt.circ in November 2011 (quoted earlier in this thread) one contributor actually showed Ron Low exactly how to calculate statistical significance using the numbers from the experiment. Low did not dispute that calculation at the time so he is fully aware that the differences were not statistically significant.

He must also be aware that several recently circumcised men in the sample had unprotected sex before their surgery had healed and were responsible for some of the HIV transmission. Based on that finding the researchers strongly recommend a six week period of abstinence after circumcision, not only to avoid infection via bleeding but also to avoid post-surgical trauma.

Decades of evidence shows that circumcision status, in itself, makes no difference in male -to- female transmission, because HIV is not spread FROM the foreskin. Circumcision status makes a significant difference in female- to- male transmission because HIV is spread TO the foreskin via the Langerhans cells on its inner lining that are a prime target for HIV.

Of course if female-to-male transmission causes many more uncircumcised men to become infected than circumcised then sex with uncircumcised carries a greater risk, but this is a secondary and not primary effect of their status.

Zimbabwe suffers a very high HIV rate and currently has a program to circumcise 1.7 million volunteers by the end of next year. Low apparently seeks to disrupt this program through misinformation placed in local outlets where it is less likely to attract critical scrutiny.

[Oliver]

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 5:01:38 AM UTC-4, Pat Lastingham wrote:
> Despite being corrected numerous times, Ron Low continues to repeat exactly the same misinformation in letters to online newspapers in less developed countries.

It's almost pathological. The info Low keeps posting is distorted or false. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's objectively false which by now he must know very well. Yet he does it just the same, trying to dissuade people in third world countries from volunteering for a potentially life-saving procedure recommended by WHO and their own health authorities too. I wonder if it occurs to him that if he's wrong, but people believe him and get infected, they might get sick and die from his advice? I wonder how he will handle this in his own head, if it finally dawns on him what damage he might have done?

Also he rejects all the other research in Rakai by Wawer and Gray that shows uncircumcised men are much more likely to get HV than circumcised. Then he seizes on this one item of research which was part of the larger project, misrepresents it, and keeps spreading this information. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. I would like to see him explain why all the other rakai research is invalid, but this one that he likes is methodologically beyond reproach! Unfortunately that will never happen because Low won't debate informed people.

[jackpin...@gmail.com]

7:30 PMOliver

................

Are you saying there's a nutcase on the internet spewing b.s.? Consider alerting the BBC.

[gbor...@bikerider.com]

[Uckister777]

He's still at it, obsessively posting the identical misinformation all over the world. It must be almost a full time occupation for him, scanning obscure publications for a chance to copy and paste his crap. Here he is in May 2017 for example posting to an online publication in Namibia

Ron Low May 30, 2017
Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth. The mostly-cut US has twice the HIV incidence seen in Europe, where circumcision is rare. In the only controlled trial of male-to-female HIV transmission and circumcision (Wawer/Gray 2009 Uganda) they found that the men they cut infected their female partners with HIV 50% MORE often than the men they left intact did.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. Seriously, it’s the best part. Informed adults can decide for themselves about amputating exquisite sexual parts.


All lies and nonsense.

1. There are NO statistics on on the circumcision status of US men who died of AIDS (let alone of those who died of sexually transmitted HIV rather than some other route like HIV drugs) Low just just squeezed this one out of his ass. But he just cant stop making up flat-out lies.

2. It is not true that the US rate is twice that of Europe -- more invented nonsense. In fact the sexually transmitted rate among US white heterosexuals, who are overwhelmingly circumcised, is so low as to almost undetectable -- when the CDC publishes periodic HIV data by race, that number is usually left as a blank! The US rate is well below the world average, and as Ron Low knows perfectly well, the data from around the world (see some in earlier posts here) prove conclusively that uncircumcised men are much more susceptible to infection.

3. The Wawer/Gray study did NOT conclude that the cut men infected their partners more often than the uncut. The numbers involved were far too small to draw any such conclusion and in any case were compromised by men who had sex before their circumcision wounds had fully healed. The ACTUAL conclusion of the study was, quote: "Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months; longer-term effects could not be assessed. Condom use after male circumcision is essential for HIV prevention". In the real world, if cut men infected their partners 50 percent more than uncut there would be a global HIV crisis in CUT countries: isn't that right, Ron? But there is NO cut country with an HIV rate above the world average -- ONLY uncut countries. Low knows all this, but campaigns like a maniac to persuade people around the world that its less risky to have uncut sex!!!

4. "Foreskin feels REALLY good. Seriously, it’s the best part." There he goes again -- a man who doesn't even have a foreskin telling us how good it feels, and claiming without a shred of evidence that it's the best part of the penis. But then, he is in the business of selling contraptions to "restore" foreskins.... so he would say that, wouldn't he?

On the evidence of his own writings the man is dishonest to the very core.

[David Edwards]

On Tuesday, 28 November 2017 07:24:13 UTC, Charles Uckister wrote:

> On the evidence of his own writings the man is dishonest to the very core.

You know who this Low guy reminds me of? Donald Trump. He just makes stuff up then when fact checkers catch him out he just doubles down, then on top of that he makes up more stuff so he hopes everybody forgets the previous bullshit n starts fact check the next bullshit n so on.

[Oliver]

Like Trump, he seems to be seamless too. Somebody should compile a expose of all his "greatest hits" bullshit and copy and paste them to all the sites where he plants his crap.

[Oliver]

Sorry, typo. That should read, Like Trump, he seems to be shameless too.

[Parker]

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 5:03:38 AM UTC+1, tomdav...@gmail.com wrote:

>He's a well known person who got caught out with a whopper and won't take responsibility for it, so it just keeps getting worse for him doesn't it? You know, its the same old story. If he'd confessed right at the start it would all be forgotten but instead, he doubled down on the lie then went into hiding and look what happened. More people came and then they brought up more dubious statements of his so it just keeps getting worse for him. He probably thought it would just go away, but now more than 7700 visitors came here, and of course the more that come the more visitors it gets.

Yes. It's up to 12,595 visitors today.

> If he had any sense he would respond wouldn't he?

Uh huh.

[K.Williams]

On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 at 11:32:39 AM UTC-7, TLC Tugger wrote:

> Foreskin feels REALLY good. It IS the best part. You don't have to agree. You only have to acknowledge that the opinion that matters is that of the penis owner.

> -Ron Low

What an ignorant statement...and it comes from somebody who was circumcised at birth and can have NO idea what a foreskin feels like!

My foreskin was uncomfortable painful and smelly and destroyed my sexual and emotional confidence as a teenager. Getting circumcised at age 19 was the best day of my life. Anybody can google "foreskin problems" or "uncircumcised problems" to find almost infinite complaints about some horrible realities of of being uncircumcised. One of the most of common is PAIN!

Ron Low please review the following excerpts I found from googling "foreskin pain" from people who actually HAVE a foreskin unlike you, then see if you can reconcile with your statement "Foreskin feels REALLY good. It IS the best part. You don't have to agree. You only have to acknowledge that the opinion that matters is that of the penis owner."

My boyfriend has pain when his foreskin retracts – when he gets erect. The pain is worsened when he 'makes an entrance', and the pain afterwards leaves him unable to have sex again for about three days. His foreskin is red and irritated.

+++

I am 14, and uncircumcised. I always sorta knew something was up, as I can barely retract my foreskin at all when erect. It can get past the glans, but absolutely NO FURTHER without intense pain.
When flacid, I can retract my foreskin as far as I want to, but the head of my penis curls downwards.
+++

My girlfriend and I have both agreed to have full sex – but I can't go through with it as I have a problem with my foreskin. I’m 17. I have been given oral sex before but it hasn't felt nice, so I had to find excuses to stop. This is because it seems to feel uncomfortable. The end of my penis which is meant to be the sensitive part is definitely not sensitive and feels uncomfortable.

+++

I’m not circumcised and it really hurts when I try to move the foreskin back.

+++

The foreskin on my penis will not retract over the head any more without causing severe pain. It was always tight and would sometimes tear slightly but now is so painful that all desire is killed off.

+++

hello my name is joshua im 13 years old i started masterbating not much. maybe like 2 or 3 times a week im not circumcised dont know why. ): last year i started to notice tears on my foreskin and it burns bad when i pea ect sometimes durning the day. theres about six of them aroun the skin. i can see that the forskin is red and kinda swelling. the whole area feels irrataed

+++

My husband is diabetic and lately every time we have intercourse his foreskin gets 'cut up'. This happens even when he pulls back the skin to wash. It's hurting him and it doesn't seem to heal. He is not circumcised.

+++

My boyfriend who is 23 has what I can only describe as the equivalent to a tongue tie going from the inside of his foreskin to the top of his penis. It can cause pain for him during and after sex.

+++

Sometimes when i pull my foreskin back for cleaning purpose i feel like a needle is poking on the joint of foreskin. this problem dont happen aal the time when i pull but sometimes it happens and it hurts very badly.

+++

My uncircumcised boyfriend and I recently started having sex. However, I am his first and he has had tremendous pain while penetrating and even during intercourse. He says the pain is caused from the foreskin being pulled down too far. Because of this, he has never had an orgasm during sex.

+++

It hurts to pull back my foreskin, I am not circumsized and it has always been painful. Here's a little back story, I am 19 yo and in my first year of college, I havery never even touched a girl before and am scared that I never will be able to.

+++

Recently I have been getting really painful cracks around my foreskin after i have sex..its sometimes so painful and i can't pull up my foreskin (red and inflamed)

+++

We have quite an active sex life and now after being together full time for 6 months, he is suffering with cracks outside and redness inside his foreskin. He is finding it painful to pee. We use KY gel as a lubricant.

+++

While inserting penis into vagina i have pain when the foreskin moves back.

+++

Uncircumcised partner experiencing pain during sex -- Every time me and my partner try to have unprotected sex he says he is in pain and we have to use a condom, he said it's too sensitive, is this normal? We've been together for 10 years and never really had sex without a condom, cutting the tip off worked as we have a 12 month old but I really want to have sex without a condom.

+++

Pulling back foreskin? Ouch. For ages I have been having protected sex and I haven't been peeling back my foreskin. The thought of doing it just makes me sick.

+++

Just recently my foreskin has started to hurt during and after sex. My forskin has what looks like scratches on it. When I pull it back it feels like someone is ripping my foreskin apart.

+++

Hey, I'm Kyle, Im 14 and i have had irritation on the tip of my penis. The tip is slight red and i get the yellow smegma under my foreskin. I was just wondering would anyone be able to tell me what it is, is it Balantis or thrush or something else. If someone would reply i would really be greatfull because its really annoying and embarrising having to scratch in public.

+++

My Penis foreskin got ripped during sex..It started bleeding.

+++

My foreskin stuck behind shaft and there is some swelling due to tight foreskin and it's paining to I tried to pull it back not succeed. What should I do.

+++

My bellend is sore and sensitive when it is touched, it is also realli red, how am i supposed to wash it when it is this sore?

+++

Had a big deal happen this weekend. I was having sex and felt a weird pinch on my penis. I kept going and when I pulled out, there was blood all over the place. At first I thought this girl was on her period, but then the pain got really bad and I noticed I tore my foreskin. Part of it was ripped and kind of hanging off. I washed it, wrapped it up and now have my penis wrapped up with bandage.

+++

When I pull back my foreskin or try and have intercourse I noticed bleeding on dick.

+++

I am diabetic my penis burns and itchy and pull my forskin back it hurts I have some white stuff coming out And I have cut on the forskin.

+++

My penis is developing wounds on the top of my foreskin, this has happen a few times but it always heels on its own. So how do I stop the wounds coz they keep on poping each and every time.

+++

For the past few (maybe three) years I have had a problem with the skin cracking on my penis. I'm not circumsised and the tear or cracking is just under the foreskin, this happen everytime my wife and I ingage in sexual intercourse the broken skin burns, I clean it with rubbing alcohol and afte a few day it dry up; however the scar is still there and it break in the same place overtime.

+++

Under my foreskin itches really bad. So bad that I can't sleep! Nothing else wrong with it. Just very itchy. What can I do?

+++

I am an uncircumcised male. I have been experiencing red cuts on the foreskin of my penis for about six months. The severity of the cuts depends on if I am sexually active, although they do not completely go away. Sometimes the cuts are sore. They are all around the tip of the foreskin. Does anyone know what this is or how it could be treated??

+++

Hi, we are at our wits end now!!.. my boyfriend of 2 years keeps getting lacerations after sex.Its on the top of his penis all around like paper cuts which irritate him, i have been to a GUM clinic twice to be checked, but everything has come back clear...he is not circumcised

+++

My foreskin seems tight. ... I cant have sex because it hurts to insert my penis into my partner.

+++

The uncircumsized foreskin of my penis has become much less stretchable and will no longer allow pulling back to expose the penis head. This makes hygine much more difficult (although not impossible). Additionally, the foreskin sometimes becomes cracked, sometimes to the point of light bleeding if stretched too much for cleaning. When this cracking occurs, there is sometimes a dried, scaly yellowish substance that will peel or flake off.

+++

Hey, im 15 years old and i'm having alot of pain urinating, i am a type one diabetic which could be related to my problem, i havent had sex although i am in a relationship, i havent done anything with my partner sexually however, i also cant pull back my foreskin ,i really need some quick advice, i violently shake because of pain for about 5 minutes after trying to urinate.

+++

I regularly get redness and small cuts around the rim (prepuce?) of my foreskin. My glans is always fine but the cuts on my foreskin are painful and itchy.

+++

I am 54 years old men. It's like, my foreskin have lost previos flexibility and after sexual act I'm getting many painful cuts and cracks on it.Is there any cure.

+++

My uncircumcised penis head hurts to the touch. im 18 and im uncircumcised. And dont try to tell me that its sensitive. i know it is, its just that it is so sensitive that it is excruciating pain. one other thing, dont try to tell me that it being sensitive is good. its not. good for sex? maybe but it hurts so bad that i wouldnt even be able to get a condom on.

+++

Having sex hurts my uncircumcised penis. i cant believe it has come to this, but im kinda embarassed to tell anyone face to face so ill ask here... having sex for me really hurts my penis, to the point where i almost dont enjoy sex as i am constantly thinking of the pain.. the pain i am talking about, is when my foreskin rolls back to the point where my knob is semi exposed, it really stings, and the deeper i get into a girl the further it rolls back hence more painful. is this normal ? we actually had to stop the other night as neither of us were getting any pleasure.. is there anything i can do to stop this stinging pain.

+++

I'm uncircumcised teenager, and whenever I pull my foreskin back and touch my penis head it really hurts. The pain is unbearable.

+++

Is it OK to put lotion on my penis? my penis is always sore (i'm uncut) and it hurts to masturbate (not a sting, just a slight pain) its really annoying. I don't have lube, and soap is just too risky.

+++

I'm uncut, and when I pull my skin back and stroke myself, the inside of my penis kind of hurts when I stroke myself.

+++

Why does the head of my penis hurt when i touch it? When my penis is flacid or erect when i pull the skin back my penis head is red and when i touch it it hurts. Its not like a bad pain. Its like a sensitive pain. Like when you touch youre eyeball. You sensitive. Why do i feel this sesitive type pain and why is the head red? How can i make it so it doesnt hurt when i touch my penis head?

+++

hey, i'm uncircumcised and my penis head is sensitive. when i touch it without lubrication it hurts so if i ever want to rub the head i must use a lube. Now the big problem is i am meeting my partner after a long time in three weeks and we will have sex for the first time, so I would like to make my penis head less sensitive so it doesn't hurt when we have sex or when she touches it.

+++

Hey. I am 14 and i have an uncut penis/uncircumsized. I find it very annoying how it is very sensitive when i pull my foreskin down and touch the head. It hurts bad. it even hurts when i do it in the shower and the water going on it. I have no problem pulling my foreskin back. I do not know if this is normal for uncut boys but I wanna know how to make it less sensitive. what would happen if i get a b l o w j o b???? it would hurt.... it is really annoying.

+++

I am a 20 year old male. . i am uncircumcised and the other day i noticed my foreskin his dry and cracking. sometimes its hard to pull it back when i need to use the restroom. there in no burning feeling unless the skin cracks and there is no bleeding. Since the skin started cracking and its hard for my foreskin to come back i havent been masturbating.

+++

I wanted to know why when i pull back my foreskin, is my penis head so sensitive that it hurts when i touch it with my finger or any thing else that it bangs into, except anything that is lubricated

+++

I am a 21 years old man who had tear in the frenulum during masturbation. The skin has joined itself but not on the tip of penis but somewhere else. Earlier I had no problems in retracting my foreskin during erection and masturbating. But now I feel pain when I pull my skin during erection due to that joint.

+++

How do you wash your penis without it hurting? I know your supposed to wash it, but I don't know how to was under the foreskin, and when i try and touch under my foreskin it hurts and is tingling.

+++

I'll start off by saying I'm uncut. This is really scaring me right now. I just noticed that on the right side of my frenulum it is really red and it hurts to touch it, there are some tiny dark red spots but it looks like I have some sort of irritation. I honestly feel like it's some sort of std even though I'm 16 and a virgin.

+++

I am uncircumcised and i have a frenulum breve, when i am erected it doesn't let me pull my foreskin behind the head because it hurts. When i am not erected i can retract the foreskin alot.
I am not sure what will happen if i will have sex because i am virgin. Should i do it? I mean what if it tears and blood will be there?

+++

im 16, can pull my foreskin back easily but the head of my penis hurts a but when i touch it.

+++

hey guys.....i'm 20 and i've an uncut penis......the thing is i never dared to pull my foreskin back bcoz of the obvious pain.....i went to a doctor as i thought i might need circumcision but fortunately he didnt find anything wrong......infact he pulled back my foreskin and the pain was HELL (Yes...i'm a virgin!!!) .....even now i got the chills when i thought abt that.

+++

Ok i have uncircumcised penis..im 14, and if i want to clean the white subs..under my foreskin, whenever i touch it with finger or cloth, its sensitive and i cant clean it.. I mean if i even clean for 10secs is too much!
Wat to do? Is it nornal? Is it compulsary to clean?

+++

The end of my penis is very sensitive anyone know what the problem is? when i pull down my foreskin and i touch the end of my penis it's all sensitive and hurts kinda bad surely there's something not right any suggestions as to what could be the problem?

+++

My penis is uncircumsized, which means the head of my penis is EXTREMELY sensitive. If I roll back my foreskin, anything that touches the exposed head of my penis hurts a lot. And it's ruining my sex experience. When I have sex with a girl, I can't stay hard because eventually my foreskin rolls back and it hurts when my exposed head is in a vagina.

++=

How do i keep an erection when i pull back my foreskin?
whenever i pull back the foreskin of my uncircumcised penis, i begin to lose my erection because it is tight and kinda hurts, any suggestions to keep it up?

+++

My Penis is REALLY REALLY sensitive (The Head) idk how to explain. When my gf sucks me off,i make her suck me with the foreskin on because it hurts WAY too much without the foreskin over it.anyone know whats going on?

+++

My boyfriend has pain when his foreskin retracts – when he gets erect. The pain is worsened when he 'makes an entrance', and the pain afterwards leaves him unable to have sex again for about three days. His foreskin is red and irritated.

+++

I am uncircumcised and i have a frenulum breve, when i am erected it doesn't let me pull my foreskin behind the head because it hurts. When i am not erected i can retract the foreskin alot.
I am not sure what will happen if i will have sex because i am virgin. Should i do it? I mean what if it tears and blood will be there?

+++

Observed small cracks on foreskin of my penis with pain. What is the treatment to cure it.?
Due to cracks with pain I am facing painful intercourse.

+++

Afraid to have sex again after complete frenulum rip from head of penis. Bizarre story, but my frenulum completely tore last month while in the bedroom. It led to an ER visit. I no longer have that part connected to the glans. I thought it would heal back up together, but I guess not. I did see a urologist. My penis feels so strange now. I am uncircumcised, and always had that tether to stop the foreskin from pulling down too far. I am very depressed, to the point where I think my sex life is over. I'm only 24.

+++

My foreskin retraction is painful while erection. The frenulum feels tight and painful too. There are visible signs of inflammation, such as redness and swelling. Condition gets worse after having sex, which is painful too. I've used topical steroid cream (Betnovate N), but it has little effect.

+++

My foreskin has some cracks and sometimes blood also come. If I stretch foreskin back, it is painful. Also due to this, the cracks become larger.

+++

[Casaman]

Dear Mr Williams, thank you for researching this most excellent and informative post. It gives the lie to the absurd claim that the foreskin is a wonderful organ that men just cannot do without!. For millions of men the prepuce put be a source of untold pain and misery. This may be one of the main reasons (along with its very unpleasant smell and appearance) why so many peoples around the world independently invented and practiced circumcision.

[Parker]

On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 4:09:37 PM UTC, David Edwards wrote:


> You know who this Low guy reminds me of? Donald Trump. He just makes stuff up then when fact checkers catch him out he just doubles down, then on top of that he makes up more stuff so he hopes everybody forgets the previous bullshit n starts fact check the next bullshit n so on.
>

And like Trump he is incapable of admitting he is wrong.

That's what this thread is about, isn't it? Like Trump he lies, he gets caught out, but he will NEVER admit it.

[Wakka]

This question is asked in 2012 and no answer. Does Ron Low visit this site?

[Oiiver]

On Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 10:27:22 AM UTC+1, Wakka wrote:


> This question is asked in 2012 and no answer. Does Ron Low visit this site?

Of course he does. He's been here before and knows his lies are exposed here regularly. On his website he recommends that people use Google Alerts to get notifications whenever "circumcision" or "foreskin" appear on the net. He adds: "Warning: Very Addictive." Does anybody seriously think he hasn't set up all manner of alerts to let him know when his name is mentioned? And that he finds that addictive too? He tries nonstop to get himself plastered all over the net and you can be sure he monitors alt.circ.

As others here have concluded often enough -- he doesn't respond here because he is a moral coward who cannot ever admit he is wrong.

[Riad]

What's the explanation, is Low a gay smegma queen or what?

[Oliver]

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 6:56:52 PM UTC, Riad wrote:
> What's the explanation, is Low a gay smegma queen or what?

I think he's married to a woman. He does like smegma smell though. He's on record here as stating that foreskin smegma has a "sweet aroma." He is the only person on the entire internet who thinks it smells "sweet". Here's some other google search result numbers:

Foreskin smelly: 891,00
Foreskin disgusting: 3,560,000
Foreskin revolting: 1.380,000
Foreskin nauseating: 322,000
Foreskin reeking: 1,080,000
Foreskin stink: 3.370,000
Foreskin fishy: 3,170,000
Foreskin cheesy: 768,000
Foreskin foul: 760,000
Foreskin smell after washing: 5,190,000.

How he got close enough to uncut dicks to sniff them and form an opinion of their smell is anyone's guess. But he does like the "sweet aroma".