- Posted on Thursday 20 December 2007 - 15:04CNN and Time have declared Male Circumcision as the biggest medical breakthrough of 2007. This comes with the recent early closure of two clinical trials on male circumcision conducted in Uganda and Kenya which both showed that male risk of HIV infection through heterosexual sex is reduced by up to 65%. The findings were very similar to a study conducted in South Africa in 2005.
With such overwhelming evidence, the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS have officially recommended the procedure as a way to help reduce transmission of the virus through heterosexual sex.
Several East African countries have put male circumcision at the top of the Public Health agenda. In Uganda, the Ministry of Health has declared that male circumcision services will be free of charge while Rwanda has announced plans to conduct mass male circumcision.
Principle Investigator for the Trial in Kisumu, Kenya, Professor Robert Bailey says, “If male circumcision is taken up by just 50% of men in areas of sub-Saharan Africa where it is currently little practiced, millions of new HIV infections will be averted in men and women. We cannot treat our way out of this tragic epidemic. Until we have an effective HIV vaccine, which is likely to be decades away, circumcision is a major weapon for preventing new infections in areas where most HIV transmissions are through heterosexual activity. The challenge is now to make safe, affordable circumcision services widely available to the many Africans who now are seeking them.”
Top Scientific Journal, the Lancet has called the discovery “A New Era for Prevention.”
Reactions
- Posted on Friday 21 December 2007 17:01It amazes me the ignorance and stupidity some people will put on public display! Here are a few inconvienient facts:
In Uganda, circumcision is a coming of age ritual practiced in the teenaged years and virtually 100% of males are circumcised. Auvert, Bailey, Halperin et.al. had to choose an area like this because tribes who do not practice circumcision would see it as a marker of competing tribes. Despite this universal circumcision rate, the area had a 29% HIV/AIDS infection rate in the mid 1990's. If circumcision has a 60%+ protective factor, it is mathematically impossible for the infection rate to even near this level.
Two recently released studies performed in Sydney Australia and The United States found no difference in the HIV/AIDS infection rate between circumcised and uncircumcised men. If there is no difference in real world populations, the Uganda and Kenya studies are flawed and unreliable.
A look into the history of the "researchers" shows a bias toward circumcision. Halperin and Bailey have been advocating male circumcision for more than 20 years. A finding other than what they found would have contradicted their entire careers and put their careers in shambles. They certainly had reason to fabricate their results. It would appear that Auvert was a shill in this study as he appears to have distanced himself from it. It should be noted that most of the study cohorts are Jewish and have a religious agenda to promote.
Additionally, this has moved from advocating circumcision of young adults to advocating circumcision in the newborn stage. This may be a significant development. Companies in The US use the severed foreskins of infants as a component in medical products and cosmetics. The bounty on these bits of human tissue is between $50.00 and $135.00. This source of supply is under threat. The circumcision rate in The US is falling rapidly and appears that it will be virtually zero in another 10 to 15 years. Additionally, the foreskins used for these products can not be contaminated with anesthetics. Formerly, these children have been circumcised with no anesthesia and there is a strong movement now to administer anesthesia for the procedure. You have to ask your self if Africa is the next source of supply for a reliable supply of uncontaminated foreskins for the medical and cosmetic industry, something like crops in the field waiting to be harvested.
. - Posted on Saturday 22 December 2007 04:16Mr. Frank Ohara is misinformed. In Uganda, only Muslims, who comprise about 15% of the population, and four small ethnic groups traditionally circumcise. According to the Demographic Health Survey, approximately 78% of men in Uganda are uncircumcised. Uganda once had among the highest HIV prevalence rates in the world, which is consistent with most of the males in the population being uncircumcised. However, Ugandans have done an excellent job of bringing the HIV rates down from about 23% to about 6% countrywide. Uganda is an example of a country that can reduce HIV infections without implementing widespread circumcision programs. However, it is nearly unique in this regard among African countries where the epidemic has proven sadly intractable to conventional HIV prevention interventions such as widespread promotion of condoms and promotion of abstinence.
The two studies referred to as showing no significant reduction in HIV among men in Australia and the U.S. were conducted among men who have sex with men. A very different population than the predominantly heterosexual populations in sub-Saharan Africa. Over 40 studies among heterosexuals in Africa, India and the U.S. have found between a two-fold and eight-fold increased risk of HIV acquisition in uncircumcised compared to circumcised men.
Halperin and Bailey, two well-known advocates of male circumcision for HIV prevention, have been working on the issue for 12 years - not 20 years. There are others who recognized the potential for circumcision to reduce HIV prevalence back in the 1980's. Halperin and Bailey are not unique for trying to raise awareness about this potentially very effective means of addressing the epidemic. Halperin was noit involved in the three randomized controlled trials conducted to study this issue. Bailey was the Principal Investigator for one of the three trials - the one in Kisumu,Kenya. These trials were all conducted with African collaborators, by Africans with African participants, and all went through repeated ethical review by multiple review boards, were monitored by independent experts, and were scrutinized by independent boards consisting of medical scientists, statisticians and ethicists. Under such conditions, no one person could possibly tilt the results in one direction or the other. Moreover, the studies have been reviewed and discussed extensively by 100s of scientists, HIV prevention experts and community members in Africa and globally, including a consultation of worldwide experts brought together by the World Health Organization. Could such a diverse collection of people from all over the world be hoodwinked by one or two biased people, or could they all be in cahoots to pull the wool over the eyes of millions of people around the world? Seems doubtful!
The circumcision rate in the U.S. is falling in some states, primarily because the anti-circumcision lobby has managed to get the legislatures of 16 states to refuse to reimburse physicians for the circumcision procedure. This means that only the rich in those states can have access to a procedure that could improve hygiene, reduce risk of urinary tract infections, STIs, penile cancer and cervical cancer. Just the people who need the intervention most, now have limited access to it. Nevertheless, more than 70% of men in the United States are circumcised.
As for a bounty on foreskin tissue for the cosmetic industry, are we really to believe that millions of foreskins will be shipped from Africa to points unknown to supply 50 rich women some bogus concoction promising eternal youth? How naive are we? There are 10,000s of circumcisions taking place every day worldwide for cultural, religious and medical reasons. And this has been true for thousands of years. Is there likely to be a market for foreskins with such a plentiful supply and an anemic demand by a few perverse opportunists. Please, let's make some sense. There are several arguments that a reasonable, informed and caring person could make against male circumcision, but ad hominem attacks and unrealistic scenarios based on no evidence are counter-productive. 4000 men are newly infected with HIV EVERY DAY in sub-Saharan Africa along with countless women who are their partners and countless additional children. We shouldn't be rejecting any new potentially effective weapon against this insidious virus under such dire circumstances. - Posted on Saturday 22 December 2007 06:08I would also pose that Ituriman is misinformed.
Circumcision is a tribal practice in Orange Farm, Uganda and has nothing to do with Islam. The incidence of circumcision of adult males is virtually 100%. That is simply a matter of record. Even if the circumcision rate was 78% as you claim, coupled with a 60% protective effect, it is mathematically impossible that the HIV/AIDS infection rate could have ever risen to 29% but in fact it did.
The sexual orientation has nothing to do with susceptibility of the infection. It does not matter what the sexual orientation, exposure is exposure and infection is infection and heretosexual men and women will become infected the same as homosexual men and women so the results of the studies are valid in predicting the paths of infection.
It is an easy matter for anyone here to do a search for Bailey and Halperin to affirm their advocacy. The results of such a search will show that they have been involved since at least 1986, or 21 years. We just don't know how long before that.
All three trials were actually a singular effort and were really a single trial posed as three different studies ostensibly because three trials would sound more impressive than a single one.
It is publicly known that the Orange Farm study was rejected by the British Journal of Medicine and it is suspected that it was "shopped" to other journals. Not finding a venue for publication, it finally landed at The Public Library of Science, (PLoS) an on-line only journal established a mere 1 year earlier with the mission statement of publishing scientific research of dubious value. Unlike other legitimate scientific journals, PLoS charges for publication and has an in-house peer review panel instead of using independent peer review services as is common in other publications. Finally, the same foundations that funded the Orange Farm study also funds PLoS. Can we read "conflict of interest" here? Finally, the scientists, statisticians and ethicists have only read what Bailey, Halperin, et.al. have written. They were not present at the site to observe the process and therefore could easily be mislead.
Since the legislation in 16 states have defunded circumcision only in the past 2 to 4 years, it would have minimal effect on the circumcision rate. In fact, the published rates since the 16 states defunded medicaid circumcisions have not shown a verifiable difference. Not that it won't come but it has just not shown yet. All of the decline in the circumcision rate has come as the result of parents having access to the internet and the information that previously only the medical profession had access to.
There is no proof that there is any hygienic value to circumcision any more than there is proof that female circumcision has hygienic value. However both of these myths persist as cultural beliefs in the areas where these practices persist.
There is no significant difference in the UTI rate between circumcised and intact men. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition and is emminently treatable with a virtually 100% cure rate through a simple in-office procedure. It is only fatal in men who ignore it for years and years. For every man who contracts penile cancer, approximately 7 infants will die as a result of the circumcision procedure. That is not good medicine!
Neonatal circumcision for the prevention of cervical cancer is a unique situation in all of medicine. It is amputative surgery to prevent a possible cancer in an unknown person at some undetermined future date. The true cause of cervical cancer is the human papilloma virus. Women are automatically assumed to have been infected if they have had 3 or more sexual partners which would indicate a 70% to 80% infection rate in American men. 80%+ of sexually active American males have been circumcised. If male circumcision had any prophylactic value, it would sufficiently break the lines of transmission making it impossible for the virus to spread to this widely. As a matter of fact, the lines of transmission would be broken to the point that the virus would die out of it's own accord and there would be virtually no HPV infections in the United States.
It is well known that established corporations are using neonatal foreskins for medical products and cosmetics. Even Oprah Winfrey has had them on her show touting the benefits and a simple search of the internet will find these companies. These are well established companies such as Mary Kay Cosmetics who funded the original research finding ways to use the foreskins as testing material and as ingredients in cosmetics. Infant foreskins do not take up much space and thousands could easily be packed in a small container for shipment anywhere in the world by package delivery services. It doesn't matter if the foreskins are from American babies or African babies and they will get them where ever they can. The supply of these foreskins are dwindling. The circumcision rate in Canada has dropped to about 5% since the turn of the century and Australia is considering an outright ban on the procedure after banning it in public hospitals. Generally, foreskins removed as a ritual are not available for this purpose, It is traditional for Jewish foreskins to be buried and foreskins from Muslim boys are too old for these purposes since those circumcisions are normally carried out at the age of 5 or 6 years old. That mostly leaves the United States as the sole source of supply and that source is in danger of dwindling to nothing with the falling circumcision rate and the increasing use of anesthetics. Unless infant circumcision is established as a cultural practice elsewhere in the world, there may be no more or insufficent foreskins to supply the medical, testing and cosmetic industries and they probably recognize this.
. - Posted on Saturday 22 December 2007 12:17Brother Ituriman you need to be careful of these Americans who come to African forums to sell their ideas and to teach to the "stupid Africans".
You exposed his lie about circumcision rates in Uganda, thank you for that. Also your exposure of his deception about the studies of gays in Australia and the US. What a terrible liar this man is.
This lying man then claims Orange farm is in Uganda when it is in South Africa. Does the man know no shame with his lies?
He lies that sexual orientation has nothing to do with infection when it is know that receptive anal sex is a very much more risky activity for the 'woman'.
What proof does this fool man want about penis hygiene when every ones knows that the under foreskin is prone to dirty and unhygienic conditions and foul smelling.
How does this crazy man think even "stupid Africans" will listen to his lies? - Posted on Saturday 22 December 2007 17:56I'm tired of people trying to justify cutting parts off children's genitals. The push to circumcise comes from people who are interested in promoting circumcision rather than fighting AIDS.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful and Condoms) works against AIDS. Circumcision does not. Has no-one read the studies showing that circumcised virgins are twice as likely to be HIV+, that circumcised HIV+ men are more than twice as likely to pass on HIV to their wives, or that female circumcision appears to protect against HIV? We're trying to stamp that out, so how will encouraging male circumcision help that?
What about the 1993 study that found that "partner circumcision" was "strongly associated with HIV-1 infection [in women] even when simultaneously controlling for other covariates." See also the 2007 Stallings study, which showed that female circumcision seems to protect against AIDS. We wouldn't dream of promoting female circumcision whatever level of protection it offered, so why we we want to promote male circumcision (which does more damage than some of the minor forms of female circumcision).
Why does the USA have a higher rate of HIV than any European country, whilst also having a higher circumcision rate?
Does anyone really think that circumcised men are not going to use that fact as an excuse not to use condoms? First, the most sensitive part of their penis is cut off, then they're told they have some protection against AIDS. The Auvert study and Brian Morris even compared it to a vaccine!
This is a *huge* step backwards, and will not only cost yet more African lives to AIDS, but make it harder to stop female circumcision. - Posted on Sunday 23 December 2007 10:36Another European gay man arrives on the scene to tell Africans what to do.
Africans circumcised as a passage to manhood know that their circumcision does not adversely affect their sexual experience as many have had sexual experiences before circumcision. Does this gay really think that the tradition would have continued if it have a negative effect? Mad fool.
70% of US HIV infections are among gays and from injecting drugs and the lowest heterosexual transmission rates are among white males who have the highest circumcision rate over African Americans and Hispanics. In Europe heterosexual HIV transmissions are 54% of the total. Why is the heterosexual infection rate 20% higher than the US? What is it that you foreskin loving gays are trying to hide?
The WHO and UNAIDS have found:
New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications
http://data.unaids.org/pu...mc_recommendations_en.pdf
"Conclusion 1: The research evidence is compelling
The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings.
The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%.
The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention."
"Recommendations :
1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men."
So when it comes to HIV and circumcision I know that I will believe that WHO and UNAIDS before gay groups from the US and Europe. - Posted on Sunday 23 December 2007 18:23All of these discussions are interesting, but they ignore the crucial and fundamental scientitifc questions-- are the studies purporting a benefit for circumcision as it relates to HIV free from basic methodological flaws & do the predicted reductions exist in the REAL world?
In both cases, one must say no--so what SCIENTIFIC validity do these studies really have? - Posted on Sunday 23 December 2007 18:27"So when it comes to HIV and circumcision I know that I will believe that WHO and UNAIDS before gay groups from the US and Europe."
Appeal to authority is nothing but intellectual laziness or incompetence.. one should actually do a critical analysis of the evidence itself, and not rely on
'big brother" to do the thinking for them. - Posted on Monday 24 December 2007 05:25I would say again, that if it comes to a choice between who has clearly got it right then I must say that WHO and UNAIDS get the nod before gay groups from the US and Europe. You can question the findings all you like but that is not going to change anything. Sorry.
- Posted on Monday 24 December 2007 15:59Yeh, and repeating unsupportable OPINIONS from others do not make something scientifically credible--I will stick with SCIENCE over OPINIONS any day--regardless of whose opinion one tries to use.
One can use one's own brains if available, or simply bow to authority.
So, again, has anyone seen this alleged reduction in the real world? - Posted on Wednesday 26 December 2007 06:17Are the opinions of the World Heatlth Organisation and UNAIDS "unsupportable opinions"? Not only are you US and Eurpoean gay groups a joke but you are also probably mentally sick.
What did the WHO and UNAIDS recommend:
* Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
* Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men."
I believe tham rather than any US gay group. - Posted on Wednesday 26 December 2007 14:46And rather than believe any "big daddy", I choose to believe logic and science,, and where they lead me.
So, do you have any proof that this alleged benefit exists in the real world?
If not, then I am curious WHY you would believe anyone that claims something exists that no one can measure or see does exist.. isn't that sort of like believing some invisible giant in the sky says all should mutilate infant genitals?
I will take brains over beliefs anytime! - Posted on Saturday 29 December 2007 20:45Read the studies.
The African men they circumcised DID contract HIV at a rate SIX TIMES HIGHER than the rate of new infections in African-American men.
The cut men who turned out to be HIV+ infected their HIV- partners more often than the HIV+ intact men did. In fact the studies make no claims that circumcision will protect women from being infected by an HIV+ partner.
Condoms are still the best protection for both partners AND they prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Look at who is doing the "controlled" studies; cut men from cutting cultures. Note that the Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa trials were all conveniently halted before the protocol time period had elapsed. As HIV is often undetectable in the blood until months after exposure, this manipulation allowed the maximum number of intact men to be diagnosed (since they had no post-surgical period of abstinence) and the minimum number of cut men to be diagnosed (since the trial was halted before their anti-body count could be measuable once they resumed sexual activity after healing and starting to get infections).
These studies have no real-world predictive power. In Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania, HIV is markedly MORE prevelant among circumcised men. African boys who have never had sex were even found to be MORE likely to already have AIDS if they had been circumcised. Non-cutting Japan has lower AIDS rates then 95%-cut Israel, and most of the dead victims of AIDS in the US were circumcised at birth.
No actual national medical association on earth recommends routine circumcision. - Posted on Sunday 30 December 2007 09:14When it comes to accepting a particular interpretation of the studies whose findings are endorsed by WHO and UNAIDS the opinion of gay dominated anti-circumcision groups does not get taken seriously. I remember for how long the tobacco industry tried to deny the negative health impact of direct and passive smoking. It seems that same with these 'foreskin retention at all costs' fanatics. With the public opinion being led by the likes of WHO and UNAIDS I would suggest that the desperate screams from the foreskin zealots are merely the last kicks of a dying horse. Stripped of any scientific credibility the anti-circumcision movement will be exposed for what it really is ... a weird psychosexually motivated cult.
- Posted on Sunday 30 December 2007 09:49Sorry to tell you this but the WHO and UNAIDS are not "big daddy" they represent an intelligent body of opinion and should be taken seriously. On the other hand who are you and the other anti-circumcision zealots? As you are not scientifically motivated (as can be seen from your attempts to trash the facts of the issue as supported by WHO and UNAIDS) what exactly motivates you and your fellow anti-circumcision zealots? Is it psychosexual?
- Posted on Sunday 30 December 2007 14:43C'mon , Josh, are you going tyo address the flaws in these studies--where is the evidence that these alleged reductions exist in the real world? Your tirades against those who are able to critically analyze the evidence and question the authority figures you use to bolster your beliefs indicate that this subject has deep and psychological issues with your own circumcision.
it is amusing that when the flaws and inability to fulfill prediction is made obvious the name-calling appears.. hardly a good, inteligent, and mature rebuttal, and not likely to convince anyone. - Posted on Sunday 30 December 2007 18:28Joshua, what makes you think I'm gay? For what it's worth, I'm actually heterosexual with three children. Not that it matters, but in Europe, male circumcision is actually more of a gay thing, and the intactivists get hostility rather than support from gay organisations.
I'm against male circumcision for the same reasons I'm against female circumcision, the minor forms of which do less damage than male circumcision. I don't have a big problem with a consenting adult of either sex choosing to have genital surgery, but to be promoting it for purported medical reasons is frankly bizarre. We've seen how many other medical reasons have been proposed to promote circumcision, yet the Royal Australasian College of Physicians says "there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision", and non-medical circumcision is banned in many Australian public hospitals. This despite the fact that the decision-makers there will almost all be circumcised themselves or married to circumcised men.
I believe that the people behind the push to promote circumcision in Africa are more interested in promoting circumcision than in fighting AIDS. - Posted on Monday 31 December 2007 07:09Of course there is no medical indication for vaccinations at the time they are given either. Why don't you mention that?
We are now almost in 2008 and the evidence of the benefits of male circumcision is mounting and making 'old' statements somewhat dated. Try this one from 2007.
Read also the joint statement from WHO and UNAIDS:
New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications
http://data.unaids.org/pu...mc_recommendations_en.pdf
I quote:
"Conclusion 1: The research evidence is compelling
The research evidence that male circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling. The partial protective effect of male circumcision is remarkably consistent across the observational studies (ecological, cross-sectional and cohort) and the three randomized controlled trials conducted in diverse settings.
The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%.
The efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention.
Recommendations :
1.1 Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
1.2 Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men." - Posted on Monday 31 December 2007 14:44Josh, is all you have the OPINION of "big Daddy?
Since they are too self-important to address the flaws and the fact that this reduction does not occur in the real world, perhaps (since you want to quote them) address them.
These issues go to the very heart of the scientific process, and until and if they can be adequatly addressed, they remain not scientifically-credible regardless of who claims that they are legitimate.. there is a difference between questionable correlational statistics and actual science--one is called "medical science" and the other is called SCIENCE.
Science accurately predicts and "medical science" simply makes predictions that are all too often not accurate. This is shown by merely looking at claims by medicine in the media--Monday, X is good for you; Tuesday, it is bad for you. - Posted on Tuesday 01 January 2008 08:53The so-called flaws in the studies are in the eyes of the anti-circumcision activists only. We are used to seeing these lunatic opinions in relation to HIV/AIDS as we still have people who don't believe in HIV/AIDS either. We have learned to be patient and tolerant of these lunatics as we no doubt need to be of these anti-circumcision zealots as we simply don't have enough space in our mental hospitals. Have a happy New Year and remember to keep taking your medications.
WHO and UNAIDS found: "The three randomised controlled trials showed that male circumcision performed by well-trained medical professionals was safe and reduced the risk of acquiring HIV infection by approximately 60%." Intelligent people will believe them and certainly not some gay dominated fringe group. - Posted on Tuesday 01 January 2008 15:17"The so-called flaws in the studies are in the eyes of the anti-circumcision activists only. We are used to seeing these lunatic opinions in relation to HIV/AIDS as we still have people who don't believe in HIV/AIDS either. We have learned to be patient and tolerant of these lunatics as we no doubt need to be of these anti-circumcision zealots as we simply don't have enough space in our mental hospitals. Have a happy New Year and remember to keep taking your medications."
So, as expected, we get a tirade instead of addressing the flaws and failure of prediction? A very convincing dodge--NOT!
" Intelligent people will believe them and certainly not some gay dominated fringe group."
INTELLIGENT people will believe what logic, science and the critical analysis leads them, those not equipped to do so and are gullible will believe what they are told by "big Daddy". - Posted on Wednesday 02 January 2008 16:09What flaws? You foreskin zealots seem to believe that merely stating such makes it so. What a laugh. I guess one should feel rather sad that after all the time and emotional capital you and the other zealots have invested in trying to 'save the foreskin' to see it all going down the toilet as a result of the confirmation that when it comes to HIV/AIDS the foreskin is a public health risk. Again what you don't seem to understand is that sane and intelligent people are more likely to accept the endorsement of WHO and UNAIDS than the mere opinion of a group of members of a wild eyed and psycho sexually motivated fringe group. You foreskin promotion zealots are a sick joke.
- Posted on Thursday 03 January 2008 15:04When you are finished with your ranting and raving, please show where circumcision has reduced HIV from these numbers.
USA: Circ--85%; HIV--0.6%
Ethiopia: Circ--100%; HIV--4.4%
Japan: Circ--<1%; HIV--0.1% - Posted on Thursday 03 January 2008 15:07"Again what you don't seem to understand is that sane and intelligent people are more likely to accept the endorsement of WHO and UNAIDS than the mere opinion of a group of members of a wild eyed and psycho sexually motivated fringe group."
What you are discribing is a bunch of GULLIBLE people..intelligent ones use their, brains, logic and science and reach a logical and rational conclusion..
So glad to see your posts are rational and not loaded with a bunch or rantings and ravings.
Share |
Latest News
Amplats to cut 6,000 jobs in South Africa10/05
Kofi Annan: Africa plundered by secret mining…10/05
Bomb blasts rock Libyan city of Benghazi10/05
Kenya calls on UN to drop Kenyatta trials10/05
Africa Oil & Gas, Finance & Investment…02/05
Cameroon: Anti-poaching Operations Intensified02/05
Mugabe warns against foreign interference19/04
Cameroonian Scholar Wins 2013 'African He…19/04
SAA receives most on-time airline in the world…19/04
Action Plan Launched to end preventable deaths…12/04
Eurochannel picks EUTELSAT 16A to extend reach…12/04
Madonna in bitter war of words with Malawi aft…12/04
Sudan's Bashir arrives in South Sudan12/04
Petrol Prices Stay Up In South Africa, Ghana08/04
Toll rises in Cairo clashes at Coptic…08/04
_footer
Home | About us | Contact | RSS | Services | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy
Copyright Africa Interactive 2013 | mail@africanews.com
Powered by React - www.react.nl
