Translation from his Facebook post:

WHO’s and their circumcision frenzy: 25 million boys and young men in 14 African countries will – totally "voluntarily" – be manipulated into getting themselves circumcised up until the year 2020. UNAIDS 10/10-2017 http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/hiv-prevention-2020-road-map_en.pdf

Long story short: Even though WHO and the American dominated international circumcisionlobby pretends the opposite is true, there can be found none, absolute no scientific documentation which supports the claim of a hiv-protective effect from male circumcision.

All that you can find - which I have written about multiple times previously - are 3 by now 10-12 year old and very seriously critizised studies (RCT’s) among adult men in Uganda, Kenya and South Africa, from which the circumcision excited researchers concluded, that circumcison over a span of some years, leads to an approximately 50% reduction risks for the men to catch hiv from a hiv-infected woman compared to the risk for intact men.

Statistical connections can as we all know, be laid out in many ways – both in absolute and in relative termes. If you use absolute risk as a goal, which better illustrates the effect circumcision (maybe, but probably not!) has on the men in question who are getting the procedure, then the findings and story looks totally different and weak. The absolute hiv-risk in intact men in the three studies was to be exact, in the magnitude of 2% in the course of the observationsperiod, while it was approximately half of it (about 1%) with the circumcised men, which the circumcision lobby effectively sold to the World media, as a sensationel reduction in the hiv-risk for circumcised men at around 50%. Because 1% only makes up half (50%) of 2%. And a reduction in the relative risk at 50% sounds a lot more tempting, than a reduction in the absolute risk, than the measly 1% (from 2% to 1%). Rather sly, isn't it?

Since then, the circumcision lobby have managed to get WHO to back them up on a gigantic circumcision programme in the central and southern Africa, which in my eyes, is a scandal of colossal dimensions both ethichally and a plain hazardous healthwise. There is no available documentation from the real world in support of the claim, that the already many million circumcisions on young and adult men in the last decade, has had any measurable – yet alone beneficial – effect on the hiv epidemi in the countries targeted. Oceans of ressources have been wasted on this bizarre and ill-fated circumcision circus – funds which could have been of benefit on countless of other ways for the affected, poor populations.

Despite this, WHO have now announced, that their ambition to make big parts of central and southern Africa into an area free from penisforeskin remains unchanged. And that they now will be even more offensive in trying to lure underaged boys all the way down to 10 years of age, into the circumcision programme by means of mechanism, which in field jargon is named “demand creation”, but in regular terms would be called manipulation. See for example this brand new news article from Kenya: http://www.thebigissue.co.ke/index.php/2017/10/13/men-seriously-consider-getting-circumcised/

Over the next couple of years, a further of 25 million healthy 10-29 year old boys and young men in 14 countries south of Sahara – the equivalent to 90% of these countries male population in this age group– will be bombarded with propaganda to try and get them circumcised. Totally voluntary, naturally! And by all accounts, to no avail at all.

In my estimation, this whole circumcison frenzy will one day go over in history as a phenomenal betrayal of the populations in the affected countries, who will not be better off in their fight against hiv. All they will get out of the inconvenience, will probably be a depressing monument, which in return is going to take decades, if not generations, to get rid of again: The foreskinfree judeo-American penis, which became africanisized with unscrupulous manipulation and made into a commonality due to the trust of the populations to the rich, international benefactors, who deluded them into believing, that foreskin is a nasty, redundant, infectious and diseased part of the male anatomy.