Anthony L. Hall is a descendant of the Turks & Caicos Islands, international lawyer and political consultant - headquartered in Washington DC - who publishes his own Internet Weblog at www.theipinionsjournal.com offering commentaries on current events from a Caribbean perspective

Nonetheless, after our Editor published several prominent letters (the most recent appearing on Monday) criticizing my 11 August column entitled “AIDS prevention:  To briss, or not to briss: that is the question...”, I felt constrained to write a surrebuttal.  Because, even though they offered no academic credentials or scientific sources, the authors of those letters and others who sent their emails directly to me cited data which purportedly undermined the findings I relied on for that column.

The essence of their criticism is that either flawed methodology or inadequate sampling rendered moot the studies that established a positive link between male circumcision and substantial reduction in the incidence of HIV infections.  And that circumcision is an unnecessary mutilation of the male genitalia, which only cuts off his full potential for sexual gratification.

It’s utter rubbish of course.  But I fear that most people reading their letters – authored as they are with such apparent authority – might find them credible. 

However, after I consulted our Editor about addressing these critics in my regular Friday column, he published a letter by Mr Jake Waskett on Wednesday.  And I’m happy to concede that Mr Waskett not only corrects almost all of the factual errors and misrepresentations I intended to address but also offers his credentials for doing so. 

Therefore, I urge you to read his letter here in support of my original column.

NOTE:  I feel obliged to thank one of my critics, Mr Hugh Young, for expressing sympathy for the unwarranted abuse other critics heaped upon me.  Truth be told, however, I feel more sympathy for, than abused by, people who respond to my columns with visceral or specious ignorance.
 
In addition, I think it’s worth noting that one gets a sense of the intellectual depth of one of my more authoritative critics, Mr Frank O’Hara, from the fact that he opens his letter with a fatuous attempt to educate me on the spelling and etymology of the word “briss”.  After all, a “briss” (my spelling) is a “bris” (his spelling) is a briss!  And, in this context, his point is about as meaningful as my calling someone an “ass” and Mr O’Hara offering “arse” as more grammatically and etymologically correct.