He went on to note, however, Most HIV infections are contracted in the receptive role, so what were talking about is a risk reduction for a small group of men who didnt have a huge risk in the first place.
That's pathetically few to be drawing any statistical conclusions from, and then only of correlation, not causation.
Were any of these men circumcised for religious reasons?
(The Roman senator Cato was in the habit of ending every speech on any subject with those words - it helped that "must be destroyed" was a single splendid Latin word, "delenda".
Eventually the Senate agreed to destroy Carthage, with disastrous consequences for Rome.) Recently, several studies have been published, most from Africa, one from India, claiming to show a link between having an intact penis and a higher risk of HIV infection.
An unexplored area is what else the churches advocated or required beside circumcision.
Since the church circumcisions occur on the eighth day after birth, it seems likely they model themselves on Judaism: what other Jewish practices do they advocate, and what effect could those have on HIV acquisition?As controls on "psychic" research are tightened, the effects found steadily diminish, and when control is complete, the effects vanish. These results are certainly consistent with the null hypothesis, that circumcision has no effect on HIV acquisition: the confounding factors have just not all been found yet.Yet as usual, this study advocates that "male circumcision should be seriously considered as an intervention to slow the spread of HIV-1 in uncircumcised populations".With those precautions, the correlation between circumcision status and HIV acquisition fell to 1.5 (20% of circumcised men had HIV, vs 30% of intact).With "adequate" genital hygiene, the rate among the intact fell to 26%.But we cannot, lest we lose the very respect that tempted us in the first place." - Stephen Jay Gould Bully for Brontosaurus, pp 429-30 (But some, it seems, are willing to take that risk.) Bailey - no protection to men in Kenya Connelly - no protection to black South Africans Auvert - no protection to young South Africans Gust - no protection to gay men Grulich - no protection to insertive Australian gay men (though it has been reported as if there is) Doerner - no protection to insertive gay men in Britain Jozkowski - no protection to US gay men Jameson - no protection to men who have sex with men Millett - no protection to US Black and Latino men who have unprotected insertive sex with men Mc Daid - no protection to Scottish men who have sex with men Wawer - no protection (and maybe increased risk) to women Turner - no protection to women Baeten - no protection to women Chao - greater risk to women Thomas - no protection in a high-risk population Shaffer - no protection by traditional circumcision Mor - no protection to men (weaselly-worded and data-mined to look as if there is) Thornton - no protection to men who have sex with men in London Moiti - circumcised youth at greater risk in Uganda Brewer - circumcised youth at greater risk in Mozambique Darby - no benefit in Australia Rodriguez-Diaz - circumcised men at greater risk in Puerto Rico Tobian - increased risk to women Two Cochrane Reviews Between Correlation and Recommendation A Vaccine? A Solution Looking For A Problem Ethics the Role of the Mucosa "Dry Sex" Delayed washing after sex Alcohol Female Genital Cutting Sexual Selection Wife Inheritance Heterosexual transmission - Europe vs the United States A voice of sanity from UNAIDS A voice of sanity from the Terrence Higgins Trust A UK survey of gay men that found more circumcised men with HIV The hazards of unblinded trials Other studies that show no correlation or a negative correlation between intactness and HIV/AIDS It is not, of course, up to the media to decide what is good or bad science.