The dishonesty of circumcision researchers never ceases to amaze me, particularly when they present information as fact to a gullible media and public.
Most recently, In a report to UNAIDS in Rome Circumcision Researchers reported that circumcision programs had been effective in reducing new HIV infections by 55%.
What they actually compared was men who chose themselves to get circumcised, who tended to be younger, better educated and more likely to know their HIV status, who had volunteered for circumcison and had received education, counselling, clinical screening, and free condoms, and compared their new infection rates to men who refused to get themselves circumcised, were older, less educated, less likely to know HIV status, had recieved less or no education, counselling, clinical screening, or free condoms, basically did not participate in any aspect of the intervention programs.
The honest scientific question here is how much did the variables of : Age, Education, Attitude to Circumcision, Counselling, Clinical Screening, Free Condoms, knowledge of HIV status, and participation in the other non-surgical aspects of the intervention program contribute to lower HIV infections compared to the effect of circumcision???
Yet the circumcision researchers present the difference in new infection rates as if due solely to circumcision. How dishonest and unscientific is that?