This piece from 2012 (posted now why?) loses all credibility in the section called "2. Misleading results": It is tempting to think that the 60% figure that’s

This piece from 2012 (posted now why?) loses all credibility in the section called "2. Misleading results": It is tempting to think that the 60% figure that’s being thrown around in media reports is just too large a percentage to ignore–even if the studies had some flaws. But do you know what the “60%” statistic is actually referring to? Boyle and Hill explain: What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%. That’s right: 60% is the relative reduction in infection rates, comparing two very small percentages I don't even know where to begin. What does he think people will interpret it to mean? His entire point here is made in bad faith. What he's saying basically comes down to "the infection rate in this trial was low to begin with, therefore there's no point trying to make it lower," which is preposterous. The authors claim a reduction, which any speaker of the English language should know how to interpret. I think it's entirely valid to argue the validity of the study and the blowback issue, but his sloppy argumentation throughout the article is underscored here.