All I can say is that for some reason, the people who've done meta-analysis and further review of these studies haven't considered them debunked. And if there

All I can say is that for some reason, the people who've done meta-analysis and further review of these studies haven't considered them debunked. And if there is a conspiracy to remove the foreskin, then the CDC is in on it as well. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcis... A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [12]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at STD clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men. I would think the first thing a person doing the analysis of HIV acquisition would do would be to verify similar number (and class, length, etc..) of sexual contacts during the study period. But, at a meta-level, this is why Anti-Vaxxers are so prevalent - with a bit of effort, you can debunk, or argue against any scientific finding. Once that happens, people basically just tend to go with their preconceptions.