Apparently there's no truth in it, the medical profession will try any means to justify something which brings in such huge amounts of revenue.The foreskin in part protects the head of the penis so common sense tells you that taking it away isn't going to be a good idea. I post a link which examines the studies which are being cited so often, it's rather complicated but a clear rebuttal of the studies.
Does Circumcision Prevent HIV Infection?
Well one was a medical study undertaken in the field and aimed at obtaining objective accurate data, the other seems to be a more academic analysis in support of an organisation stated as being opposed to non theraputic circumcision so which would you think more impartial?
Did you take a few minutes to read the cited studies? It's telling that most are several (up to 15) years old which is hardly current. I did and most are singularly inconclusive and at least one supports the other findings and another states that the result maybe of limited value due to low numbers. Then why cite it?
AMA on Neonatal circumcision.
"Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Sexually Transmissible Diseases: The data on circumcision status and susceptibility to HIV infection and other sexually transmissible diseases have been recently reviewed.
5,26,27 Five of 7 prospective studies involving heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 found a statistically significant association between lack of circumcision and elevated risk for acquisition of HIV (relative risks 2.3-8.1).
In the other 2 studies the relative risk exceeded 3 in uncircumcised males, but a low proportion of uncircumcised men and a small percentage of seroconversion limited the statistical power of these studies."
It goes on to say:
"At least 16 studies have examined the relationship between circumcision and sexually transmissible diseases other than HIV.
27 In general, circumcised individuals appear to have somewhat lower susceptibility to acquiring chancroid and syphilis, possibly genital herpes, and gonorrhea compared to individuals in whom the foreskin is intact. The available data on
nongonococcal urethritis and
genital warts are inconclusive.
Regardless of these findings, behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting" against such infections."
I think the part I bolded is sensible, yet it appears to contradict the aim of the site.
From another -
Neonatal circumcision revisited
Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS)
"Both showed positive associations. Eighteen of the cross-sectional studies reported a statistically significant association, determined through univariate or multivariate analysis, between the presence of the foreskin and the risk of HIV infection. Four other such studies showed a trend toward an association, and four showed no association. The two prospective studies showed positive associations....."
From a third, African study
"
CONCLUSIONS: The trial cohort was successfully established. Comparability of intervention and comparison communities at baseline was confirmed for most factors. Matching appears to have achieved a trial of adequate sample size.
The apparent lack of a protective effect of male circumcision contrasts with other studies in Africa."
I'd say the last one suggests that the latest findings are not the first. It seems to me like there is an agenda being pushed by NORM UK perhaps on the assumption that the studies would be skimmed?
I'm also opposed to non theraputic circumsion and I'm also rather skeptical of the latest study but I'm not a doctor and am open to the possibility I may be wrong and that there may be an unexpected positive side effect.
After all these are opposing conculsions, logically they can't both be right although other factors could be at play. But, you seem to have made your mind up so what makes you choose to believe this one, could it be
your personal bias which seems quite plain?