First, that study has been totally disproven by subsequent studies that looked at more then ONLY circumcision as a factor; turns out that access to running utilities, medicine, education have a much stronger correlation to HIV infection rates. After all, if circumcision were a factor the study would have found the same results in Europe, but they didn't; there studies looking at socio-economic difference found the same coralation as in Africa. The simple truth is that those associated with the initial circumcision/HIV study intentionally looked at only one factor because they had a pro-circumcision bias and they had an intended result. This is true of many studies done by eugenics followers; if you remember one of the early motivations behind eugenics was to eliminate foreskin because it was seen as the cure for the "illness" of masturbation. It became an illness, in England, because the English Acadomy of Science, in the late 1800, decided that because serm move they must be alive, thus they have a TINY MAN IN EACH SPERM CELL. Religion and primitive science got together to start eugenics in this case the idea was, if you cut of enough foreskins, for enough generations, eventually fore skinless babies will be born… umm how many of you were born with a foreskin?
Second, no uncut male would want to circumcise other males because all uncut males are INTACTivists - even if they haven't admitted it anyone. Therefore, Bill Gates can't be uncut.