Anti-circumcision activists will be dismayed by the results of a study of more than 3000 South African men, which suggests that female-to-male HIV transmission may be significantly reduced for circumcised men. There's also plenty in the report to dismay anyone:
For the study, about half of the subjects were circumcised by medical professionals, and the rest remained uncircumcised.
[A]fter 21 months, 51 members of the uncircumcised group had contracted HIV, the AIDS virus, while only 18 members of the circumcised group had gotten the disease.
The scientists conducting the study can't be so stupid as to ignore the obvious: adult circumcision, performed shortly before the study, might have a dampening effect on the subject's sexual activity, thus contributing to the lower disease rates. I find the report meaningless, however, without an explanation of how this factor was taken into consideration.
All of the men received counseling on AIDS prevention.
Since most of "counseling on AIDS prevention" relies heavily on the mantra, "use a condom, use a condom, use a condom," this casually-stated fact should terrify all those who belive condom use to be the best approach to combating AIDS.
[Dr. Charles Gilks, of the World Health Organization] worried that [the results of the study] would lead many men to rush to get circumcised, and said the World Health Organization was racing to set guidelines for safe and hygienic circumcision.
I'm prepared to believe that some men would rather undergo a painful and risky procedure rather than restrict their sexual appetites to a faithful, monogamous relationship. (See above comment about blood and brains.) That they would willingly choose mutilation over condom use is beyond my comprehension, if not beyond that of the WHO.
