As controls on "psychic" research are tightened, the effects found steadily diminish, and when control is complete, the effects vanish. These results are certainly consistent with the null hypothesis, that circumcision has no effect on HIV acquisition: the confounding factors have just not all been found yet.Yet as usual, this study advocates that "male circumcision should be seriously considered as an intervention to slow the spread of HIV-1 in uncircumcised populations".He went on to note, however, Most HIV infections are contracted in the receptive role, so what were talking about is a risk reduction for a small group of men who didnt have a huge risk in the first place.
"Scientists have power by virtue of the respect commanded by the discipline.
We may therefore be sorely tempted to misuse that power in furthering a personal prejudice or social goal -- why not provide that extra oomph by extending the umbrella of science over a personal preference in ethics or politics?
With those precautions, the correlation between circumcision status and HIV acquisition fell to 1.5 (20% of circumcised men had HIV, vs 30% of intact).
With "adequate" genital hygiene, the rate among the intact fell to 26%.
Factors like that might selectively influence their behaviour, putting them at less risk.] Templeton was quick to note, however, Thats only 9 percent of all HIV infections overall that can be attributed to being uncircumcised, not enough to advocate throwing out condoms or advocating widespread circumcision.