22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
using template BoyleGJ HillG 2011
|url=
|accessdate=
}}</ref>, which investigated the effectiveness of circumcision as a means of reducing the spread of HIV from infected women to heterosexual men in African high risk areas, have been repeatedly subjected to strong criticism. Both studies were ended prematurely, which distorted the results. The men who had been circumcised for the study had to stay sexually inactive during the wound healing, which gave the intact control group more relative opportunity to become infected. These African randomized clinical trials have been demonstrated to have very serious methodological and statistical errors that distort the results in favor of circumcision.<ref name="boyle-hill2011">{{REFjournal |last=Boyle |first=Gregory J. |init=GJ |author-link=Gregory Boyle |last2=Hill |first2=George |author2-link=George Hill |title=Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns |journal=J Law Med |date=BoyleGJ HillG 2011-12 |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=316-34 |url=http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf |quote= |pubmedID=22320006 |pubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=2019-11-09}}</ref>
The fact that the USA has both the highest rate of circumcised males in the western world, as well as the highest HIV infection rate, makes the studies look dubious. Besides that, several other studies concluded that circumcision does not have a significant impact on the risk of infection with HIV.<ref>{{REFjournal