Changes

The idea that circumcision could prevent sexually transmitted infection started with mere speculation by Victorian doctors in the 19th century and was reinforced by military orders to have servicemen circumcised subjected to circumcision during the 20th century.

Professor Robert S. Van Howe (2013) has provided a magisterial systematic review and meta-analysis citing 199 documentsrelating to circumcision and STDs. Van Howe's paper appears to be conclusive. Van Howe's His meta-analysis concludes as follows:

''Most specific STIs are not impacted significantly by circumcision status. These include chlamydia, gonorrhea, HSV, and HPV. Syphilis showed mixed results with prevalence studies suggesting intact men were at great risk and incidence studies suggesting the opposite. Intact men appear to begreater risk for GUD while at lower risk for GDS, NSU, genital warts, and the overall risk of any STIs. It is also clear that any positive impact of circumcision on STIs is not seen in general populations. Consequently, the prevention of STIs cannot be rationally interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and a policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent STIs is not supported by the evidence currently available in the medical literature''.<ref name="vanhowe2013" />

Prevention Claims of prophylactic prevention of STDs and STIs can no longer can be used to support the harmful practice of destructive male circumcision.

|date=2016