Changes

Despite the known [[Immunological and protective function of the foreskin| immunological functions]] of the [[foreskin]], Certain doctors have promoters of male circumcision attempted to link HIV infection to lack of [[circumcision]]. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were carried out in Africa in an attempt to prove their hypothesis. Boyle & Hill (2011) however studied their reports and found disabling methodological and statistical errors that invalidated their purported findings.<ref name="boyle-hill2011">{{BoyleGJ HillG 2011}}</ref> Van Howe & Boyle (2018) further elaborated on these findings and suggested possible coordination between the RCTs and hinted at the possibility of fraud.<ref name= "vanhowe2018">{{REFjournal |last=Van Howe |first=Robert S. |init=RS |author-link=Robert S. Van Howe |last2=Boyle |first2=Gregory J. |init2=GJ |author2-link=Gregory J. Boyle |etal=no |title=Meta-analysis of HIV-acquisition studies incomplete and unstable |journal=BJU Int |location= |date=2018-10-31 |volume= |issue= |pages= |url=https://www.bjuinternational.com/letters/meta-analysis-circumcision-incomplete-unstable/ |archived= |quote=Given the effectiveness of condoms, the lack of consistent findings on national levels, the methodologically flawed RCTs, the lack of translational research, and the impressive potential uptake and effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis, circumcision as an intervention to prevent HIV infection should be treated with greater scepticism. |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=2021-11-24}}</ref>