Changes

* Two studies that have been published in early 2007<ref>{{RCT Gray et al 2007}}</ref><ref>{{RCT Bailey et al 2007}}</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">{{BoyleGJ HillG 2011}}</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

* Urinary tract infections (UTI): a [[UTI ]] can be effectively treated with antibiotics, this was also proven by studies.<ref>{{REFjournal

|title=The incidence of genitourinary abnormalities in [[circumcised ]] and [[uncircumcised]] boys presenting with an initial urinary tract infection by 6 months of age

}}</ref> did not find a significant difference in UTI rates between [[circumcised ]] and [[intact ]] boys with normal urinary tract anatomy.

}}</ref>. Studies have shown that there is no significant difference in the risk of getting penile cancer between [[circumcised ]] and [[intact ]] men. To prevent a single case of penile cancer, it would statistically take 600 to 900 circumcisions<ref>{{REFdocument