Changes

}}</ref> By designing a trial to "detect" a minimum 50 percent reduction risk in HIV, these researchers might have artifically artificially created the clinical setting to observe the effect they were looking to discover.

Boyle & Hill (2011) have shown these RCTs to be have significant methodological flaws and statistical errors that render their claims invalid. Although a 60 percent ''relative'' reduction in HIV was claimed, the ''absolute'' reduction was a statistically insignificant 1.3 percent.<ref name="boyle-hill2011">{{REFjournal |last=Boyle |first=Gregory J. |author-link= |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=December 2011 |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=2019-10-13}}</ref> Concerns about the three randomized controlled clinical trials (RCCTs) in Africa (in South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya)<ref>Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Med 2005;2(11):e298.</ref><ref>Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, ''et al''. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369(9562):643–56.</ref><ref>Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: A randomised trial. ''Lancet '' 2007;369(9562):657– 66.</ref>: