Scientific Consensus: Circumcision Prevents AIDS

What's to discuss? The title is demonstrably wrong: There is no consensus that circumcision prevents AIDS. Hell, no one even makes that claim. What is claimed, without any completed studies to support it, is that male circumcision reduces risk of HIV infection. It does not offer immunity, and so it cannot be said to prevent it by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is there scientific consensus on the issue at all.

Now, note that I said completed studies. There have been some trials in Africa, but they were cut short as soon as they got the results they wanted. The trials were also not double-blinded, and the circumcised population sample were told to abstain from sex for six weeks while the wound healed. They were also given free condoms and safe sex instructions. The control sample were given nothing. No instruction to abstain, no safe sex advice, and no condoms. And as soon as the numbers ticket in in favour of circumcision, they cut the trials short claiming it would be immoral to keep going. But cutting the trials short also means you do not know what the final distribution is going to look like, and so it is meaningless.

Several reasons why this "treatment" is a ridiculous idea:

1. It reduces men's already too-low worry about using condoms.
2. It doesn't offer protection for women at all. Moreover, it does reduce their grounds for insisting on condoms. "I don't need a condom, baby. I'm circumcised, so I'm safe!" The logic is flawed, of course, but people tend to use flawed logic. To wit: this thread claims there is a scientific consensus that circumcision prevents AIDS.
3. Even the pro-circumcision lobby concedes that when wearing a condom, the difference in risk is next to non-existent, so why not just focus on getting men to wear condoms more often, instead of less?
4. Ultimately, men's reduced concern about safe sex will result in increased infection in the long run, precisely because of the false sense of security the "treatment" of circumcision provides. If, as the lobbyist claim, male circumcision reduces risk of HIV infection by 60% (and there is no consensus that this is the case), this is effectively nullified if it reduces condom use by the same amount.

Lastly, as I mentioned, the lobbyists are claiming male circumcision reduces risk of HIV infection by about 60%. This can easily be seen to be false by statistics. The US has a significantly higher prevalence of male circumcision than any other Western country. This means that if it holds any health benefits, it would be clearly visible in the numbers. However, HIV prevalence is not only not lower by a proportionate amount when compared to other Western countries, it is slightly lower in uncircumcised Europe instead. This would simply not be the case if circumcision had any preventative effect. What does the circumcision lobby have to say about this? Nothing, they simply sweep it under the carpet and try to compare the US with sub-Saharan Africa instead.

This guy knows what he's talking about: