General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Studies showing "benefits of circumcision" highly flawed [View all]JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The frequently cited "60% relative reduction" is actually from the Auvert paper. Then he gives the cumulative numbers from three studies that went into the meta study, which is a different total.
His point is that the absolute reduction being so small as to render foreskin removal irrelevant as a prevention strategy, especially given a) that the studies were methodologically faulty and biased in the first place and b) that condoms are 95 times more effective and c) that the myth of circumcision encourages risk displacement. Also, I'd add d) as opposed to non-random non-controlled and dubiously designed studies falsely hyped as experimentally sound, the empirical population numbers tell a radically different story.
Just read it once without looking to murder it as you do so, okay?