Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Benefits of male circumcision reconfirmed as rates decline [View all]pnwmom
(108,976 posts)and the same access to condoms. They purposely designed the studies to account for those variables.
It is true that they couldn't compare a placebo vs. circumcision, but the diagnosis of HIV isn't something that would be influenced by a participant's or his doctor's expectations. It's done with blood tests.
And the 60% difference in HIV cases is over a 2 year period. It could hardly have been accounted for by several weeks of abstinence after the surgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV
The NIAID, part of the NIH, supported two further trials, conducted in Kenya and in Uganda. The primary objectives of these studies were to determine whether adult male circumcision can be administered safely, and whether it would reduce the risk of acquiring HIV infection through heterosexual contact. After an initial HIV screening and a medical exam, eligible men were randomly assigned either to receive circumcision immediately or to wait two years before circumcision. All participants were closely followed for two years to collect information about their health, sexual activity, and their and their partners attitudes about circumcision; to counsel participants in HIV prevention and safe sex practices; and to check the HIV status of the volunteer. Participants in the Kenyan study were scheduled for six visits over the two-year follow-up, compared with four visits for the Ugandan trial participants. In addition to the study visits, men enrolled in the Kenyan trial were encouraged to receive all of their outpatient health care at the study clinics, which enabled researchers to collect information on the safety of the procedure and the number of other sexually transmitted diseases the men had during follow-up.