What is one to do when a fourth study (Templeton) shows gay men gain nothing from male circumcision not just in HIV risk reduction, but also in many other sexually transmitted infections? In this case, several boneheaded scientists took the evidence of ineffectiveness and did the math.
In an effort reminiscent of that old saw about the not so savvy businessman, they took the loss and attempted to show they could make it up in volume. To clarify, these researchers based their study on a tiny, apparent advantage in circumcised men whose "expressed preference" (not necessarily matched by actual behavior) was the insertive role in anal intercourse. The sample was so small as to be unreliable. The researchers in the former study seem to admit this, but the latter group has soldiered on to give us an additional unreliable what-if scenario.
For all I know, they may have gotten a brand new grant for this latest study based on mathematical modeling. It is hard to believe more money would be made available to keep beating the dead horse of male circumcision to reduce HIV risk in gay men.
