How can a study be continued when it was halted and circumcision offered to all? Those who refused circumcision at that point (after accepting it when they joined) are a very skewed subset of the total. The many faults of the original study are just multiplied by this means – with fewer participants and hence less accuracy.

Isn't it getting rather tedious that the same few people (Bailey, Halperin, Grey, Auvert etc.) are the ones who first made a noise about the wonders of circumcision, carried out the studies, multiplied their results by the population of Africa to “prove” that “millions could be saved”, did other studies to show it has no effect on sex or behaviour, run clinics to circumcise Africans, and now run to the media to say how good circumcision is?

New studies by different researchers with different protocols would be more convincing.

And one has to be cynical about cutting the studies short “for ethical reasons” (another name for that is “stopping while you’re ahead”), when they thought it ethical to send the men home to their partners without telling them they had HIV. These studies would not have gained ethical approval in the developed world.