Circumcision doesn't prevent any disease or infection

Research PRO is correct when he claims that the WHO states that circumcision reduces HIV transmission by 60%[1]. However that's all he's right about, with his criticism of these findings being nothing but a strawman which shows he hasn't even looked at the studies these are based on. He states "They compared a nation's past and present HIV rates after practicing circumcision for a period of time" and reasons that this therefore has the flaw that other factors could have influenced the results. The problem here is that these criticisms have no relation to the studies that were conducted. All three studies [2][3][4] were run based on of the formation of two almost identical groups - a control group that has no circumcision and an intervention group that recieved circumcision - and comparisons between the two at the same points in time. It was not comparing past to present, but comparing one present group to another present group with the variable between the two being circumcision or lack thereof. If there is a sudden change in some other factor of HIV prevelance, like increased condom use, it doesn't matter because they're both being measured in the present and so will be effected equally be it. PRO's criticisms are therefore invalid and the results of these studies should stand. As the clear weight of evidence is on my side and PRO has misrepresented the evidence, I believe this is a key indicator based on scientific studies that circumcision prevent HIV infection. Furthermore, if we want to get an idea of what the literature at the whole says, then the best thing to do is look at a meta-analysis[5]. As individual studies can be flawed or by sheer chance happen to have non-representative results, meta-analyses are essentially a study of studies, collecting all the individual studies that have been done on a subject and combining their results to give a clear indication of what all the scientific effort points toward. Fortunately a meta-analysis has been done for HIV and it shows that there is a massive consensus that circumcision does reduce HIV[6]. Now the results of any scientific study, even a meta-analysis, could potentially be down to luck. If your cancer curing drug cures cancer in 1000 out of 1000 patients, then it's almost certain that you've found a drug that cures cancer but it's not actually impossible that it could just be down to luck and 1000 patients just happened to all simultaneously have spontaneous cancer regression. The standard benchmark for studies is a 95% liklihood of being correct (although for some important ones it can be 99%). If they can meet that then the study is said to meet it's hypothesisis and be statistically significant and the hypothesis scientifically valid. If you don't know your P values, the liklihood of male circumcision providing protection from HIV being very real and not down to chance as given in that meta-analysis is 99.999%. In scientific terms, that's massive and overwhelming evidence. Unsupported ClaimsAll of PRO's post is unsupported and unsourced claims. The only difference with the WHO study is that because he gave the organisation it came from and a specific detail of 60%, I was able to track it down myself and show how it was wrong. As he has provided nothing to support his claims, I don't even know what he is referencing when he says stuff like "Several research done among US Navy, Millitary, Airforce professionals" if indeed such research exists. I am therefore disregarding as unevidenced opinion until PRO backs it up. Circumcision as a specific treatmentAt the start of my post I present the overwhelming scientific consensus that male circumcision prevents HIV. However circumcision can also actually be a surgical procedure for ongoing medical conditions. Phimosis[7] is the inflamation of the penis, causing the head to be unable to come out of the foreskin. As per the NHS, circumcision "can sometimes be the best and only treatment option. "Other preventional benefitsMale circumcision has an array of health benefits. A meta-analysis[8] has found that "circumcised men are at lower risk of chancroid and syphilis". Another found that "circumcision reduces the prevalence of genital HPV infections", with HPV having an association with cancer - thus by proxy causing circumcision to reduce the risk of cancer. [9][1] . http://goo.gl...[2] . http://goo.gl...[3] . http://goo.gl...[4] . http://goo.gl...[5] . http://goo.gl...[6] . http://goo.gl...[7] . http://tinyurl.com...[8] . https://goo.gl...[9] . http://goo.gl...