"

 Statistic removal 

I am removing the statistics from the 4th paragraph for the following reasons:

 The source [] qualifies as a WP:Primary by definition of a primary source
 The source is not an original study in and of itself, but is instead a ""meta-study"" based on the ""RCTs"". The underlying RCTs were not random or controlled as I indicated earlier by the Gregory Boyle and George Hill research; my previous posts here linked to their research which is a reliable source.
 The sentence I'm removing is a an opinion of the researchers themselves and is not directly supported by the results. See []. The actual reduction is not statistically significant. See Statistical_significance. The ""gold standard"" is ~5%.
 I cannot obtain the source article in question without paying for it, but it really doesn't matter since we're not supposed to be using primary sources directly anyway. Both the monitor.co.ug and the aforementioned research goes to discredit the research
 Prostitution, when taken into account, nullifies the ""benefits"": []
 Additional secondary source finding no benefit of MGM: []
 Another secondary source discrediting the research based on non-sexual HIV acquisition. See citations at the following link: []
 See citations here; male-female transmission increased: []
 Commentary that RCTs were not random at all (this is a fact as participants were paid): []
 No relationship between MGM & HIV in Kenya: []

Unlike the primary source in question, I've posted numerous links to reliable sources here. It would be easy to justify removing additional statements based on the source in question, but let's start with this one.   "