Despite the disappointment that male circumcision seemed to offer no protection to female partners of HIV-infected men, [Maria] Wawer stressed that the procedure will probably still benefit women because if fewer men are infected, they are less likely to pass that infection on to their partners. “We are sure there will be a population benefit,” she said.
What does it mean when a researcher who finds an intervention is not effective still claims she is “sure there will be a population benefit”? Seriously, is there any clearer indication that these people started with a belief and will go to any lengths to “fix the evidence around the proposition?” Where have we heard and seen that happen before? Hint: It involved a certain country invading another.