First up is yet another study looking for HIV risk reduction from male circumcision in men who have sex with men. Once again, no such benefit was forthcoming. The relevant language from the abstract:
Among men who reported unprotected insertive anal sex with HIV-positive partners, being uncircumcised did not confer a statistically significant increase in HIV infection risk. Additional studies with more incident HIV infections or that include a larger proportion of uncircumcised men may provide a more definitive result.
AIDS. 2010 May 15;24(8):1135-43. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328337b8bd.
It is hard to imagine a more definitive result than no “statistically significant increase in HIV infection risk” for the fourth or fifth time. The results are consistent and unidirectional. Circumcision does nothing for men who have sex with men.
Second up is yet another study looking at HIV risk reduction in women paired with circumcised men. Circumcision failed in this context also. The relevant language from an Aidsmap summary:
The risk of contracting HIV was 40% lower for the partners of circumcised men than uncircumcised men, but this reduction in risk was not statistically significant.
Baeten JM et al. Male circumcision and risk of male-to-female HIV-1 transmission: a multinational prospective study in African HIV-1-serodiscordant couples. AIDS 24: 737-44, 2010.
It is notable that another study that found a 50% greater risk among women paired with HIV positive circumcised men used fairly neutral language to describe the lack of statistically significant reduced risk rather than the loaded language used above. That’s two studies now that show women receive no protection from male circumcision in terms of HIV risk reduction.
Two studies, same story. Male circumcision does not protect the two most HIV impacted categories of people, i.e. men who have sex with men and women.