Article in American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 39, Issue 5 , Pages 479-482, November 2010. The authors discuss the "external validity" of the three African randomized control trials that examined circumcision as a preventive measure for HIV infection. The nutshell version of this discussion is that clinical conditions that show promise do not necessarily translate into a real world net benefit. Or, just because some studies show circumcision has an effect on HIV does not mean circumcision has an effect on HIV unless it is also shown in real world results.

Related Links:

• Male Circumcision and HIV: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE: Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Insufficient Evidence and Neglected External Validity
   
• End Routine Infant Circumcision: Why Circumcision Does NOT Slow The Spread of HIV

Proponents of circumcision have long touted that male circumcision offers the man up to a 60% chance of protection from contracting HIV through the infected female partner.  Russian Roulette anyone?  This definitely has given men, in Africa, a false sense of security.  They think because they are circumcised, that they are immune to contracting HIV, therefore they have unprotected sex with women who may possibly be infected.  That is what I call playing Russian Roulette.