"...and they were also uncircumcised."
As if that's a bad thing.
Once again, supposed experts show themselves to be clueless as to recent medical research regarding circumcision and HIV.
When are doctors going to get with the program and read the studies done recently (by de Witte et al in 2007) on Langerhans cells and Birbeck granules? When are they going to read the numerous studies that refute the idea that circumcision reduces HIV infection - studies like Laumann 1997, van Howe 1999, Green 2010, Darby 2011, Boyle 2011? We now know that if circumcision has any effect on HIV, it most likely helps the virus to infect the body. The new study should at least give doctors pause, but no. Instead they go right along, mindlessly repeating the old lie that circumcision prevents HIV infection. If specialists in HIV don't even know that circumcision is not an AIDS vaccine, what chance do their patients have?