The study is bunk anyway. It is a percent of a percentage (garbage stats). So there is a +1% difference, but that accounts for a fifty% difference from the original infection rate. And the study doesn't even account for the fact that the circumcised group was recently circumcised, meaning they were not having sex to begin with. Furthermore it was done when the group didn't even have decent access to soap and water. It is complete horseshit no matter how you look at it. Circumcision was pushed in america to curb male sexuality 100%. Where is impy's take in this?