Mr Hall states that he is not a scientist. I assume that he means that he does not have the necessary training to evaluate the research done in the field circumcision lately. I assume that he therefore draws on Mr Waskett’s expertise to justify previous comments he made on circumcision. What are Mr Jake Waskett’s credentials? What makes Mr Hall think that Mr Waskett has any professional training in research?

Waskett states: "with other factors controlled, male circumcision had some protective effect in 5 of the 8 countries, but the effect was statistically significant only in Tanzania."2

In scientific terms this means that in seven of the eight countries where the study was conducted, there was no scientific evidence that circumcision is protective (not statistically significant). Only in Tanzania was there any evidence (statistically significan) of circumcision having any protective effect.

However, because the study in Tanzania was not reproducible in the other seven countries, the results of that study seem to be an anomaly like flipping a coin and getting 30 heads vs. 70 tails when it should be 50:50).  Since only scientific investigations that are consistently reproducible carry any weight, there is no evidence to date that circumcision has a protective effect.

So Mr Hall may want to reconsider his comments on circumcision.

Dr Wilhelm Kossenjans
University of Cincinnati