327 circumcised men dropped out of the studies, their HIV status unknown, easily enough to conceal enough extra HIV+ men to make it statistically insignificant.

And your question about transmission to women is a good one. A study by Maria Wawer et al in Uganda found 18% of the woman partners of circumcised HIV+ men became HIV+, compared with only 12% of the partners of non-circumcised HIV+ men. The study was stopped "for futility" before the figures could reach statistical significance. (There would have been no ethical objection to allowing the study to run, because they had established that circumcising the control group would not protect the women.)

So encouraging men to have themselves circumcised may actually increase the risk of passing HIV on to their partners.

Behind the campaign to circumcise African men to "prevent AIDS" are several men who are first and foremost intent on promoting circumcision, AIDS was a convenient disease to apply their favourite sexual mutilation to. The 140+ year history of medical circumcision is one of attempting to find medical justification for foreskin amputations.

Many countries around the world (including 6 in Africa, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland) have higher rates of HIV infection among circumcised men. The USA with a large percentage of circumcised men has a high rate of HIV infection. Many countries around the world that don't circumcise have very low rates of HIV infection.

This current push to circumcise Africa to "prevent AIDS" is a dangerous distraction from safer sex campaigns. Many men who were cut as infants need to justify this and promoting circumcision as a cure all is one of the ways of keeping from looking at what circumcision actually is.

History will reveal this African circumcision campaign to be a medical fraud, just as all attempts to find medical justification for circumcision have been.