In Zimbabwe in 2005, USAID found 14.2% of non-circumcised men had HIV compared to 16.6% of circumcised men. (Similar differences apply in 10 of 18 countries for which it has figures.) Shouldn't this at least be explained before blundering on with mass circumcision programmes? The "up to 60% reduction" figure amounts to a total of 73 circumcised men who did not get HIV less than two years after 5,400 men were circumcised, while 64 did (and 327 dropped out, their HIV status unknown). Circumcision does nothing to directly protect women, who are at greater risk, and may even INcrease the risk to them. It will make it harder for women to insist that men use condoms. It is a recipe for disaster.

Zimbabwe has horrendous health problems. The money and resources being spent cutting men's genitals could be used much more effectively on measures that would, for example, keep children alive long enough to be at risk of sexually transmitted HIV. THEN is the time to worry about that.