We are meant to assume that the doctors involved in this study remained completely independent, absent of any personal thinking or value judgment? The assumption by the public at large that doctors and scientists as being wholly objective is misguided. Doctors are people and with an issue such as this conclusions are often backed by data - not the other way around, how else would you explain the exact opposite conclusions by a Dutch study that concluded "There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene" ?

Circumcision is an antiquated religious ritual based on misguided beliefs and bad science. In the US, the popularity of circumcision dates back 140 years to Dr Lewis Sayre, one of the founders of the American Medical Association who believed that many medical conditions had their root in a dysfunction in the genital area, and that circumcision could be used to treat a wide array of problems, from depression to mental health issues, syphilis and epilepsy. Circumcision was also promoted as a way of discouraging masturbation, and was regarded as clean and hygienic. Sayre's theories have since been debunked.