I read the whole thing over and didn't see anywhere where "cause" was even mentioned. The whole report responsibly states the correlations (and non-correlates) found. I found it to be quite responsibly written, even though I share your sentiments on the "mutilation" factor
The data states that in Africa of the men in the study the circumcised men where less likely to get AIDs. It is fallacious argument because there is no logical reason to believe that circumcision is the root cause for the circumcised men to get AIDs less often. The same date could be used as "proof" that of the men in Africa that can afford circumcision are less likely to get AIDS. It could be used as proof that men in Africa that are circumcised are less likely to sleep with people with AIDs. It could be used as proof that in Africa circumcised men have the ability to get transportation to a hospital so they may be able to get a ride to have the people they sleep with tested for AIDs before they sleep with them. It could be used as proof that in Africa if you are circumcised and dont have access to proper means to keep your wound clean you will get an infected penis and never have sex again or your penis could fall off. It could be used as proof that in Africa women dont find circumcised penises appealing and leave laughing before they give them AIDs.
America and Jerusalem are the only country's in the world where circumcision is common. It seams like if it isnt common in Africa, Africans may receive the same type of discrimination that uncircumcised men in America receive. In America if you are on government medical insurance they will pay for your child to be circumcised as apposed to England where you would have to pay cash because it is considered cosmetic.
The point is there is not logical reason to say circumcision and likelyhood of AIDs contraction is correlated any more than any of the possible correlations I have stated.
Why assume the circumcision caused less AIDs? Why not the circumcision caused less sex and less sex caused less AIDs or circumcisions cause more penises to fall off. less penises less sex less AIDs.
Fallacious argument aside dont you think they would tell you if they had a statistic? How could anything be more important. I mean if they could say a circumcised man can sleep with someone with AIDs five times and 70% get AIDs but uncircumcised men who sleep with a person with AIDs get it 90% of the time that they would? if fact they have no idea because its not know whether any of the men that didnt get AIDs slept with someone with AIDs at all. This test says nothing of any use what so ever from a scientific standpoint and is text book Fallacious argument.
to illustrate i will offer the only test that would tell you the chances of contracting AIDs. you can get the volunteers.
you need say 100 guys that dont have AIDs and 100 women with AIDs. They would then have to have sex with the women with AIDs and if ten of them got it you would be in the ballpark of ten percent chance to get aids if you have sex with a women with AIDs. you could never get a accurate statistic unless all the dudes penises where the same length, as there could be a correlation between depth of penetration and likelihood of transmission. they would have to all last the same amount of time and be with a girl thats just as contagious as the rest. you would need 100 girls with AIDs because good luck finding a volunteer to go sloppy fiftieth on the AIDs girl who is now all torn up and bleeding now.
So what if uncircumcised guys have a 75% chance to get AIDs and Circumcised guys only have a 74.9% chance. does that justify penis surgery? Basically this "evidence" is bogus and needs to be taken down. If one person with a scientific background believed this including the people spreading it around i would be amazed. This is clearly propaganda and a fallacious argument on many levels.
this argument exhibits:
Argument From Authority
Confusing Correlation And Causation (Best fit. my Fav)
Argument By Half Truth
Argument By Selective Observation
Least Plausible Hypothesis