There's an argument that being circumcised lowers the risk of transmission of HIV because the foreskin can tear increasing the risk of transmission.
There really isn't. Among the issues you noted, the original study showing lower rates of HIV with circumcision done on Africans conveniently left out that the circumcision group was also given education on using protection to prevent HIV (like condoms) while the non-circumcision group received none. A MASSIVE influence on results you can't simply account for afterwards. If I remember right there was also fuckery like including counting the period where they would be recovering in their follow-up on new HIV cases, instead of excluding the first month or so of data to account for that difference.
Of course they aren't going to get HIV during that time... when you've had part of your dick cut off you're not going to even think about sex for a while after. If you're not fucking, your risk of HIV is lower. A proper study would try to control for that variable. They didn't.
It's been a long time since I looked at the data but when I originally did I was shocked by not only the lack of actual evidence it's effective (same for penile cancer by the way which is another excuse) but by the shoddy way the trials were done rendering them worse than useless.
The "but the foreskin might tear" excuse also makes no sense given the natural gliding motion of the skin over the penis during sex decreases friction and tearing risk.
Circumcised penises don't have that layer of protection and thus result in more friction and more vaginal abrasion and tearing if the sex is rough or poorly lubricated.
I have no fucking idea why this sham science is still pushed. There is zero medical reason to circumcise someone unless there's something severe going on like cancerous tissue needing to be removed or something. It doesn't decrease HIV or STD risk, it isn't more hygienic, and doesn't decrease penile cancer risk enough to justify doing it as a preventative measure.
As for phimosis there is zero reason to completely circumcise to address it, even if it does occur and cause painful sex or erections. You make a small lateral cut at the tip of the foreskin so it isn't as tight and can be retracted. That's all that's needed. No removal of healthy tissue necessary.
I really don't understand it. It's why I looked into it in the first place because the entire concept of an amputation of healthy tissue being healthier than an intact organ didn't make sense to me, only come to find the data doesn't support it either.
In the US, I can understand (although disagree with) the religious reasoning. But funding it for random Africans with tax dollars? Just bizarre.
Is it just because it's an easy procedure that makes a lot of revenue? Do people actually believe the fraud science that justified it in the first place? A combination of both?
If we're re-examining science to see what's medically sound, "medical circumcision" would be a good one to add to the list. It's complete junk propped up by basically nothing.
To be clear I have no issue with people voluntarily getting a circumcision for cultural, religious, or even a esthetic reasons as adults. There are worse genital modifications done in different cultures including penile bifurcation (don't look that up) in some backwater tribes. My issue is when something is pushed as "medically necessary" with no solid evidence to actually justify it. Even worse when people are treated as though they're negligent or ignorant when they refuse to do it to their children because of it.
My autistic obsession over this issue has revealed a lot of examples that are not that difficult to find with some simple digging and basic understanding of how scientific studies are done and common issues that can interfere with proper data collection.