Maybe they should have circumcised all of them and then looked at if the trend they could have predicted with their graph came true. There were some ethical ways they could have continued this study, but I'm still not buying that they didn't want the result they got when they started it.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2155rank.html
Canada, US, Brazil, Israel, Sweden, UK.... But there may be drug users included in those numbers and they don't break it down based on how many were circumcised or not. Plus there are a lot of other factors that go into that number. My main problem with this study is that they are claiming that since it might have stopped a few cases that US health insurance should cover it for all babies and it's 'the right' thing to do. When unless you think your boy will engage in risky sex during a trip to Africa, AIDS prevention shouldn't be high on their list of reasons. Even on a national scale it doesn't seem to be cost effective and in 10 years it might not be a concern.
They should use the money they could save by not circumcising the entire sub-Saharan continent (and the US) and work on finding a real cure for HIV/AIDS (and be able to fund it's roll-out). Or push real methods that we know have a better than a debatable 60% chance of stopping the transmission.
HIV gene treatment
Bold Efforts to Find a Cure for HIV AIDS and New Prevention Tools Are Urgently Needed, Says NIAID Head
Local physician: HIV/AIDS cure getting little publicity - Baldwin County NOW - A Gulf Coast Information Source for South Alabama