I have not found the actual paper, but the second summary, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/ias-lbe071911.php, does not refer to "a 55 per cent reduction in HIV prevalence and a 76 per cent reduction in HIV incidence in circumcised men" only "in men", which of itself proves nothing about the effectiveness of circumcision, and is what you would expect after an intensive HIV publicity campaign, whether it included circumcision or not. This study was lead by Bertram Auvert, who was lead author of the first circumcision and HIV trial. It seems that this whole campaign is being pushed by remarkably few people. Meanwhile Wawer et al. (Lancet 374:9685, 229-37) started to find that circumcising men might INcrease the risk to women. Following couples with HIV+ men, of "92 couples in the intervention [circumcised] group and 67 couples in the control group ... 17 (18%) women in the intervention group and eight (12%) women in the control group acquired HIV during follow-up (p=0·36)." But having failed to find any benefit, they cut the trial short "for futility" before any ill-effect of circumcision could be confirmed. Circumcision has been a "cure" in search of a disease, an intervention looking for an excuse, for generations, and people are much too ready to think that whatever the question, circumcision must be the answer.