Yes, because there's no bias in the studies for circumcision. Maybe if you'd have read what was in the link I provided you'd have noticed that.

In my research I found this lovely little nugget, I'll post the link, it requires registration, but it's free so I don't see why you shouldn't be able to read it for yourself. I'll copy and paste it anyways so everyone can read it.

http://tinyurl.com/4phnob

"Male circumcision in HIV prevention

George C Denniston and George Hill

Research into circumcision to curtail the HIV pandemic in Africa, such as Robert Bailey and colleagues' work,1 has been marred by poor science, and the investigators have been criticised by their peers. The rationale for excising foreskins to prevent HIV infection is based on Weiss and colleagues' hypothesis that Langerhans cells in the foreskin are vulnerable to HIV infection.2 de Witte and colleagues3 have now proved the opposite: that Langerhans cells produce langerin, which protects against HIV infection. The basis for excising the foreskin to prevent HIV infection now has been overturned. Moreover, Brewer and colleagues have shown that HIV infection is higher in circumcised virgins and adolescents.4

All three randomised controlled trials on circumcision against HIV have been terminated early. Mills and Siegfried point out that early termination exaggerates the effects of the studied intervention and call for a meta-analysis of the RCTs.5

Male circumcision has long been an operation in search of a disease. Consequently, it is difficult to accept these RCTs at face value. Given the contradictory evidence, whether male circumcision will worsen or improve HIV infection is uncertain. We think more study is needed, including a meta-analysis as proposed by Mills and Siegfried, before mass circumcision programmes are considered.

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.".

(Granted, just because they say they have no conflict of interest, doesn't mean that they don't.