The article I linked to was from 2017 and I see that most of these critiques are from before. Are there any good critiques of the 2017 CDC recommendation?
This is one of the references for the CDC, that discusses where some of the benefits/risk data came from. Are you saying that the 140 journal articles used to attain the data was from Sub-Saharan Africa? (Asking to make sure I understand what you are saying).
This is what the CDC article says about the use of Sub-Saharan African data-
The evidence shows the CDC is correct in concluding that findings from sub-Saharan Africa concerning circumcision of adult males for protection against heterosexually-acquired HIV and certain other STIs also apply to men in the United States. The findings also apply to boys when they grow up. Moreover, the cumulative lifetime benefit is greatest if circumcision is performed early in infancy since early infant circumcision is simpler, more convenient, and carries lower risk than when performed later, and circumcision confers immediate protection against urinary tract infections, phimosis, balanitis, and, when older, specific STIs and genital cancers. MC also protects the female partners, as confirmed in randomized controlled trials.
Arguments by MC opponents disputing the validity of the large African RCTs showing that MC provides substantial protection against heterosexually-acquired HIV infection have been exposed as fallacious.60–72Frisch and Earp instead question the CDC for applying the African trial findings to the United States. Although the proportion of HIV infections acquired heterosexually in the United States is far less than in sub-Saharan Africa, in some U.S. localities heterosexually-acquired HIV incidence is high. Furthermore, 2014 CDC figures show 24% of new HIV infections in the United States involved heterosexual contact.73It was estimated that if all boys in the 2011 annual U.S. male birth cohort were circumcised, 5,530 HIV infections would be prevented over their lifetime.74 Lifetime risk of HIV diagnosis in heterosexual males in the United States is currently 1 in 524.75 The increase in HIV infections in African-Americans, in particular, has been faster than in all other groups.76 Modeling by the CDC found MC could reduce heterosexual HIV risk by approximately 21% in African-Americans and by approximately 12% in Hispanics, and costs would be saved in each group.77 Actual MC-related risk reduction in heterosexual African-American men with known HIV exposure was 51%.
Comparison of HIV and MC prevalence in high-income countries also suggest MC has a protective effect, providing further support to the applicability of the African MC trials to the United States and other high-income countries. For example, HIV prevalence in the mostly uncircumcised populations of France and the Netherlands was much higher than in Israel where almost all men are circumcised, despite all other risk factors being comparable.79 In Australia, where MC is less common than in the United States and Israel, the number of HIV infections related to heterosexual contact has increased by 28% over the past decade, representing 25% of new diagnoses in 2013, 29% being in Australian-born patients.80 In Canada, where infant MC prevalence has, like in Australia, declined in recent decades, 9.5% of new HIV infections involve men infected heterosexually.81
As well as substantial protection against HIV, data from the African RCTs reinforced the ability of MC to protect against several other STIs in heterosexual males,10,11,13,16,71,82–90 as well as their female sex partners10,91–95 and among MSM who are insertive-only.96–100 With regard to MSM in particular, a Cochrane analysis of MC and HIV prevalence among MSM found results were statistically significant among 3,465 men in 7 studies reporting an insertive role (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.44; I2=0%), but were not significant among 1,792 men in 3 studies reporting a receptive role (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 2.29; I2 = 0%).”1,80 MC also reduces the risk of potentially fatal penile, prostate, and cervical cancer.10,16–18,101–104 Partial protection against prostate cancer incidence was seen in U.S.101 and Canadian103 studies and in a meta-analysis of all studies,104 the protective effect being strongest (36%101 and 60%103) in North American men of African heritage.