It's not "anti-circumcision crusaders" who are saying circumcision is being presented as a magic bullet. It's the circumcision crusaders like Matovu et al. who are grossly underestimating men's willingness to believe that circumcision is a magic bullet - or indeed of men anywhere to believe anything that makes it easier for them to have more sex with less trouble. Matovu et al are in turn, far to ready to believe anything in favour of circumcision and disbelieve anything against it. It is not enough to say that 10 out of 18 countries where more of the CIRCUMCISED men have HIV than the non-circumcised is "a false comparison". It is not enough to say that the Uganda study that started to show circumcising men INcreases the risk to women was entirely because the men resumed sex too early. If it is instead because circumcised men's hardened organs make tiny tears in the women's organs that let the virus in, then anyone promoting circumcision will have many deaths to answer for.

Matovu et al. cite "B J Morris and his colleagues" to answer the critics of circumcision. Are these the same colleagues listed here - http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/GFW-EN%200712-1.pdf - on a publication of the Gilgal Society? The credibility of the Gilgal Society is now in a spot of bother.