It's bunk. Every few years a new study comes out that says the opposite of the previous. Just like the whole eggs/coffee/whatever are good/bad/ugly for you thing. Fact is that if there is a benefit (or a detractor) it is miniscule, or else someone would've noticed that a lot of uncircumcised men in America have AIDS in comparison to the percentage of the population they make up. Classify this one under junk science.
How can I confirm this is bunk?
The full data from the trials, carried out by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, were published Friday in The Lancet.
They've always supported circumcision. Their study is, at best, slanted.