requoting myself b/c it's relevant
The CDC released a pro-circumcision policy in 2014. They requested a review by Robert Van Howe.
His main criticisms were:
lack of scientific and scholarly rigor
lack of attention to detail
disregard for the medical evidence
lack of a thorough discussion of the foreskin
out of step with the rest of the world
took over seven years
counterfactual, incomplete, and biased
His more specific criticisms were:
cites reviews and opinions, not data
outdated citations
no look at cons
ignores 96% of PubMed medical literature
assumes 3 African HIV trials are unbiased
if graduate student submitted, a failing grade
incorrect, redundant citations
misspellings
works from conclusions to facts
no foreskin anatomy or function
unrevised over seven years of writing
deliberate misinformation
focuses on HIV studies from Africa, not the US
non-medical focus
Most interesting is the fact that in 2007, the CDC invited nearly all of the world's top pro-circumcision experts (50+ people) to attend a consultation. Only one token invitee had published papers against circumcision. The same thing happened that year when the WHO recommended circumcision for HIV.
The rest of the review goes into detail about the policy's many flaws but it's clear that the CDC has an agenda in pushing circumcision.
https://www.academia.edu/10553782/A_CDC-requested_Evidence-based_Critique_of_the_Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention_2014
_Draft_on_Male_Circumcision_How_Ideology_and_Selective_Science_Lead_to_Superficial_Culturally-biased_Recommendations_by_the_CDC