Expertise or ideology? A response to Morris et al. 2016, ‘Circumcision is a primary preventive against HIV infection: Critique of a contrary meta-regression analysis by Van Howe’

Expertise and Ideology in Statistical Evaluation of Circumcision for Protection against HIV Infection

“…Hardly, "a discrepancy that raises serious questions as to whether the analysis was performed correctly". In fact, this exemplifies the "legerdemain" Van Howe's critics accuse him of (as listed in his table 2, item 4) [1]. Indeed, he appears unable to resist the temptation of misconstruing data to undermine the validity of findings that support conclusions not to his liking.…”

“…But his criticisms seem off target. First, that study did not contain, "a single hypothesis that had been developed using pilot data", as stated in Van Howe's Note 1 [1]. Waskett and Morris rightly pointed out that Bonferroni correction should have been applied to the P values arising from the multiple comparisons carried out by Sorrells et al to test different sites on the penis for fine-touch sensitivity.…”

“…As a notable example, in table 1, item 10 of his defense article, Van Howe denies that heterosexual transmission is the main driver of HIV infection in Africa [1]. In item 11 of his table 1 (and referred to in his Note 9) Van Howe, by omitting the word "treatment", misconstrues a modelling study [60] that actually found, "The prevention benefits of HIV Van Howe's use of meta-regression is justified when studies show a high level of heterogeneity.…”

“…In the section entitled, "An effective critique requires specialised expertise" [1], Van Howe enunciates the sequential steps needed for the statistical analysis we criticized. The second author of our critique, Dr. Gia Barbosa, has the specialized statistical expertise Van Howe enunciates.…”

“…It is, nevertheless, important to science and public health to critically respond to all publications that appear to perpetrate false or misleading information. Here we address an extensive (19-page) defense by Van Howe [1] of our criticisms [2] of a meta-regression article he published comparing the prevalence of HIV and MC in 109 populations worldwide that led him to question the value of this procedure, particularly outside Africa [3]. In the present article we will show how, by statistical means and misrepresentation of published data, Van Howe has attempted to perpetuate his seemingly personal agenda that is opposed to MC, particularly of minors.…”