Neonatal vs adult circumcision: health benefits

[Sublight]

There's currently a rather heated discussion going on in the Pit on the subject of circumcision, and one point that has been stated more than once by some rather excitable individuals is that the 'benefits' of circumcision (protection against HIV infection) only apply if it is done neonatally. Circumcision performed in adulthood supposedly provides no benefit.

Is this actually true? And if so, what would be the reason for it?

Citations to reputable research journals are preferable to typing in all caps, thanks.

[FormerMarineGuy]

There are a few sites out there that say adult circumcision could have the same effect as if it were done as a baby:

From CBC.CA

Men in the trial who were circumcised had the procedure performed under anesthesia by a doctor or trained nurse. It took about 30 minutes and cost about $50 US per person.Based on the trial findings, a mathematical simulation of 823,000 sexually active men and women suggested that targeting just 10 per cent of men could avert 32,000 infections, according to Dr. Kyeen Mesesan of Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

From Medpagetoday.com

Circumcision of young men in an area ravaged by HIV infection significantly prevents -- at least in the short term -- female-to-male transmission of the virus that causes AIDS, researchers reported Tuesday. "We demonstrated that we could reduce HIV infection by 65% through male circumcision in this group of individuals," Bertran Auvert, M.D., MPH, of the University of Versailles in France said here at the 3rd International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment.

Or you can just check out ol' google