Science is different than peer reviewed science. The STI study has some big problems (especially moral problems) - one practical problem though is the hiv test in the study isn't accurate for some time (3 months I think) and that messes with their data and wasn't accounted for properly (some test candidates definitely had HIV before the study). Another huge oversight was that a freshly cut man isn't going to have sex for weeks while he heals, deceasing the chances of contracting HIV. Another sign that something is wrong is European countries that have less HIV than the USA. But even if it was guaranteed that you contact HIV 10% less often if circumcised, that's still not even close to a good enough benefit to justify the procedure.

The "data" on why circumcision is beneficial is mostly just cut men trying to justify why they're superior and is biased. The sensitivity being the same claims are silly. Studies done are controversial because measuring sensitivity is hard. A big red flag is reading testimants of adults who got cut - usually they say it was super painful while healing, then crazy sensitive, underwear was uncomfortable and they had trouble lasting during sex. But a couple years later and they'd lost sensitivity. Underwear feels fine, refactory period goes up. This is because of keratinization of the glans of the penis. Similar to a callous on skin tissue