Is critical thinking required in science?

I wonder what conclusions we should draw from this:

Experts don’t know precisely why HIV infection rates are slowing.

One reason suggested in The Lancet commentary is that conditions elsewhere in the world don’t match those of southern Africa, where a epidemiological perfect storm made the region the center of the world’s AIDS crisis.

The factors driving the region’s “hyper-epidemic” included a large population of migrant workers and low levels of male circumcision, a procedure that experts now believe helps reduce HIV transmission. Sexual mores also played a major role: African men tend to have more long-term, concurrent sexual relationships than do men elsewhere, and they rarely use condoms in those relationships.

Men in southern Africa rarely use condoms, but I’m sure low levels of male circumcision are the reason there’s a hyper-epidemic. We should also ignore conditions don’t match elsewhere in the world. The conclusions from southern Africa’s facts are still applicable everywhere.

Rates of new infection remain relatively low in West Africa, possibly, researchers say, because of the practice of male circumcision among many Muslim communities and local tribes.

Once again, the conclusion is obvious. It has to be circumcision. It’s not possible that cultural mores about sex would have anything to do with it.