That first study polled guys who had to be circumcised for medical reasons, so obviously that's useless.

Uhh... no? It confirms that there's no bias in the sample. If they only studied "Dudes who wanted it cut off" they'd get a bunch of guys giving positive results due to bias.

The second one seems to be tied to Johns Hopkins' multi-million-dollar circumcision campaign in Africa.

Yeah, in that they used those same selected people for a completely different study. Your linked criticism is for the HIV study, and isn't relevant at all.

If you read the third one, it's sounds like the researchers intentionally set out to "debunk the myth" that circumcision reduces sensation.

If by this you mean: "The title they published it under was influenced by the results", then yes.

Three up, three down. Let's talk about your "touch-sensitive" study and why it's not applicable. First of all, the results of that study were that "nerve dense regions are removed during circumcision". That is great, but it has no bearing at all on sexual satisfaction. For that, you'd have to do the studies they suggested as followup, which I linked, that actually study rates of sexual satisfaction. In addition, the nerves in those regions are different types of nerves than in the glans penis. They are versions of the same "fine touch" nerves in your lips and fingers. Great at detecting tactile sensation! Very useful for signaling your body that you have small particles of dirt, sand, lint, or whatever trapped in your foreskin, which would need to be cleaned for hygienic reasons. Bad at triggering orgasm. Unless you get off when you wash your hands, which requires a whole new study.

In conclusion, your attempts to discredit my studies are thinly veiled and irrelevant, and your own study has no bearing on the subject at hand, and your claims related to it only show your ignorance of the topic it studied.