From: Sam Damon <damon@dorsai.dorsai.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 01:19:05 -0500 (EST)

Several months ago there was a debate on the merits and drawbacks of male
circumcision.  The following is a related article.  Please note that I am
ambivalent on the matter of circumcison, and am in no way recommending
circumcision as a primary means of HIV-prevention.  Nor should circumcised
men feel a false sense of security.  But despite opinions here to the
contrary, the evidence seems clear -- uncircumcised men are at a higher risk
for HIV.  This study is just the latest among many over the last few years
that confirm that.  (I uploaded an extensive list of references about a
month ago)  One of the criticisms of past studies is that they used
an African population, where the pattern of infection is different (I did
include several European studies however, where the pattern is similar to
that of the US).  This study surveyed American men.  Others have criticized
the relatively small sample size of some studies.  This study has a
relatively large sample size.  I should also add that The Journal of
Infectious Diseases is highly respected.

==================================

CIRCUMCISION AS A SAFER SEX INTERVENTION?
(Gay Men's Health Crisis [GMHC] Treatment Issues, 2/94, vol 8 #1)

Sexually active gay men who are uncircumcised have a two-fold increased risk
of HIV infection, according to a study published in The Journal of
Infectious Diseases (December 1993; 168:1404-8).  Researchers from the     
University of Washington surveyed 502 gay men, 85 percent of whom were     
circumcised. The increased HIV risk associated with uncircumcised penises
remained even after adjustments for confounding factors such as race,    
history of injection drug use, and history of other sexually transmitted 
diseases. The researchers conclude that "the role of circumcision as an
intervention strategy to reduce sexual transmission of HIV warrants
consideration."