20,862
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Wolbarst was directly responsible for its proliferation, and all subsequent repetions of this myth are directly traceable to Wolbarst's article, though Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal ==Universal circumcision principally as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and [[masturbation]]. Circumcision advocates such as Wolbarst do not seem to have promoted this myth because they have a genuine interest in reducing penile cancer; they used it instead as a scare tactic in the promotion of neonatal circumcision.<ref>Fleiss PM, Hodges F. Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer. BMJ 1996;312(7033):779-80.</ref>sanitary measure==
Epidemiological studies disproved WolbarstHolt (1913) reported in an article published in the ''Journal of the American Medical Association'' (JAMA) that tubercular ''mohelim''s myth long ago. In North America were infecting baby boys with tuberculosis by the rate performance of penile cancer has been estimated to be 1 in 100,000ritual circumcision.<refname="holt1913">Cutler SJ, Young JL Jr{{REFjournal |last=Holt |first=L. Emmett |init=LE |author-link=L. Third national cancer surveyEmmett Holt |etal=no |title=Tuberculosis acquired through ritual circumcision |journal=JAMA |date=1913-7-12 |volume=61 |issue=2 |pages=99-102 |url=http: incidence data//www. Bethesda, Mdcirp. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1975org/library/complications/holt1/ |accessdate=2020-03-30}}</ref>Wolbarst was incensed by what he perceived as an attack on [[Brit Milah| ritual circumcision]], so he resolved to defend ritual circumcision by arguing that [[circumcision]] provided health benefits. Maden et al reported penile cancer among a fifth Wolbarst's defense of elderly patients from rural areas who had been circumcised neonatally and had been born at a time when the rate of neonatal circumcision was about 20% published in ''JAMA'' in rural populations1914 and entitled "''Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure''".<refname="wolbarst1914">Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckman AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, et al{{REFjournal |last=Wolbarst |first=Abraham L. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer |init=AL |author-link=Abraham L. JNCI 1993;85Wolbarst |title=Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure |journal=JAMA |date=1914-01-10 |volume=62 |issue=2 |pages=92-97 |url=https:19//jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/453164 |accessdate=2020-03-2430}}</ref> Their study also shows that the rate of penile cancer among men circumcised neonatally has risen in the United States relative to the rise in the rate of neonatal circumcision.
→Universal circumcision as a sanitary measure
[[Image:Abraham L. Wolbarst.jpg|right|thumb|Abraham Leo Wolbarst]]
'''Abraham Leo Wolbarst''', M.D. was solely responsible for the invention of the myth that [[circumcision]] rendered males immune to {{MD}}, ({{LifeData|1872|1952}}) a New York City physician and [[penile cancercircumcised doctors| circumcised doctor]].<ref>Wolbarst, AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932; 150-3.</ref> Worldbarst wrote an article that was published in the Lancet in 1932, implicating human male smegma as carcinogenic.<ref>Wolbarst A. Circumcision and Penile Cancer. The Lancet, vol. 1 no. 5655 (January 16, 1932): pp. 150-153.</ref> Worlbarst's myth was based entirely on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding notorious promoter of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and an unbridled missionary zeal, and it had absolutely no basis in valid scientific and epidemiological research.<ref>Fleiss PM, Hodges F. Neonatal harmful non-therapeutic neonatal male [[circumcision does not protect against cancer. BMJ 1996;312(7033):779-80]].</ref>
This was before the days of evidence-based medicine, when doctors relied on medical ''opinion'', instead of scientific ''evidence''. Wolbarst collected the ''opinions'' of several physicians and published those opinions as evidence for his argument that circumcision prevented diseases. Wolbarst argued that non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision prevented numerous diseases including venereal disease (now known as sexually transmitted disease).
Skeldon (2008) commented:
<blockquote>
At first one might think that there was now a wave of medical evidence supporting the
practice of routine male circumcision, but a closer look shows that most of these claims
were observational and not evidence-based. For instance, in his article “Universal
circumcision as a sanitary measure,” the New York physician Abraham Leo Wolbarst
(1872-1978) argues that circumcision prevents masturbation. During its publication, this
was already a commonly held view and so was not generally questioned. But if one
considers the implications of this, it becomes apparent that to statistically prove such a
claim among young boys would be virtually impossible. This is why Wolbarst’s evidence
consisted of what he called “authoritative observations” from other respected
practitioners in the field.<ref name="skeldon2008">{{REFconference
|last=Skeldon
|first=Sean
|author-link=
|title=The Medicalization and Resultant Decline of Circumcision in Canada
|trans-title=
|language=
|url=https://prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/028cdb7b-3536-4b5b-921b-46ba3a2262ec/content
|archived=
|place=Calgary, AB
|publisher=Health Sciences Centre
|source=
|date=2008-03
|datefrom=2008-03-07
|dateto=2008-03-08
|format=PDF
|accessdate=2025-01-19
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
Wolbarst's article appeared on the eve of World War I. It apparently influenced American military commanders to order [[adult circumcision| circumcision]] of military personnel under their command to prevent venereal diseases and improve military readiness.<ref name="skeldon2008" /> No statistics exist to document how many men were [[circumcised]] because of Wolbarst's article.
The adoption of circumcision as a prophylactic [[amputation]] by American military services falsely stigmatized the [[foreskin]] as being unhealthy. [[Robert S. Van Howe|Van Howe]] (1999) has exhaustively shown that circumcision does not protect against STDs.<ref name="vanhowe1999">{{REFjournal
|last=Van Howe
|first=Robert S.
|init=RS
|author-link=Robert S. Van Howe
|etal=no
|title=Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review
|journal=BJU Int
|location=
|date=1999
|volume=83
|issue=Suppl. 1
|pages=52-62
|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1052.x
|quote=
|pubmedID=10349415
|pubmedCID=
|DOI=10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1052.x
|accessdate=2020-03-31
}}</ref>
== Myth: protection against penile cancer ==
Wolbarst was solely responsible for the invention of the myth that [[circumcision]] rendered males immune to [[penile cancer]].
Wolbarst (1926) made his claim for the first time that male circumcision prevents penile cancer.<ref name="wolbarst1926!>{{REFjournal
|last=Wolbarst
|first=Abraham L.
|init=AL
|title=Is circumcision a prophylactic against penis cancer?
|journal=Cancer
|date=1926-07
|volume=3
|issue=4
|pages=301-10
}}</ref>
Wolbarst (1932) put forward his claim that [[circumcision]] would prevent [[penile cancer]] in the British jounal, ''The Lancet''.<ref name="Wolbarst 1932">{{Wolbarst1932}}</ref> Wolbarst wrote an article that was published in ''The Lancet'' in 1932, implicating human male smegma as carcinogenic.<ref name="Wolbarst 1932"/> Wolbarst's myth was based entirely on unverifiable anecdotes, ethnocentric stereotypes, a faulty understanding of human anatomy and physiology, a misunderstanding of the distinction between association and cause, and an unbridled missionary zeal, and it had absolutely no basis in valid scientific and epidemiological research.<ref name="Fleiss 1996">{{REFjournal
|last=Fleiss
|init=PM
|author-link=Paul M. Fleiss
|last2=Hodges
|init2=FM
|author2-link=Frederick M. Hodges
|title=[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2350473/pdf/bmj00534-0065d.pdf Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer]
|journal=BMJ
|date=1996
|volume=312
|issue=7033
|pages=779-80
}}</ref>
Wolbarst was directly responsible for its proliferation. All subsequent repetions of this myth are directly traceable to Wolbarst's article, though Wolbarst himself advocated universal neonatal circumcision principally as a preventive for epilepsy, paralysis, and [[masturbation]]. Circumcision advocates such as Wolbarst do not seem to have promoted this myth because they have a genuine interest in reducing penile cancer; they used it instead as a scare tactic in the promotion of neonatal circumcision.<ref name="Fleiss 1996"/> Wolbarst's false claims were not disproved until 1979.
Boczko & Stanley (1979) collected numerous cases of cancer in [[circumcised]] men.<ref name="boczko1979">{{REFjournal
|last=Boczko
|first=Stanley
|init=S
|last2=Freed
|first2=Selwyn
|init2=S
|title= Penile carcinoma in circumcised males
|journal=N Y State J Med
|date=1979-11
|volume=79
|issue=12
|pages=1903-04
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/boczko/
|pubmedID=292845
|accessdate=2020-04-02
}}</ref> Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myths long ago. In North America the rate of penile cancer has been estimated to be 1 in 100,000.<ref>{{REFdocument
|title=Third national cancer survey: incidence data.
|url=
|contribution=
|last=Cutler S.J., Young J.L. Jr.
|first=
|publisher=US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service
|location=Bethesda, Md.
|format=
|date=1975
|accessdate=
}}</ref> Maden ''et al'' (1993) reported [[penile cancer]] among a fifth of elderly patients from rural areas who had been [[circumcised]] neonatally and had been born at a time when the rate of neonatal [[circumcision]] was about 20% in rural populations.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Maden
|init=C
|last2=Sherman
|init2=KJ
|last3=Beckman
|init3=AM
|last4=Hislop
|init4=TG
|last5=Teh
|init5=CZ
|last6=Ashley
|init6=RL
|etal=yes
|title=History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer
|journal=JNCI
|date=1993
|volume=85
|pages=19-24
}}</ref> Their study also shows that the rate of [[penile cancer]] among men circumcised neonatally has risen in the [[United States]] relative to the rise in the rate of neonatal [[circumcision]].
Although Wolbarst's falsehoods were disproved decades ago, they had entered into the American psyche where they continue to exert influence that they do not deserve.<ref name="hill2000">{{REFjournal
|last=Hill
|first=George
|init=G
|author-link=George Hill
|etal=no
|title=The Ghosts of Abraham Wolbarst and Aaron Fink
|journal=BMJ
|location=
|date=2000-06-22
|volume=
|issue=
|pages=
|url=https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/ghosts-abraham-wolbarst-and-aaron-fink
|quote=
|pubmedID=
|pubmedCID=
|DOI=https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1592
|accessdate=2020-03-31
}}</ref>
{{SEEALSO}}
* [[Alleged reasons for circumcision]]
* [[Bias]]
* [[Circumcised doctors]]
* [[United States of America]]
{{ABBR}}
{{REF}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wolbarst, Abraham L.}}
[[Category:PeoplePerson]][[Category:PromotersMale]][[Category:Deceased]] [[Category:Physician]][[Category:Promoter]][[Category:Researcher]][[Category:Jewish]][[Category:History]] [[Category:USA]]
[[Category:From CircLeaks]]
[[Category:From IntactWiki]]
[[de:{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]