Smegma: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Add SEEALSO section |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
|url= | |url= | ||
|accessdate=2019-10-16 | |accessdate=2019-10-16 | ||
}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal | }}</ref><ref name="vanhowe2006">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Van Howe | |last=Van Howe | ||
|first=R.S. | |first=R.S. | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
No laboratory or clinical research had been done on the subject at the time. Regardless, Wolbarst's hypothesis about smegma and cancer found its way into early medical textbooks. In the 1950s a few experiments were done to test the hypothesis by injecting horse smegma into wounds made in the backs of mice. There were clinical studies that attempted to induce cancer by introducing smegma subcutaneously and intravaginally: No carcinomas could be induced. | No laboratory or clinical research had been done on the subject at the time. Regardless, Wolbarst's hypothesis about smegma and cancer found its way into early medical textbooks. In the 1950s a few experiments were done to test the hypothesis by injecting horse smegma into wounds made in the backs of mice. There were clinical studies that attempted to induce cancer by introducing smegma subcutaneously and intravaginally: No carcinomas could be induced. | ||
The smegma hypothesis was finally disproven by an exhaustive study by Reddy in 1963.<ref>{{REFjournal | The smegma hypothesis was finally disproven by an exhaustive study by Reddy in 1963.<ref name="reddy1963">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Reddy | |last=Reddy | ||
|first=D.G. | |first=D.G. | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
}}</ref> His results were: "The conviction that human smegma is a carcinogen could not be substantiated." | }}</ref> His results were: "The conviction that human smegma is a carcinogen could not be substantiated." | ||
{{SEEALSO}} | |||
* [[Penile cancer]] | |||
* [[Cervical cancer]]. | |||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||