Smegma: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Add concluding statement. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Add text; Wikify Wolbarst. |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/prakash/ | |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/prakash/ | ||
|accessdate=2019-10-16 | |accessdate=2019-10-16 | ||
}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal | }}</ref> <ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Hyman | |last=Hyman | ||
|first=A.B. | |first=A.B. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
|url= | |url= | ||
|accessdate=2019-10-16 | |accessdate=2019-10-16 | ||
}}</ref><ref name="vanhowe2006">{{REFjournal | }}</ref> Smegma is benign and harmless.<ref name="vanhowe2006">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Van Howe | |last=Van Howe | ||
|first=R.S. | |first=R.S. | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
Circumcision advocates of the past who alleged a relationship between "lack of circumcision" and genital cancers formerly implicated smegma or smegma-borne pathogens as the causative agent. Only two histologic studies of human smegma have ever been conducted, both of which found it to be perfectly harmless. | Circumcision advocates of the past who alleged a relationship between "lack of circumcision" and genital cancers formerly implicated smegma or smegma-borne pathogens as the causative agent. Only two histologic studies of human smegma have ever been conducted, both of which found it to be perfectly harmless. | ||
The hypothesis that human male smegma is carcinogenic was first formulated in 1932 by circumcision promoter Abraham L. Wolbarst, M.D.<ref>{{REFjournal | The hypothesis that human male smegma is carcinogenic was first formulated in 1932 by circumcision promoter [[Abraham L. Wolbarst]], M.D.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Wolbarst | |last=Wolbarst | ||
|first=A.L. | |first=A.L. | ||