Smegma: Difference between revisions
m wikify Abraham Ravich |
|||
| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
}}</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." | ||
Van Howe & Hodges (2006) concluded: "The purpose of the scientific method is to distinguish between wishful thinking, strongly held opinion, and provable fact. The smegma theory of disease, which began as wishful thinking on the part of circumcision zealots such as[[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Abraham Wolbarst]] and [[Abraham Ravich]], has evolved into irrefutable dogma, but as modern physicians, we need to recognize that, until proved otherwise, smegma is harmless."<ref name="vanhowe2006" /> | Van Howe & Hodges (2006) concluded: "The purpose of the scientific method is to distinguish between wishful thinking, strongly held opinion, and provable fact. The smegma theory of disease, which began as wishful thinking on the part of circumcision zealots such as [[Abraham L. Wolbarst|Abraham Wolbarst]] and [[Abraham Ravich]], has evolved into irrefutable dogma, but as modern physicians, we need to recognize that, until proved otherwise, smegma is harmless."<ref name="vanhowe2006" /> | ||
==Beneficial aspects of smegma== | ==Beneficial aspects of smegma== | ||