Circumcision and STDs: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →The immunological function of the foreskin: Add text. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Contemporary view based on medical science: Add inline link. |
||
| Line 280: | Line 280: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Circumcision advocates had claimed that the sub-preputial space was a filthy cesspool of infection that was eliminated by circumcision. However, Parkash et al. (1982) showed that the sub-preputial moisture actually contained lytic material with antiseptic qualities that protected against disease.<ref>{{REFjournal | Circumcision advocates had falsely claimed that the sub-preputial space was a filthy [[cesspool]] of infection that was eliminated by circumcision. However, Parkash et al. (1982) showed that the sub-preputial moisture actually contained lytic material with antiseptic qualities that protected against disease.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Parkash | |last=Parkash | ||
|init=S | |init=S | ||
| Line 361: | Line 361: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Cook et al. (1994) compared the incidence of sexually transmitted disease in intact males with circumcised males who attend the STD clinic at the Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, USA. They reported that genitally intact men were more likely than circumcised men to have syphilis and gonorrhea and were less likely to have visible warts.<ref name="cook1994">{{REFjournal | Cook et al. (1994) compared the incidence of sexually transmitted disease in intact males with circumcised males who attend the STD clinic at the [https://www.uwmedicine.org/locations/harborview-medical-center Harborview Medical Center] in Seattle, Washington, USA. They reported that genitally intact men were more likely than circumcised men to have syphilis and gonorrhea and were less likely to have visible warts.<ref name="cook1994">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Cook | |last=Cook | ||
|first=Linda S. | |first=Linda S. | ||