Difference between revisions of "Abraham L. Wolbarst"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Myth: protection against penile cancer: Revise text; add citation.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Myth: protection against penile cancer: Wikify.) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Holt (1913) reported in an article published in the ''Journal of the American Medical Association'' (JAMA) that tubercular ''mohelim'' were infecting baby boys with tuberculosis by the performance of ritual circumcision.<ref name="holt1913">{{REFjournal | Holt (1913) reported in an article published in the ''Journal of the American Medical Association'' (JAMA) that tubercular ''mohelim'' were infecting baby boys with tuberculosis by the performance of ritual circumcision.<ref name="holt1913">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Holt | |last=Holt | ||
| − | |first=L. | + | |first=L. Emmett |
|init=LE | |init=LE | ||
| − | |author-link= | + | |author-link=L. Emmett Holt |
|etal=no | |etal=no | ||
|title=Tuberculosis acquired through ritual circumcision | |title=Tuberculosis acquired through ritual circumcision | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|journal=JAMA | |journal=JAMA | ||
| − | |||
|date=1913-7-12 | |date=1913-7-12 | ||
|volume=61 | |volume=61 | ||
| Line 20: | Line 17: | ||
|pages=99-102 | |pages=99-102 | ||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/holt1/ | |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/holt1/ | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|accessdate=2020-03-30 | |accessdate=2020-03-30 | ||
}}</ref> Wolbarst was incensed by what he perceived as an attack on ritual circumcision, so he resolved to defend ritual circumcision by arguing that [[circumcision]] provided health benefits. Wolbarst's defense of circumcision was published in ''JAMA'' in 1914 and entitled "''Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure''".<ref name="wolbarst1914">{{REFjournal | }}</ref> Wolbarst was incensed by what he perceived as an attack on ritual circumcision, so he resolved to defend ritual circumcision by arguing that [[circumcision]] provided health benefits. Wolbarst's defense of circumcision was published in ''JAMA'' in 1914 and entitled "''Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure''".<ref name="wolbarst1914">{{REFjournal | ||
| Line 29: | Line 22: | ||
|first=Abraham L. | |first=Abraham L. | ||
|init=AL | |init=AL | ||
| − | |author-link= | + | |author-link=Abraham L. Wolbarst |
|title=Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure | |title=Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure | ||
|journal=JAMA | |journal=JAMA | ||
| Line 42: | Line 35: | ||
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). | 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). | ||
| − | Wolbarst's article appeared on the eve of World War I. It apparently influenced American military commanders to order circumcision of military personnel under their command to prevent venereal diseases and improve military readiness.<ref name="hill2002">{{REFweb | + | 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="hill2002">{{REFweb |
|url=http://purewatergazette.net/circumcision.htm | |url=http://purewatergazette.net/circumcision.htm | ||
|title=The Rise and Fall of Neonatal Circumcision: The Irrational Abuse Of Helpless Children | |title=The Rise and Fall of Neonatal Circumcision: The Irrational Abuse Of Helpless Children | ||
| Line 56: | Line 49: | ||
|format= | |format= | ||
|quote= | |quote= | ||
| − | }}</ref> No statistics exist to document how many men were circumcised because of Wolbarst's article. | + | }}</ref> 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. Van Howe (1999) has exhaustively shown that circumcision does not protect against STDs.<ref name="vanhowe1999">{{REFjournal | + | 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 | |last=Van Howe | ||
|first=Robert S. | |first=Robert S. | ||
|init=RS | |init=RS | ||
| − | |author-link=Robert Van Howe | + | |author-link=Robert S. Van Howe |
|etal=no | |etal=no | ||
|title=Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review | |title=Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|journal=BJU Int | |journal=BJU Int | ||
|location= | |location= | ||
|date=1999 | |date=1999 | ||
| − | |volume=83 | + | |volume=83 |
| − | |issue= | + | |issue=Suppl. 1 |
|pages=52-62 | |pages=52-62 | ||
|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1052.x | |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1052.x | ||
| Line 82: | Line 73: | ||
== Myth: protection against penile cancer == | == 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 | Wolbarst (1926) made his claim for the first time that male circumcision prevents penile cancer.<ref name="wolbarst1926!>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Wolbarst | |last=Wolbarst | ||
| Line 95: | Line 87: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| − | Wolbarst (1932) put forward his claim that [[circumcision]] would prevent [[penile cancer]] in the British jounal, ''The Lancet''.<ref name="Wolbarst 1932">{{ | + | 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 |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | }}</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 | |last=Fleiss | ||
|init=PM | |init=PM | ||
| Line 122: | Line 104: | ||
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. | 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 | + | Boczko & Stanley (1979) collected numerous cases of cancer in [[circumcised]] men.<ref name="boczko1979">{{REFjournal |
|last=Boczko | |last=Boczko | ||
|first=Stanley | |first=Stanley | ||
| Line 149: | Line 131: | ||
|date=1975 | |date=1975 | ||
|accessdate= | |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 | + | }}</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 | |last=Maden | ||
|init=C | |init=C | ||
| Line 168: | Line 150: | ||
|volume=85 | |volume=85 | ||
|pages=19-24 | |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. | + | }}</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 | 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 | ||
| Line 192: | Line 174: | ||
{{SEEALSO}} | {{SEEALSO}} | ||
| + | * [[Alleged reasons for circumcision]] | ||
* [[Bias]] | * [[Bias]] | ||
* [[Circumcised doctors]] | * [[Circumcised doctors]] | ||
| + | {{ABBR}} | ||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||
| Line 201: | Line 185: | ||
[[Category:Person]] | [[Category:Person]] | ||
[[Category:Male]] | [[Category:Male]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Deceased]] | ||
[[Category:Physician]] | [[Category:Physician]] | ||
[[Category:Promoter]] | [[Category:Promoter]] | ||
[[Category:Researcher]] | [[Category:Researcher]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Jewish]] | ||
| + | [[Category:History]] | ||
[[Category:USA]] | [[Category:USA]] | ||
| − | + | ||
[[Category:From CircLeaks]] | [[Category:From CircLeaks]] | ||
[[Category:From IntactWiki]] | [[Category:From IntactWiki]] | ||
[[de:{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] | [[de:{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:16, 6 September 2023
Abraham Leo Wolbarst, M.D.[a 1], (1872 – 1952) a New York City physician, was a notorious promoter of non-therapeutic neonatal male circumcision.
Contents
Universal circumcision as a sanitary measure
Holt (1913) reported in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that tubercular mohelim were infecting baby boys with tuberculosis by the performance of ritual circumcision.[1] Wolbarst was incensed by what he perceived as an attack on ritual circumcision, so he resolved to defend ritual circumcision by arguing that circumcision provided health benefits. Wolbarst's defense of circumcision was published in JAMA in 1914 and entitled "Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure".[2]
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).
Wolbarst's article appeared on the eve of World War I. It apparently influenced American military commanders to order circumcision of military personnel under their command to prevent venereal diseases and improve military readiness.[3] 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. Van Howe (1999) has exhaustively shown that circumcision does not protect against STDs.[4]
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.[5]
Wolbarst (1932) put forward his claim that circumcision would prevent penile cancer in the British jounal, The Lancet.[6] Wolbarst wrote an article that was published in The Lancet in 1932, implicating human male smegma as carcinogenic.[6] 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.[7]
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.[7] Wolbarst's false claims were not disproved until 1979.
Boczko & Stanley (1979) collected numerous cases of cancer in circumcised men.[8] 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.[9] 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.[10] 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.[11]
See also
Abbreviations
- ↑
Doctor of Medicine
, Wikipedia. Retrieved 14 June 2021. In the United Kingdom, Ireland and some Commonwealth countries, the abbreviation MD is common.
References
- ↑
Holt LE. Tuberculosis acquired through ritual circumcision. JAMA. 12 July 1913; 61(2): 99-102. Retrieved 30 March 2020.
- ↑ Wolbarst AL. Universal Circumcision as a Sanitary Measure. JAMA. 10 January 1914; 62(2): 92-97. Retrieved 30 March 2020.
- ↑ Hill, George (4 November 2002).
The Rise and Fall of Neonatal Circumcision: The Irrational Abuse Of Helpless Children
, purewatergazette. Retrieved 30 March 2020. - ↑ Van Howe RS. Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: A literature review. BJU Int. 1999; 83(Suppl. 1): 52-62. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 31 March 2020.
- ↑ Wolbarst AL. Is circumcision a prophylactic against penis cancer?. Cancer. July 1926; 3(4): 301-10.
- ↑ a b Wolbarst AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet. 16 January 1932; 1(5655): 150-3. DOI. Retrieved 13 March 2022.
- ↑ a b Fleiss PM, Hodges FM. Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer. BMJ. 1996; 312(7033): 779-80.
- ↑ Boczko S, Freed S. Penile carcinoma in circumcised males. N Y State J Med. November 1979; 79(12): 1903-04. PMID. Retrieved 2 April 2020.
- ↑
Cutler S.J., Young J.L. Jr.: Third national cancer survey: incidence data., US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service (Bethesda, Md.). (1975).
- ↑ Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckman AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, et al. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. JNCI. 1993; 85: 19-24.
- ↑ Hill G. The Ghosts of Abraham Wolbarst and Aaron Fink. BMJ. 22 June 2000; DOI. Retrieved 31 March 2020.
.svg){kind=icon}