22,264
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
wikify Lewis Albert Sayre
|first=Lewis A.
|init=LA
|author-link=Lewis Albert Sayre
|title=Circumcision versus epilepsy, etc; Transcription of the New York Pathological Society meeting of June 8, 1870
|journal=Medical Record
|first=Lewis A.
|init=LA
|author-link=Lewis Albert Sayre
|title=Partial paralysis from reflex irritation, caused by congenital phimosis and adherent prepuce
|journal=Transactions of the American Medical Association
To a modern reader, Remondino's "facts" appear to be a rambling, slapdash collection of folklore, conjecture, opinion, and pseudo-science. Hardly more scrupulous a scientist than he was an historian, he had absorbed just enough of Darwin to infer that the foreskin was a primitive vestige of the evolutionary past. "With improvement in man's condition and his gradual evolution into a higher sphere," Remondino confidently insisted, "the prepuce became a superfluity." And a nefarious one at that.
Born with "this unyielding tube," he estimated, ninety-five percent of intact men suffered some degree of phimosis. Although he accepted [[Lewis Albert Sayre|Sayre]]'s claims at face value, Remondino was prepared to go much farther, contending that the most common diseases associated with the foreskin were not matters of reflex neurosis at all. These included rheumatic disorders, asthma, Bright's disease and other renal infections, and more ominously, impotence, malignant epithelioma and syphilis. In light of these perils, he asserted, "life-insurance companies should class the wearer of the prepuce under the head of hazardous risks."<ref name="gollaher1994" />
</blockquote>