22,335
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "right|thumb|Abraham Leo Wolbarst '''Abraham Leo Wolbarst''', M.D. was solely responsible for the invention of the myth that circumcision..."
[[Image:Abraham L. Wolbarst.jpg|right|thumb|Abraham Leo Wolbarst]]
'''Abraham Leo Wolbarst''', M.D. was solely responsible for the invention of the myth that [[circumcision]] rendered males immune to [[penile cancer]].<ref>Wolbarst, AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932; 150-3.</ref> Worldbarst wrote an article that was published in the Lancet in 1932, implicating human male smegma as carcinogenic.<ref>Wolbarst A. Circumcision and Penile Cancer. The Lancet, vol. 1 no. 5655 (January 16, 1932): pp. 150-153.</ref> Worlbarst'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>Fleiss PM, Hodges F. Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer. BMJ 1996;312(7033):779-80.</ref>
Wolbarst was directly responsible for its proliferation, and 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>Fleiss PM, Hodges F. Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer. BMJ 1996;312(7033):779-80.</ref>
Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myth long ago. In North America the rate of penile cancer has been estimated to be 1 in 100,000<ref>Cutler SJ, Young JL Jr. Third national cancer survey: incidence data. Bethesda, Md. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1975</ref>. Maden et al 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>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</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}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wolbarst, Abraham L.}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Promoters]]
[[Category:CircLeaks]]
[[Category:From IntactWiki]]
'''Abraham Leo Wolbarst''', M.D. was solely responsible for the invention of the myth that [[circumcision]] rendered males immune to [[penile cancer]].<ref>Wolbarst, AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932; 150-3.</ref> Worldbarst wrote an article that was published in the Lancet in 1932, implicating human male smegma as carcinogenic.<ref>Wolbarst A. Circumcision and Penile Cancer. The Lancet, vol. 1 no. 5655 (January 16, 1932): pp. 150-153.</ref> Worlbarst'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>Fleiss PM, Hodges F. Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer. BMJ 1996;312(7033):779-80.</ref>
Wolbarst was directly responsible for its proliferation, and 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>Fleiss PM, Hodges F. Neonatal circumcision does not protect against cancer. BMJ 1996;312(7033):779-80.</ref>
Epidemiological studies disproved Wolbarst's myth long ago. In North America the rate of penile cancer has been estimated to be 1 in 100,000<ref>Cutler SJ, Young JL Jr. Third national cancer survey: incidence data. Bethesda, Md. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1975</ref>. Maden et al 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>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</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}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Wolbarst, Abraham L.}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Promoters]]
[[Category:CircLeaks]]
[[Category:From IntactWiki]]