LOL!! average joe. You should read links before suggesting they support your viewpoint! The second and third links you sent unequivically support the argument that circumcision DOES NOT increase cervical cancer. Only in the first link is the statement made that, "cervical cancer is very rare in the wives of circumcised Jewish men". The next 2 links dismiss circumcision as a CAUSATIVE factor in this. Low socio-economic status is given as a significant variable, i.e. cleanliness, etc.. The bottom of this post shows clearly that, whatever the prophylactic quality of being Jewish...it has NOTHING to do with circumcision! Having made my points for me, I think you've exhausted the subject, unless you have further points to make! LOL! (If you find it necessary to continue this subject, perhaps you would do us the courtesy of starting a "smegma" thread).
http://www.canceranswers.com/Cervical.Cancer.html
What Causes, or Increases the Risk, for Cervical Cancer?
Like any other cancer, the exact reason why one woman gets cervical cancer and another does not is unknown . However, several things are noted to increase the risk:
1) Being Female is obviously the biggest risk factor for cervical cancer.
2) Lots of Male Sexual Partners and having children by different men, and starting to have sex at a young age dramatically increases risk. In contrast, cervical cancer is extremely rare in women who never were pregnant and nuns.
3) Uncircumcised Sexual Partners -- cervical cancer is very rare in the wives of circumcised Jewish men.
4) Sexually Transmitted Viruses like the "Human Papilloma Virus" (HPV), especially types 16, 18, and 33. These are found in about 50% of patients.
5) Low Social and Financial Status may reflect more sexual promiscuity or inability to get proper screening and treatment for the disease.
6) Immune Deficiency Diseases like AIDS. In fact, the development of cervical cancer in a HIV positive patient is sufficient to reclassify them as full-blown AIDS. Furthermore, getting immune-system suppressing drugs (to avoid rejecting a newly transplanted organ) also increases the risk, especially in patients with HPV.
7) DES taken by the patient's mother, during pregnancy. DES is a hormone associated with developing a rare type of cervical cancer called the "clear-cell" variety.
****Alcohol and Tobacco use are not linked to getting cervical cancer!
fathermag.com
The discovery rate for cancer of the cervix among non-Jewish women whose marital partners were circumcised was no different from the rate among non-Jewish women with noncircumcised husbands. Further, the use of a sheath contraceptive by the marital partner, which has an effect equivalent to circumcision in that the cervix is protected from contact with the smegma, was found not to be associated with rate differences for cancer of the cervix."
[This study, more than the others, exposed the myth that the presence of a foreskin or smegma had any association with the incidence of cancer of the cervix.]
2. British Journal of Cancer, Vol. XIX, Jun, 1965, No. 2, "Circumcision and Cancer of the Cervix" University of Aberdeen, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
"These results do not support the theory that women whose husbands are circumcised will be less likely to develop cervical cancer than those whose husbands are uncircumcised. In this the study agrees with the findings of Jones et al (1958), Dunn and Buell (1959), and Boyd and Doll (1964)."
3. Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2, 1975, p. 961, Ernst L. Wynder, M.D., American Health Foundation.
"Additional variables observed to be more frequent and of more import among patients with cervical cancer are early age of first intercourse, multiple sexual parners, and low socioeconomic class.
Unless there exist surgical reasons (such as phimosis) indicating circumcision in the husband, the procedure would seem unwarranted."
4. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., Dec. 15, 1973, "Relation of cirumcision to cancer of the cervix" Terris, Wilson, Nelson.
cirp.org
The alleged relationship between "lack of circumcision" and genital cancers usually implicates smegma or smegma-borne pathogens as the causative agent. Only two histologic studies of human smegma ever have been conducted, both of which found it to be perfectly harmless. Smegma is composed of secretions of ectopic sebaceous glands in the prepuce mixed with secretions of the prostate, seminal vesicles, mucin from the urethral glands, and desquamated epithelial cells.5,6
The hypothesis that human male smegma is carcinogenic was first formulated in 1932 by Abraham L. Wolbarst1. Wolbarst also believed that circumcision prevented epilepsy. (In the early part of the 20th Century, the paroxysm of masturbation in children was often misidentified as an epileptic seizure.) Wolbarst wrote: "[Circumcision] diminishes the tendency to masturbation, convulsions and other reflex phenomena of local irritation." Wolbarst's beliefs about circumcision were shared by other writers, such as Peter Remondino and Abraham Ravich.
No laboratory or clinical research had been done on the subject at the time. Regardless, Wolbarst's hypothesis about smegma and cancer found its way into early medical textbooks. In the 1950s a few experiments were done to test the hypothesis by injecting horse smegma into wounds made in the backs of mice. There were clinical studies that attempted to induce cancer by introducing smegma subcutaneously and intravaginally: No carcinomas could be induced.
The smegma hypothesis was finally disproven by an exhaustive study by Reddy2 in 1963. His results were: "The conviction that human smegma is a carcinogen could not be substantiated."
Preston established quite clearly that there was little evidence to support a relationship between lack of circumcision and penile cancer, cervical cancer, or cancer of the prostate in 1970 but he was unable to identify the causative agent at that time
...
Cervical cancer in partners
The hypothesis that cervical cancer is caused by smegma of the male foreskin was invented in 1954 by Wynder. His study was found to be invalid, because most of the cervical cancer patients in his study incorrectly reported that their husbands were uncircumcised. These women had no idea whether their husbands were circumcised or not. They gave the answer they thought the doctor wanted to hear. Wynder later recognized and admitted the error in 1960.3 This hypothesis was formally and scientifically disproven in 1962 by Stern.4
Stern and Neely examined some of the early research on this subject:4
"Since the recommendation had been made that circumcision should be used as a preventative measure against cancer of the cervix, we sought further confirmation of this hypothesis. An almost ideal population was that of the well women attending a cancer detection facility, where the population was split almost equally between women whose husbands were circumcised and those whose husbands were not. The discovery rate for cancer of the cervix among non-Jewish women whose marital partners were circumcised was no different from the rate among non-Jewish women with noncircumcised husbands. Further, the use of a sheath contraceptive by the marital partner, which has an effect equivalent to circumcision in that the cervix is protected from contact with the smegma, was found not to be associated with rate differences for cancer of the cervix."
This study, more than the others, exposed the myth that the presence of a foreskin or smegma had any association with the incidence of cancer of the cervix. |
