The

scarcity of evidence in historical records has already been pointed out. Are modern publications based on stronger substantiation? Lack of solid proof did not stop an eminent German zoologist, the late Bernhard Grzimek, former director of the Frankfurt Zoo and prolific author/filmmaker, to include a paragraph about the candiru and its habits in Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopaedia,[32] possibly the most authoritative reference work in zoology. The current edition[33] expands on RXDX-106 mouse this topic including an artist’s impression of a cross-sected invaded penis. Evidence originates from rigorous research. However, experiments have so far been unsatisfactory,[18] PD98059 not least because of the difficulty in reproducing the natural setting and perhaps a lack of willing volunteers. Also, the fragile fish

do not tolerate well being handled. For this reason, there is a tendency to cling to the one much publicized case from Brazil,[34, 35] where in 1997 an extraction of a candiru is said to have been performed. Unfortunately, there are too many inconsistencies and irregularities attached to this case[18] to rely on it with confidence, such as the victim’s insistence that the fish jumped out of the water and ascended the urine column. Very few images are publicly available of V cirrhosa, the same drawings and photos being used over and over again, from crude web sites to academic papers. With so little to show for, how does the candiru fare in the medical literature? Despite the lack of evidence, background literature of articles in various disciplines include the candiru’s alleged habits uncritically, eg, papers in medical psychology[36] or sex

research[37] on the ritual subincision of the urethra. Urological papers[38, 39] also rely on unverified reports. No further current medical reference could be located through scientific databases. The Centers for Disease Control lists “candiru infection or infestation” in its “Alphabetical Index to Diseases and Nature Rapamycin mouse of Injury”[40] as B88.8, but no cases have been reported (personal communication, June 2012). A random selection of travel medicine-related books and specific textbooks revealed no sign of the fish, its behavior, or corresponding advice on preventative behavior or treatment options. Elsewhere, despite lacking evidence, unsubstantiated “facts” are repeated as well as uncritical advice dispensed with authority. An earlier paper is reasonably critical of the historical literature but proceeds to give firm advice on prevention and treatment to travelers.[17] Entries in a wilderness medicine textbook repeat those suggestions.