Conspiracy Theorists

Now, I understand that it's only a small portion of HPV cases that actually develop into dysplasia, and from there to cancer.  I understand that my chances of getting killed in a car wreck are higher than me dying from cervical cancer.  But try telling someone facing this problem "but you're in the minority of people who suffer from this, so it's not a big deal and I shouldn't worry about it".  You would deserve to get smacked.

So I spread this information about HPV because very few other people are.  If it were getting nationwide coverage like HIV or the flu during flu season even, this virus wouldn't need people like me spreading the word about it.  It's not intended to induce a panic because I feel I represent it fairly.  I don't run around screaming "Everyone who has sex is going to DIE from HPV!"  I present the facts using medical data from the CDC and other organizations whose sole purpose is to study this and notify the public.  Those facts include the numbers which clearly show that our species is not in danger of extinction due to this virus.  But it sure sucks to be one of the few to face this, especially when it is preventable and getting more so with new products like this vaccine.

And, of course, because I feel an obligation to spread this information, I get responses from the whacko conspiracy theorists.  Here's one email exchange.  Someone I emailed this to (part of a group mailing list) forwarded my email onto a friend of his.  Here is the friend responding to the guy in my group list:

> Why would I be suspicious of this report? Well, I do wonder who funded the
> study that came to these conclusions...y'all be sure to get your shots now,
> ya hear...here is the first of eight mentions of Merck: The only available
> vaccine against HPV, made by Merck & Co. Inc., is currently given only to
> girls and young women. But Merck plans this year to ask government
> permission to offer the shot to boys.
>
> How thoughtful of them...come on boys, now you too can have a good dose of
> mercury. I guess they weren't killing enough people by just giving it to
> girls...OK, maybe it was just that profits were not high enough.

The guy in my group's response:

> Good points Mike. I'll pass them to the girl who sent it to me. I was
> cognizant that it was practically a commercial for Merck. I would never
> even consider using their poison. I almost didn't forward it. It's not
> the kind of thing I usually send out. I thought, however, if there is even
> a chance that there is something to it......people should know about it. My
> subscribers are, like you, capable of doing their own critical thinking and
> research.

My response:

Oh for crying out loud, you can't possibly think that vaccines are responsible for illness instead of the other way around? I've been following the development of this virus and the treatments for it since the early 90s and the Merk vaccine is totally valid and could potentially be a life-saver. The anti-vaccination conspiracies are harmful to our society because it creates a society incredibly susceptible to all those viruses that used to completely wipe out entire populations. As for the mercury concern specifically, mercury was phased out of all pediatric vaccines years ago and the 2 or 3 vaccines that still contain thimerosal (which contains the mercury), the amount in one dose of vaccine is less than a single serving of several types of seafood. And the idea that mercury is responsible for autism has been thoroughly debunked a long time ago.

I suggest you do some reading on the fallacies of conspiracy theories. Here's some to get you started:

http://tacit.livejournal.com/179766.html
http://tacit.livejournal.com/152991.html
http://tacit.livejournal.com/232528.html
http://tacit.livejournal.com/179766.html

The guy's friend's response:

"If you prefer to keep your head in the sand...so be it."

---

So, it's bad enough I got an email response claiming that Merk is trying to kill little girls by poisoning them with mercury in the vaccine, but now some yahoo has posted a link that "explains" the "serious medical results and death being linked with them(not to mention much data related to health complications from many other vaccines)."

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/one_less/Content?oid=637364
 
My response to that was:

"Before you get all conspiracy-theorist, try reading this:

http://tacit.livejournal.com/170918.html"

and, once I actually read the article, followed up with:

So you quote an article that admits the CDC dismissed the claims that the deaths were related to Gardrasil and were instead related to birth control pills (which have known consequences) and other medicines?

That reminds me of the article claiming the swingers convention were "inappropriate". One man was pissed off that the swingers convention happened in the hotel he was staying at with his family for vacation. He claimed people were walking around nude and participating in sexual activity in public and filed a report. The hotel staff, the layout of the hotel ballrooms, the security on active duty and the police investigator later all claimed that nothing actually happened.

Yet it made the news anyway.

"Headline News! Something was purported to happen, but evidence turns up that nothing actually happened. Just thought you all should know that nothing actually happened here"

There are often side effects with medicine, this is nothing new.  Merk, like all pharm companies, clearly explain the possible risks involved with taking their product and all the cases of illness fell within the expected side effects.

The only reason we don't have polio anymore is because of mass vaccination, and we are only one generation away from iron lungs and leg braces. Until we find cures for many of the diseases that can kill us, vaccinations are our best defense by preventing us from getting it in the first place. Gardrasil is not the end-all-be-all, but it's one step among many in the fight against cancer. And now we understand that it's not just cervical cancer, which is a small portion of the cancer cases (although try telling someone facing it that it's not a big deal since they're a minority), but it's also responsible for several other types of cancer.

This is also a big advancement because, only a few types of cancer have a "cause". We know that tobacco causes cancer, but not everyone who smokes gets it. Now we know that several other types of cancers are caused by a virus. The more we understand about cancer and the causes of each type, the closer we get to eliminating it, or at least reducing it to a non-life-threatening disease."

---

Here's what pisses me off about the article above.  According to this source - the source the "concerned" person is using to make his claim that the vaccine is harmful - 5 million people have taken the vaccine.  Let me repeat that.  5 MILLION.  Out of those 5 million, less than 5,000 have reported negative effects.  That's less than .1%.  I'll repeat that again.  POINT ONE PERCENT.  Out of those 4,500 people, 75% were for minor EXPECTED SIDE EFFECTS.  

So, out of 5 MILLION people, .075% of them had MINOR EXPECTED SIDE EFFECTS.  That's POINT ZERO SEVEN FIVE PERCENT people.  Out of those 5 million, .025% had more serious illnesses.  POINT ZERO TWO FIVE PERCENT.  

And out of those, 11 women have died. 

ELEVEN WOMEN OUT OF 5 FUCKING MILLION.  That's .00022% of all Gardrasil users.

And the CDC has ruled out Gardrasil as the cause in all of them based on the preliminary data.

If you take a group of 5 million people, group them however you want, I guarantee that more than 11 of them are going to die this year.

So, let's just say, for argument's sake, that the CDC is involved in a conspiracy with Merk that includes willingly suppressing information for money or outright attempting to kill people.  I'd have to say their plan is a pretty shitty one.  They only got 11 out of 5 million!  As mass murder attempts, or evil genocide plots, it ranks up there as one of the dumbest.  I think the guy who used a syringe to poison, what was it? cough syrup? in drug stores had a higher kill rate.  Hell, that poison pet-food scandal last year was far more successful!

Now let's just say that the government agencies aren't necessarily evil and out to kill the public, but they're sloppy with their security measures and they don't like to admit when they've made a mistake.  11 out of 5,000,000!  Those are way better odds than even pure chance!  I have a higher chance of actually contracting HPV and dying from cervical cancer!  There are risks involved in everything.  I am at higher risk of dying in a car accident than by this vaccine.  I am at higher risk of getting hit by lightning than this vaccine.  And this vaccine could potentially save my life ... or at least help me to avoid some rather unpleasant medical proceedures.

Please, people, do the math.  HPV is a serious virus, but careful regulation of your sexual practices and regular PAP smears will minimize your risk.  Support of research and vaccines and things like the carrageenan lubes will lower your risk even more.  I don't want to spread a panic about HPV, but even if some people do panic, all that will happen is they better regulate their sex life.  Spreading panic about things like vaccinations and medicines not only hurts those who refuse to vaccinate by allowing them to get sick with life-threatening illnesses, it also puts the general population at risk.  Having un-vaccinated people allows these viruses to be reintroduced to the society, where it can mutate and/or re-infect people after the vaccination has lost its potency or the immune system has aged to the point that the vaccination is only partially effective.

Your decision to not vaccinate affects MY LIFE TOO.  My decision to limit my sexual partners because of my fear of HPV affects only me and my potential partners - in a good way, or at the very least, in a neutral way.

My Advice: Just Settle!

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

The basic premise is that women should just settle for a guy who is "good enough" even though he doesn't hit her romantic triggers because otherwise, she'll find herself at 40 with a petri-dish kid and still all "alone".

Is this a satire?  Because I have trouble understanding how ANYONE could say these things with a straight face.

She left out the possibility that life might contain happiness if we accept it for what it is, instead of hoping for what it's not.  And she's extremely egotistical to make the claim that I (as one of those unmarried women over 30 who claim to not be worried), am in denial and that *she* knows better how I feel about my life and the institution of marriage.

Yes, by all means, latch on to a legal contract that forces two people to be joined financially and now romantically together for life, when the contract was written back when "life" was only for the next 30 years (instead of potentially 60 years now) and not intended to accomodate love in the first place, with another person that you only feel lukewarm about because that's MUCH better than facing your fears of being alone and your sense of worthlessness.  We wouldn't want you to actually DEAL with your fears and yourself and build a life that makes you happy just because it might not fit a stereotype that the majority of the population is incapable of achieving anyway because it's based on lies and fantasies.  Yep, settling sounds like a great idea!

I absolutely hate the line "By 40, if you get a cold shiver down your spine at the thought of embracing a certain guy, but you enjoy his company more than anyone else’s, is that settling or making an adult compromise?"  Excuse me?  Are those the only options?  Here's this guy you like hanging out with, but the mere thought of touching him makes you shudder, and not in a good way, and *that's* the guy you're supposed to marry?  Isn't it possible that you don't have to compromise passion for partnership, as long as you don't idealize it for a life-long, 40-year honeymoon?  That you can actually have bill payments and shared grocery-shopping trips and pleasurable sex and stimulating conversation all at once?  

And goodness forbid you actually enjoy a relationship for its natural lifetime and find another one later down the line that is more compatible with the future you than this one is!  I may not be with my current partners when I die (hopefully many many years from now) even though at this time I hope they will be part of my future for a long time to come, but that doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to be alone in my old age!  I could very well be with other people at that point - people who, had I met today, wouldn't compliment me the way they will in 30 years.  There's even a rise in nursing-home romances, precisely because people are living to older ages and are in better health during their twilight years, and therefore can continue to express their romance and loving feelings along with companionship of those they meet in later years.

Yes, I do agree with this author that women need to stop idealizing marriage, they need to stop expecting fireworks to last for 40 years and to stop thinking that an argument means the romance is gone.  I agree that the fantasy of the One True Love is one of our most cruel myths that we continue to foster in the face of all evidence.  But it's not an either/or dichotomy.  There are other options!  There is passion and love and consideration with the guy who just can't manage his finances and is a terrible housekeeper, so the relationship best survives if you don't live together.  There's the comfortable companionship with the "gay" friend (or simply the friend who just shares no chemistry) who might make the perfect roommate.  There are all sorts of permutations of relationships that can enrich our lives and contribute to our happiness.  No, it's not Prince Charming coming to sweep us off our feet and provide a fairytale life of castles and dragonslaying.  That never existed - it's called a "fantasy" for a reason.  But neither is it "settling", if one enjoys the relationship for what it is rather than being disappointed for what it's not.

Marriage is not the only option, and Ward and June Cleaver is not the only marriage option.  I agree that we should not be grasping for this fictional, non-attainable Mr. Right.  But I definately do NOT agree that we should settle for whatever guy is willing to marry us just to avoid the fear of being alone.  We do deserve to be happy, and I see nothing wrong with ending a relationship that does not contribute to our happiness.  It's when we expect our partner to PROVIDE that happiness, to be the sole source of every emotional desire, that we run into trouble.  We shouldn't hope for a magical partner that will make life roses and candy every day for the next 50 years, but we also shouldn't latch onto the first partner that is equally willing to "settle" for us because the alternative is to be alone for eternity.  Both are myths.

I'm having one of those beats-head-on-desk days with morons on the internet.

Argh

**Had to add this image from a feminist blogger who created it based on this article:
 

(no subject)

I refer you to zen_shooter's latest LJ post.

Back?  OK.  As I said in my last post, it's a bang-head-on-desk-for-morons kind of day.   I now have images in my head of tornados (which are oh-so-common in Central Florida) totally decimating Florida homes, lifting venemous snakes out of their cages, out of the houses, to sail through the air completely unharmed, only to land on the people who just happen to be standing around outside during this freak weather occurance.  

Oh, wait, he doesn't mean they will go immediately from cage to biting innocent bystanders.  He means they will be safely removed from their glass cages, which are inside the houses the tornado has to demolish in order to reach the cages, fly through the air and somehow survive the impact to slither off into the grass and bite someone when the tornado is over and people return to the daylight.  Or bite some pet, because gators and dogs don't cause any difficulty for pet owners in Florida at all.

Sorry, that makes so much more sense!

I'm all for placing restrictions on who is allowed to care for exotic pets (and that's really more for the pet's sake than the people).  But we have those restrictions.  And they're pretty strict.  It's not like your average 10-year-old can take mommy and daddy to the pet store and pick out a cute Bengal Tiger.  But what, for fuck's sake, does a criminal background check have to do with someone's ability to care for exotic animals that the rigorous testing, 1000 hours of class and random and surprise inspections can't cover?  This isn't like a repeat violent offender wanting to own a gun while he's on parole or a convicted child-molester applying for a teaching position at an elementary school.  

So someone thinks it'd be cool to own a venemous snake.  I can't fathom why someone would want a venemous snake as a pet (although I do like constrictors), but if that person has the training necessary to adequately care for the animal and protect his neighbors according to the exotic animal preservation societies and governmental licensing restrictions ... how is this any worse than someone owning a vicious guard dog?  

Come to think of it, vicious guard dog owners have a whole bunch fewer hoops to jump through and we have a whole lot more of those running around, biting people, and being starved to death by disreputable owners.