Conspiracy Theorists

[joreth]

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.

Comments

[phyrra.livejournal.com]

Why are you spending the energy on this individual? They don't seem worth it.

*hug*

[joreth]

I spend energy because I don't want other people to be put off from getting exams and taking the vaccine and other helpful actions because some nutjob actually believes the entire pharmeceutical industry is really out to kill their clients in the interest of making money.

3 people can keep a secret if 2 of them are dead.

[funky-firelord.livejournal.com]

I think your icon explains it pretty well already Joreth. :-)

Firelord

[leora.livejournal.com]

I did some research on vaccines lately. They do all have potential negative side effects, including death or serious brain damage as a potential risk for many of them. But they're used because the risk of taking them has been carefully weighed against the risks for not taking them.

People do actually still get polio. I knew a doctor, not much older than myself, who saw a young boy with polio. His mother hadn't gotten him vaccinated. It's rare, but it still happens, even in the US. If people keep not vaccinating, it'll happen more. Although we've got better odds with polio than with most diseases, because (and how cool is this) the oral polio vaccination is contagious. You can catch the vaccination.

Now, a small percentage of people, especially those with compromised immune systems, will actually end up with polio and its symptoms rather than polio immunity. But it's far fewer cases than we had of actual polio. My mother tells stories about when polio hit her community. Several people had some bad symptoms, and one little girl died. She has no idea how many may have later developed post-polio syndrome, since less was known about that then and it takes time to show itself.

Rubella vaccinations are interesting, because they are primarily done for the good of society, rather than the good of the individual getting the vaccination. It turns out that rubella is actually fairly mild in most cases, but it causes really bad birth defects if a pregnant woman gets it. The stats were run, and it turned out to be safer to risk the very small number of nasty side effects (death and brain damage) than to risk the number of birth defects of an unvaccinated public. While it won't directly help the childfree who don't have any friends who ever want to have kids, it does help every child who was born by a mother who didn't have rubella at the time, so you did get a benefit from the vaccinations of the people before you that you then pay forward. That's a really tough social call, and I suspect they had to do a lot of analysis to decide it was right to vaccinate everyone. But most schools won't let you in if you don't have an MMR, because they don't want their employees, many of whom are often youngish women who like kids and might well have some, at risk.

(continued... I can't keep a comment within the length limits today)

[leora.livejournal.com]

Now, you can try to show the stats to people, but you run into someone whose kid actually is going to be massively brain damaged for life because of the MMR vaccine and they're not going to listen. But you can't point to which kids are healthy who would have been damaged by their mothers having rubella, because you don't see the ones that didn't get hurt. It could have even been the same child who ended up damaged by the vaccine. But that sort of argument will not help someone who actually is hurt. That's why we need rational people recognizing that we can't avoid risk, we can just do our best to pick the smaller ones and accept the inevitable costs.

I'm strongly in favor of vaccines. They're the best odds in town.

I don't get too paranoid about HPV for several reasons. First off, it's a bit late for me to worry too much about it for cervical cancer. Oh sure, getting HPV now would increase my odds, but not nearly as much as getting it when I was younger. The less developed cervix is at higher risk than the fully developed one, this is a large part of why it's so important to vaccinate girls when they are young. And because many people get HPV and most of the time the human body will deal with it and even fully get it out of the system within 5 years. So, your odds are pretty good. But I'm also not completely complacent about it, because hey, it is currently the STD with the best odds of killing you, last I heard. HIV is still pretty damn bad, but if you can afford and get treatment, so much progress has been made with it and it's so much less common than HPV and it really is harder to catch that HPV was edging out HIV.

Well, actually Hepatitis B is probably the most potentially lethal. Hep B scares me to no end. Incredibly easy to catch, you can get it from contact iwth an open cut to dried blood at room temperature that is a week old. But I got my Hep B vaccination, so I can rest easier on that. We had to watch the video on blood-borne pathagens as part of substitute teacher training. They try to encourage you to have and use latex gloves if anyone gets hurt, to remember that even a little 5 year old may have a contagious disease, might have been born with one even. And they were pretty good at being realistic about it. Including emphasizing hepatitis B which is more likely and quite bad and gets less press.

Yes, give people information. Let people choose their risks. But I do wish people could learn more statistics so they'd stop falling into the typical human fallacies we study in psychology. Some risks just seem more dangerous or likely than they are, and some seem less, but good decisions require you to look past that to what the actual risks are.

[joreth]

Yes, thank you, I may have glossed over the fact that vaccinations do still include some risk and that, statistically, some people *will* have adverse reactions, no matter what the risk is, in my outrage and frustration at people believing that a vaccination is worse than the disease it's trying to prevent. As you point out, the odds of something bad happening are quite small (no greater than simply chance choosing to kill you on the freeway tomorrow, certainly) and the benefits both individually and societally far outweigh the possible risks.

And yes, I also did not mean to imply that polio doesn't exist at all. I realize I was really angry and perhaps strayed a bit towards hyperbole. But polio (and others) are no longer nationwide epidemics in the US (although the less developed nations are currently seeing a rise in polio and in fatal measles concurrently as the vaccination usages drop) and the majority of people in the US don't even know anyone who was affected by the polio epidemic of the last century - and that's all due to the vaccines.

I do agree with your comments about certain people being less of a risk for cancer via HPV, and my hope is that concern over this virus due to my (and others) spreading of the news will prompt people to have frank discussions with their medical practitioners who can then evaluate their specific risk level. But I want to leave that to the individuals discussing it with their own doctors - I'd rather make them nervous enough to start that discussion, instead of people being complacent enough to ignore the risks by thinking they aren't likely to catch it :-)

[leora.livejournal.com]

Oh, even with my decreased risk, I might be better off with the vaccination than without. I don't know offhand, and I don't know if those stats will be available for a bit. I just know that teenagers are more at risk. And that info was all linked to cervical cancer, the newer info with throat cancer may not be as age-variable. If I could easily get the vaccine, I probably would. And I probably will get it at some point. Being vaccinated also gives me a peace of mind.

The risks from all of the vaccines are incredibly small. There have, historically, been a few bad vaccines. It has happened. But even considering that, overall, vaccines tend to be safe and good. Just as some airplanes do crash, overall flying is remarkably safe, and generally safer than driving the same distance.

The small effects of vaccines aren't that unlikely actually. A lot of people feel mildly unwell after a vaccination, and I've heard of kids feeling kind of down for a day or two. But these effects pass quickly. And that strikes me as a very small price to pay. The really bad effects are extremely rare.

Of course one should talk to a doctor about one's specific case. If you were severely immunocompromised then the polio injection form of vaccination is much likelier to be safer for you than the oral polio vaccination (they involve different methods of vaccinating, not just different delivery systems, so they have different risks and benefits). Things like that, it's worth checking. But for a normal healthy person, a vaccination is usually a great idea.

People used to consume much larger amounts of mercury without significant effects than the sum total of a large batch of vaccinations. I'm not saying mercury is safe, in large enough amounts it'll make you mad as a hatter, but the important point is how much. It's really a lot like X-rays. X-rays are dangerous. Each one increases your risk for cancer, because hey, it's dangerous radiation. However, each one increases your risk very slightly, and it takes needing a very large amount of them to really constitute a significant risk. So, generally if you need an X-ray, your odds are much better for your health by getting one and dealing with that issue well than by worrying about the effects of radiation. My father didn't even blink when I went to get a catscan, which involves a lot of x-rays all around my head to construct a 3-d view, because it was for a good reason, so the risk was worth it. You just don't take them frivolously.

Find me anything in the world that is perfectly safe.