09 November 2007

we'll just file this one under

things i should know about, but didn't. of course, i feel it is my sworn duty to pass this new knowledge along. you know how i do sometimes.

holly and i were rappin' this a.m. via the internets. holly is a rockin' animal/human rights activist, p.s. - and someone that i consider to be the most knowledgeable about such matters. she is not all hat and no cattle, she walks the talk. and that, my friends, is beautiful and rare in this day and age.

but i digress.

i was expressing my disjunct with a culture so supportive of "finding the cure" for cancer via walk-a-thons and knowing that there are those creating cancers that aren't being held accountable. industry waste, spills, harmful products (deodorant - although studies provide conflicting results - whatever.), etc. basically, we're given these nasty little incurable diseases and then are asked to collect money to find a remedy. we could also file this under "more band aids for cuts that need stitches" - a favorite category of mine these days.

but the plot thickens. i had always assumed this money was being used to, wait for it, find a cure. i assumed that the money was actually being used WISELY and pro-actively. silly me. while i should have assumed that animal testing is a part of all of this, it is also something i have a difficult time thinking too much about. must mean i should give it more thought.

let me just excerpt a bit of the conversation that ensued, what she sent my way:

Although the war on cancer was declared nearly 30 years ago to the tune of $35 billion, cancer deaths are at an all-time high because of our reluctance to move past the animal model to reliable, humane methods of experimentation. "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades--and it simply didn't work in humans." -- Dr. Richard Klausner, director of the National Cancer Institute.

Although experimental cancer drugs reduce tumors in mice, experts agree that this treatment cannot and never has been successfully extrapolated to humans. Animal experimenters poison and kill animals by the tens of millions and give cancer sufferers false hopes that a cure is right around the corner. "The patients are the losers when all of this is dangled in front of them and it turns out to be nothing." -- Dr. Robert Mayer, president of the American Society for Clinical Oncology.

Cancer therapies used in animals do not accurately demonstrate side effects that will show up in humans once a product is put on the market. These side effects include muscle inflammation, skeletal stiffness, loss of sensation in the limbs, and brain cell toxicity. In some cases, these side effects force researchers to limit doses to levels too low to be a benefit to the cancer patient, rendering the therapy useless.

More than 100,000 people in the U.S. die from side effects of drugs not detected in animal tests. An additional 2 million people are hospitalized. $4 billion is spent annually treating people for adverse side effects from prescribed drugs.

so not only are animals being tortured, people are dying while time, money and resources are being horribly horribly squandered. apparently there is some "research" being inflicted upon monkeys as well - which will more than likely also wield no valid results for humans.

sick. sad. disguting. all around.

and as if that wasn't enough, she hit me with this, stats taken from the FDA
• More than 90 percent of drugs that appear safe in animal tests fail in human studies.
• More than 100,000 Americans die each year from adverse reactions to approved drugs. This is the fifth leading cause of death in the United States.
• More than half of all approved drugs will be withdrawn or relabeled for serious or lethal effects in humans.

which i verified here, in reference to the vioxx fiasco.

ah, western medicine... i'll save my rant about what this means vis-a-vis the human experimentation that is occuring with anti-depressant/anxiety/panic medications as we speak for another time.

she also gave me this link - charities that do/don't engage in animal testing.

Labels: , ,

posted by supergirlest @ Friday, November 09, 2007 Comments: 7

|

31 March 2007

this and that

i'm not certain if anyone is even reading anymore, but here goes! i'm baaaa-aaack!

it seems that the house stuff that has been a major stress on our lives over the past solid 5 months is resolving somewhat for now. signing papers in an hour for a re-fi after exhausting all of our options we have at this time. looks like we got in just in time, too. what. a. mess.

*
i got my acceptance letter for grad school in the mail yesterday. i have to suss out financial aid stuffs now - i hope it's not too late! thanks pam - i know your letter of recommendation had something to do with this! :) and the biggest THANK YOU to all of you that read my statement and encouraged me through these last icky awful months. your kindness will never be forgotten. ever. you have no idea.

*
i'm starting to feel like a human again. the idea that my life is living me and not me living my life is no bueno. it isn't perfect, but it's a start. i'm also looking for a part time serving gig to supplement what we need, at least until school begins. so far, no luck. my old boss was delighted to hear from me, there just doesn't seem to be any room behind the bar just yet, at least not with my availability.

*

onward!

*
i'm really really really torn about the deadline date for withdrawing from iraq. i don't want another year to pass. i want this nightmare to end yesterday... i'm assuming that a lot of this has to do with political positioning on the part of the d's - pelosi stopped with the impeachment talk, knowing that impeachment would mean the d's would have little or no chance of taking the whitehouse in 2008. seems that this move with withdrawing troops is along the same lines. i'm a bit disappointed with move on for this reason as well. once again, the d's have let me down. not all of them, but many. i know that barbara lee and kucinich didn't vote for this plan of doing the least amount of something to placate those of us that want an end to this occupation. i know, i know... it's a start - it is something, but i can't help but feel horribly sad and torn on the whole issue. more band aids for cuts that need stitches. it wears me down. how many more have to die?

*
also, i've just joined up with the out of iraq bloggers! you want to come along? here's the info and i'll be updating my blogroll accordingly:

Out Of Iraq Bloggers Caucus - Reciprocal Blogroll

A group of us started organizing an "Out Of Iraq Blogroll" over at TalkLeft a while back, based on Big Tent Democrat's idea of the Out Of Iraq Bloggers Caucus.

The Blogroll is a reciprocal link list of "Out Of Iraq Bloggers" that will be posted separately from other blogrolls and displayed on each member blog to identify them as part of the Out Of Iraq Bloggers Caucus (as conceived by Armando Llorens aka Big Tent Democrat) to help increase traffic to all of the member blogs and get the message out as widely as possible that the Iraq Debacle must be ended as soon as possible, and that there should be no more bills passed funding it beyond an established date certain for withdrawal.


The Out Of Iraq Blogroll is intended to be a roll of bloggers that are:

1) Opposed to the Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill.
2) Opposed to funding Bush's Iraq Occupation Debacle.
3) Committed to getting the troops home as soon as possible.
4) Determined to end George W. Bush's Iraq and Mid-East Debacle as quickly as possible.
5) Determined to restore some sanity to the world.

To join the Blogroll email me: edger10@gmail.com - I am volunteering to do my best to review blogs and initially maintain it - and as new blogs join I will keep the blogroll current at Edgeing.

Labels: , , ,

posted by supergirlest @ Saturday, March 31, 2007 Comments: 9

|

07 March 2007

more band-aids for cuts that need stitches

it's one of those crazy days - apparently i'm singing the tune of several groups of wrong-wingers, though not for the same reasons. and i've gotta say, i'm honestly a tad surprised at the lefty/progressive community's gung-ho-ness on this one. the hpv vaccine. mind you, this is coming from someone who is currently being monitored for the last three years worth of paps coming back showing low-grade abnormality. i had one surgery to remove cancerous cells at age 17. and it doesn't look like it's going away...

here's the 'sitch, taking away all of my other issues surrounding vaccines in general:

*this vax will only "protect" (maybe) against 4 out of the 127 strains of hpv. it isn't, from all accounts, 100% effective.

*merck won't be held accountable if problems arise in future years with their new wonder-vax... merck. where have i heard that name before? oh, yeah! vioxx induced heart attacks! and lookee here - apparently some problems with the vax have already been reported:

The early reports of potential safety problems with GARDASIL raise concerns and questions that need to be addressed by government regulators, manufacturers and prescribing physicians. Specifically, the following concerns need to be addressed

Syncope, seizures and Guillian-Barre Syndrome have now been reported with hours to a week after GARDASIL vaccination. GARDASIL manufacturer, Merck, should add these serious adverse events to the product manufacturer insert.

Considering that over 20 girls have experienced syncopal episodes sometimes combined with seizures and serious injuries, physicians should consider only giving GARDASIL when the patient is safely laying down on the examining table. Because there seems to be syncopal reactions up until 15 minutes after vaccination, patients should be asked to lie down for 15 minutes after receipt of GARDASIL.

The information provided by Merck indicates that it is safe to administer GARDASIL with Hepatitis B vaccine. The prescribing information states, “Results for clinical studies indicate that GARDASIL may be administered concomitantly (at a separate injection site) with hepatitis B vaccine (recombinant). Co-administration of GARDASIL with other vaccines has not been studied.” [4] Due to the small number of girls aged 9 to 15 who appear to have been evaluated for GARDASIL safety in Merck clinical trials (fewer than 2,000) and lack of publicly available information about how many of these girls were given GARDASIL and hepatitis B vaccine simultaneously, the safety of administering GARDASIL and hepatitis B vaccine to all pre-adolescent girls is uncertain.[5]

Aside from Hepatitis B, Merck does not state that it is safe to simultaneously administer GARDASIL with any other vaccine. Considering that there are ongoing evaluations of a reported association between Menactra (meningococcal vaccine) and Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and Merck does not explicitly indicate that it is safe to administer to administer GARDASIL and Menactra simultaneously, consumers and clinicians should question whether administering both GARDASIL and Menactra at the same time is safe.

Similarly, adverse reactions were reported when GARDASIL was administered with eight other vaccines: Hepatitis A, MNQ (?), MEN (Menactra), TD (Tetanus and Diptheria Toxoids), DPP (Diptheria/Pertussis/Polio), PNC Prevnar (Heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate), DTaP (Diphtheria And Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine), and TDAP (Tetanus, Diptheria and Pertussis). Because Merck does not state that it is safe to administer simultaneously GARDASIL with any vaccine other than Hepatitis B, consumers and clinicians should question whether co-administration of GARDASIL and other vaccines is safe.

Most, if not all, of the reactions reported to VAERS were in response to the first of the three doses of GARDASIL. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) developed for HPV vaccine states that severe reactions include “any unusual condition, such as a high fever or behavior changes. Signs of a serious allergic reaction can include difficulty breathing, hoarseness or wheezing, hives, paleness, weakness, a fast heart beat or dizziness.” [6] The CDC also states that “anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to yeast, to any other component of HPV vaccine, or to a previous dose of HPV vaccine should not get the vaccine.” Which of the reactions reported to VAERS constitute a “life-threatening allergic reaction” and which, if any, of the children and young adults who experienced reactions should receive additional doses of vaccine? At the October 2006 ACIP meeting, CDC staff stated that only “three serious reports were reported to VAERS after HPV vaccination in females 14 and 16 years of age. One of these patients had vasovagal syncope and was hospitalized overnight for observation.” [7]CDC’s summary of the first 76 VAERS reports suggests that CDC doesn’t regard the remaining reports as “serious.” CDC needs to clarify which of the reactions reported to VAERS constitute contraindications to further vaccination with GARDASIL and make this information available to the public and to prescribing physicians.

What were the short and longer-term outcomes for the individuals who experienced the reactions reported to VAERS? Is there information available that would help to predict the characteristics that predispose one to be at greatest risk of experiencing a serious reaction?

The CDC’s Vaccine Information Sheet indicates that allergy to yeast is a reason to avoid taking GARDASIL. Merck notes that contraindications to the vaccine include “hypersensitivity to the active substances or to any of the excipients of the vaccine. Individuals who develop symptoms indicative of hypersensitivity after receiving a dose of GARDASIL should not receive further doses of GARDASIL.” The prescribing information provided by Merck does not specifically note that yeast allergy is a contraindication to taking GARDASIL. Government regulators and the manufacturer need to address the discrepancy between these documents and clarify the issues related to yeast allergy and make this information readily available to the public and prescribing physicians.Additionally, Merck notes that vaccine ingredients include 225 mcg of aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant), 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80, and 35 mcg of sodium borate. These ingredients are not listed on the CDC’s VIS sheet. The public needs this information so that they can identify whether they have “hypersensitivities” to any of the ingredients and whether they are at risk of experiencing a serious allergic reaction. Hypersensitivities and known allergic reactions are critical pieces of information that need to be communicated to prescribing physicians in order to make the safest possible vaccination decisions…

rest of article here.
*this has been touted as a life saver for low income girls that don't have insurance... hey! i have an idea! how about offering universal HEALTHCARE and INSURANCE so that young women can instead get regular checkups? from what i understand, there are no medical tests available for detecting hpv in men. (but i can't help but wonder - if there were, are we afraid that they'll know that have it and will go ahead and spread it anyway, knowing that it could cause cervical cancer? are we more concerned, with 70% of the population being infected, that reproduction could come to a standstill? as if it isn't bad enough that this culture is completely sexually repressed.)

*360 bucks for the series of shots. hmmm... guess that's cheaper than providing health insurance/care to all. never mind.


*3,700 women die each year from cervical cancer. it is said that 1/2 of the women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer haven't had a recent pap test. wait. i guess that goes back to health care point too. but how many women die from other diseases? 489,000 will die from heart disease. heart disease is the number 1 killer of women in america, hands down. where's the vaccine for that?

*the biggest thing that gets me? the almost victim blaming feel to the whole debate. it isn't as if you catch hpv by opening a door after someone else that is infected sneezes on it and you rub your eye.

IT IS BEING SPREAD PRIMARILY BY MEN. so why should women be forced (granted, i'm assuming there will be an opt-out option that no one will know about much like the other vaccines, but still...) to have a potentially harmful vaccination that will expire by the time they reach the age where they will become sexually active? boosters for life? where is the role of men in all of this, beyond they don't like to wear condoms, 'cause it doesn't "feel right"?

it's probably somewhere around here: speaking of victim blaming, i read a fantastic piece today over on alternet. the author claims that, "blasting women with warnings about getting drunk in public does little to help them and sidesteps men's responsibility for sexual assault." i have to agree.

In 1992, while I was an undergraduate, I was raped by a fellow student while we were both drunk. He was not a date. I didn't even like him when we were sober. But we were at a party together, a party at which I tried too hard to "keep up" with my friends in the alcohol department and wound up far more drunk than I wanted to be. So I went back to my room. And he followed me. And then he raped me.

Looking back, I can imagine a number of social or institutional interventions which might have helped prevent this attack from happening. But none of them includes the approach that so many articles on this subject take, which is to "raise awareness" among young women that getting drunk in public puts them at greater risk of exploitation and sexual assault.

Why is this an impotent approach? For all the same reasons abstinence-only education does nothing to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (and may even contribute to it).

Very few people of any age or gender go out and drink enough to get drunk thinking it's a responsible thing to do. However true it may be that it's safer not to get drunk (approximately 70 percent of rapes among college students involve alcohol or drug use), it's not like young women don't already hear about the risks from parents, college administrations, the nightly news, or any of the 25 "CSI" or "Law and Order" clones on TV.

In fact, for many young people of all genders, drinking is a form of rebellion, appealing exactly because of all the warnings that come along with it.

Three Positive Steps

So what would have worked? No one can say for sure, but here are three things that would have given me a fighting chance:

1. Hold boys and men responsible.

Let's look a little more closely at that correlation between rape and alcohol. That's not a correlation between female drinking and rape. It's a correlation between all drinking and rape. In fact, studies have shown that it's more likely that a male rapist has been drinking than that his female victim has. So if we want to raise awareness about the links between drinking and rape, we should start by getting the word out to men that alcohol is likely to impair their ability to respond appropriately if a sexual partner says "no." When was the last time you read that article in any kind of publication?

The silence around men's drinking is, of course, part of a much larger "boys will be boys" culture, one which played a large part in my assault. The party I attended was for a men's sports team; the coaches provided the alcohol. Try to imagine them doing that for a women's sports team.

This is the very culture that supports acquaintance rape to begin with, the very culture feminists have been working to dismantle for decades. Holding boys and men accountable is no quick fix. But when we discuss drinking and rape and neglect to shine the light on men's drinking, we play into the same victim-blaming that makes it so easy for men to rape women in the first place.

Similarly, we should be teaching men that the best way to avoid becoming a rapist is to seek positive consent, as opposed to just leaving it up to a woman to say "no."

Meanwhile, there are some things we should be doing to keep ourselves safe in the short term, including:

2. Promote a more sophisticated, pleasure-affirming message.

This means going beyond advocating "abstinence."

Yes, tell young women that when it comes to preventing sexual violence, not drinking is safer than drinking.

But stop there, and you're setting up a false and impossible choice between sobriety and rape. Drinking can be a lot of fun, both chemically and socially, and most of us will choose immediate pleasure over the abstract risk of violence or death, at least some of the time. Plus, the more adults warn against something, the more appealing it is as an act of rebellion.

Give All the Information

Instead, let's try the safer sex education approach: Treat young women as people who can make informed decisions by giving them all the information. A message that might sound something like this:

a. The safest thing to do is not to drink at all.

b. If you decide to drink, it's safer to do it in moderation and-or in the company of a friend you trust to look out for you. (Not just someone you know. Nearly 80 percent of rape victims know their attackers.)

c. For the times you may choose to get properly sauced, or your friend turns out to be not as reliable as you'd hoped, and for times you may be sober and need to know anyhow, learn how to defend yourself against sexual coercion and assault.

Which brings us to:

3. Teach widespread, effective self-defense skills to women and girls.

I never even tried to shove that guy off of me, something that I now know I could have easily done, even drunk, even if he was bigger than me, which honestly, he wasn't. But it never occurred to me there was anything I could do physically to protect myself. Why? Not because I was drunk. Because literally no one my whole life had told me that my body could work in my own defense (and many, many messages had told me to the contrary).

Women Can Use Their Own Bodies

And yet it's true; women and girls can keep themselves safe using our very own bodies. No pepper spray. No whistles. Even women who don't work out, or are "overweight" or are physically impaired.

It both is and isn't mystifying why more women don't know this.

The parts of our culture that rely on violence against women as a tool to keep everyone "in their place" work hard to keep us from knowing.

But women often play a role in this unknowing, whether out of discomfort with the process involved in learning, fear that it may work for others but not us, and other complex reasons. (For more on this phenomenon, read Anastasia Higginbotham's excellent article "Kicking and Shrugging -- Why do we resist self-defense?" in Bitch magazine.)

Regardless of this resistance, we must all learn how to defend ourselves and insist that our schools and other public institutions teach all girls and women the same skills and not just for our own safety. Because the most practical way to reduce the risk of rape for all women is to create a culture in which the rapist has to worry that he'll get hurt.



(sicely sue is still raising money for home alive over at her place... if you're so inclined, stop over and kick her down a few bucks. use your money for good, not evil. she only is lacking a couple hundred more bucks. yay!!!)

my fear in all of this is that quick "fixes," such a vaccinating against hpv and telling women not to drink too much in public is pulling our attentions away from where they should be, and placing a blame in a place where it doesn't solely belong... both of these issues are often framed as women's issues - but in reality, aren't they equally, if not more, men's issues?

pass the band-aids.

and lastly - there's a new flick out about nader i was just hipped to. looks interesting! i saw him speak a couple of times in '99 when i worked on his campaign - he was such an inspiring speaker!!!





Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by supergirlest @ Wednesday, March 07, 2007 Comments: 10

|




FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We have posted it here in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, social justice and other issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The material in this site is provided for educational and informational purposes only.