A rant regarding the self-styled "People's Chemist" and his views on vaccines

I saw this "article" posted on Facebook, tried reading it just to give it a chance and got irrationally angry. Now that I've calmed down a bit, I'm going to try to rationally pick it apart point by point. For my sanity's sake, I'm going to ignore appeals to emotion that instantly make this article polarizing and try to focus on factual inaccuracies or misinformation.

Makes reference to research disproving herd immunity without quoting, referencing or linking to said research. Also, if vaccination works and if "herd immunity serves as a human shield – a type of immunity – for “at-risk” individuals" then by advocating non-vaccination you are effectively reducing the size of that human shield around those at-risk individuals. However, that's a lot of "if"s on my part so moving along.

"At best, vaccines boost our defenses only temporarily." That's what booster shots are for because you almost never have permanent immunity to any disease. If you don't come into contact with a pathogen often enough, as a matter of biological efficiency there's no point for your body to continue trying to fight it. It's a waste of your body's resources, so course vaccines only boost our defenses temporarily.

"That’s because your immune system is programmed to recognize and attack invaders that come through the biological “front door.” That would be your nose, mouth and eyes." This only applies to certain kinds of immune responses, namely mucous membranes, tears, cilia along the soft inner lining. Those immune responses are programmed capture and expel "invaders." Other immune responses like the lymphocytes: t-cells, B-cells and natural killer cells (among others) are active in your blood stream and do things like sending out antigens that attach themselves to pathogens so that other immune cells can recognize them as a threat. Ruptures to the surface of the skin (a natural barrier between the outside world and your body), like punctures from a needle, can activate these immune cells and bring them to the site of injury. That is literally the entire idea behind vaccinations. If your body only recognized "attacks" through the "front door" well our bodies would be a very poorly guarded home.

Quoting the World Health Organization “Children under two years of age do not consistently develop immunity following vaccination.” I need to get to the library to double check with medical encyclopedias since I'm having a hard time slogging through the very specific journal articles that came up when I did a search of online journals, but I'm pretty sure part of this inconsistency could be a direct result of the fact that children under two years of age do not have fully developed immune systems. The WHO article in question would seem to support this because it also lists "persons suffering from various states of immunodeficiency, for example HIV infection" as being unable to form immunity after vaccination.

[RELATED: Nature's Immune Booster is Potent Antibiotic. See the facts here.] The fuck are you trying to sell me pills for?

In a 2007 article, entitled “Nigeria Fights Rare Vaccine-Derived Polio Outbreak,” Reutersshowed how the vaccine itself ignited outbreaks of polio in Nigeria, Chad and Angola. The article in question points out that the 69 children infected in the outbreak were not vaccinated and that such outbreaks occur because aid workers are not able to reach enough of the at-risk population. Also, because this article is addressing people in the United States with access to resources and proper sanitation procedures and these outbreaks are occurring in developing countries, the situations of these outbreaks are not comparable at all. The only reason to bring this article up is as a scare tactic.

Reason #2 Vaccines Expose Kids to Toxins
I don't know enough biochemistry to try to debate this except to say most of us expose ourselves to more toxins in the bath daily and foods than we receive via vaccination in our lifetime. I will say check out the CDC's Vaccine Ingredient Fact List for yourself, most of the concerning additives have actually helped save people's lives by reducing chances of contamination from other foreign material. Be cautious, and do you research, sure, but most of these "toxins" are there for a reason because they contribute something to the final product.

On a semi-related note, many vaccine producers have started making multi-disease vaccines so you're getting fewer shots which means you're being exposed to fewer of these toxins overall, so even if this is your concern, it's getting better.

If parents need further proof of toxicity, they can read vaccine package inserts. Okay, if you're going to bring up the warning labels on vaccines, where essentially the companies producing them list every possible side-effect to cover their own asses should something go wrong, let me point you to the same warnings for ibuprofen, viagra, the sleep aid Lunesta. Almost anything produced by/for the pharmacological complex has really scary side effects listed on the packaging. Most of them are really rare otherwise these products wouldn't make it onto shelves.  

Reason #3 Kids Can Build Immunity Naturally
I'm going to stop right here and say that immunity is only achieved through exposure to disease. Therefore. according to the Mayo Clinic to be immune to all of these disease you would have to be infected with the disease (which would risk death).

Bruce Beutler and Jules Hoffmann discovered that we are hard-wired with special receptors that recognize foreign invaders and activate our immune response. Ralph Steinman then found that special cells of the immune system possess the unique capacity to activate the immune response, which clears biological nasties from the body. And all of this occurs without vaccination! 

Um... that's kind of the whole concept behind vaccination, only instead of introducing foreign invaders, ideally we're introducing a straw man corpse of the foreign invaders for our immune response to practice on. It's not perfect, but better than being caught off guard by the real thing that could cause real damage. 

If you're really trying to make an argument promoting the development of children's immune systems, why aren't you quoting any of the plethora of studies that have shown that having pets can lower a child's risk of developing allergies or asthma? Oh right, because that's not really the goal here, the goal is:

[RELATED: Nature's Immune Booster is Potent Antibiotic. See the facts here.] 

STOP FUCKING TRYING TO SELL ME THINGS! I DON'T WANT YOUR BOOK AND I DON'T WANT YOUR DAMN PILLS. I want accurate, science based information that tells me the concrete risks of vaccines if you're going to convince me of anything.

So to be clear, I don't care whether or not you choose to vaccinate your children. That's your decision. Make it an informed one. Just don't believe everything you read from idiots like Shane Ellison, "the People's Chemist."

I actually agree with a friend who said that the corporate vaccination industry is a "scam business meant to produce profit." If they cared about the developing world as much as they claim to by providing all kinds of vaccines to fight disease there, they would put a whole lot more money into building infrastructure and increasing access to clean, running water. 

But that's a completely different discussion about the pharmaceutical industry rather than the science of vaccines. 

The scientists are do this work because they're genuinely trying to help people. You don't have to trust them by getting vaccinations because they are not infallible, but at least make sure your decision is one you can back up.

Long Division

I remember in the fourth grade I was learning division.

We were just starting long division after having mastered our multiplication tables and timed tests the year prior. This was the year they decided to stop giving us perfectly divisible numbers. 

Gone were the days of 72 ÷ 8 = 9.

Oh no, this was the year things started to get messy.

This was the year they started giving us things like 86 ÷ 8.

But the things was, we didn't jump right into decimals. 

So we had to use remainders. (I apologize if the formatting doesn't work with my long division symbol, which interestingly doesn't have a name of its own.)

   10r6

8/86

   80

   06

Where the r6 at the end meant remainder of 6 that is not divisible by 8.

And because I was a precocious, well-read little shit child at the age of 10, I remember being somewhat livid at having to use that little r. I knew numbers, I'd seen a variety of them in my reading adventures and not once had I come across something like 10r6. It didn't make sense to me.

So I used a decimal point. Because I was familiar with decimal points. We used them with money to mark the difference between dollars and cent. They were in the numbers on the spines of books at the library. In short, I'd seen them in actual numbers.

I was adamant, even defiant about my use of decimal points. Silently, but stubbornly.

I remember my teacher, Miss Krantz, a transplant from somewhere in the South who tried to teach us it was pronounced O-KAN-o-gan in social studies (it's more like oaken-AU-gen), was okay with my use of decimals for a while but when she finally insisted I use the r instead of my decimal points, never really gave me a satisfying explanation other than they were different. I don't remember anyone else questioning this the way I did, but then I remember that Miss Krantz had a habit of tossing and catching her whiteboard marker and that being in one of the new portables our class was one of the only ones to have whiteboards instead of chalkboards better than I remember this.

Then we actually learned long division.

   10.75

8/86.00

   80

     6 0

     4 6

        4 0

        4 0

          0

Suddenly, the difference made sense. The remainder part of the r meant that it was what remained that wasn't neatly and perfectly divisible by the divisor. I had jumped the gun so to speak.

And that's what I remember about fourth grade math.

A really long discussion of patriarchy and feminism

A link to This Blog Post Deconstructing MRAs led to a very long discussion with someone who elsewhere has clearly identified themselves as anti-feminist. I don't understand that mindset, and am thankful that we remained civil throughout this exchange.

At the same time, I want to acknowledge that as a man working on feminist projects, with a history of involvement in anti-oppression work and education, I owe a lot of what I said in what follows to the women who have come before me. Part of the reasons I can respond as calmly as I did is because I am a man and so my experience is partially removed from the situation. That said, I'm still frustrated as hell and consider this particular thread dead to me.

Take the above as a trigger warning and read on with caution.

acelessthan3:

Skipping right to the conclusion, I wanted to point out this bit:

Ultimately, the existence of MRAs might make women more afraid of speaking out. I cannot emphasise how crucial this is. A lot of women are afraid of rocking the boat when it comes down to sexism, close their eyes to it or resign themselves to the fact that it’s just the way things are. The hateful messages of MRA movements only add a new layer of pressure to that. To men who are concerned with gender equality and who want to address issues with masculinity, MRAs have poisoned the debate.

Whether or not you’re well-meaning, the final effect of a movement that is a reaction to a group already reacting to the status quo is to reinforce the status quo. It often sets up an unnecessary binary that polarizes the issue.

As a man, it’s important to remember that patriarchy =/= men. Taking down the patriarchy is changing or eliminating ways of thinking that unreasonably favor men while either suppressing or ignoring women. Men might get hit with recoil because of socioeconomic status, race, or a variety of other factors, but most of the time when you zoom out and look at the bigger picture, there’s the same root cause hurting people from different angles.

mr-cappadocia:

Work on those causes from different perspectives, but let’s not make them competing works. And imagine, for a moment, you’re a person that doesn’t believe in the existence of the patriarchy… and suddenly *you* look like the person trying to maintain power via the status quo.

Because how it looks to me is that no matter what I do, unless I agree with *you* I’m wrong. That’s a fair point and a logical flaw that undermines the part where I talked about unnecessary binaries. I will acknowledge that.

acelessthan3:

However, trying to deny the existence of patriarchal mindsets is like trying to deny the existence of racist thought or homophobia or classicism. You’re technically correct that it doesn’t exist. It isn’t a thing that you can locate, but you are wrong if you think it doesn’t exist.

It is an intangible (and all too common) way of thinking that causes substantive inequality through personal behaviors, public policy and media representation. It’s rooted in the same kind of mindset that tells children “You can’t do that because you’re a boy/girl.” By denying its existence you are effectively maintaining a harmful status quo by denying the fact that most areas of the world believe in the inherent superiority of men either explicitly or implicitly.

If you can’t/won’t accept that such a belief exists as a basic fact supported by the experience of millions (if not billions) of people the world over, then we will never be able to agree because anything I say or do will always come back to that point that this inequality exists on multiple conscious and subconscious levels. If you’d like me to provide “proof” with a myriad of charts and statistics and articles, I can attempt to do so, but I’d rather not waste any more of either of our time trying to convince you.

Thank you for being civil and respectful.

mr-cappadocia:

Billions of people have also believed in the existence of Satan, or a similar font of evil. Historically speaking, based on your measure, there’s more proof of the Devil than there is of Patriarchy.

Patriarchy, on its best day is used as an answer in the same vein “God did it” is.

Even assuming there *is* a patriarchy… even if I completely agreed with you on that point the existence of a “patriarchy” raises questions itself in the same way that the existence of a deity does.

Notice how the argument/discussions always stop at “The Patriarchy” did it?

Is the patriarchy a way of thinking? is it a group of men? is it a style of living? I’ve heard it’s all three and none of the above. That’s way way WAY too open for me to accept.

The Patriarchy is whatever the asker wants it to be.

acelessthan3:

When you make the comparison to Satan, I think you misinterpret the point that I made (that billions of people experience inequality based on gender in their lives and this supports the existence of a [wrong] belief in the inherent superiority of men) as "billions of people believe in Patriarchy." This is not the same thing, I apologize if I was unclear.

And if the asker is competent, they will define for you how they use a term so you know exactly what it means when they say it. I have done so repeatedly, so to apply other definitions in the context of this discussion is counterproductive, confusing for readers and off topic (or derailing to use the language popular in anti-oppression work).

The discussion doesn't have to stop at "the patriarchy did it" if you provide concrete solutions to the problem. If (as I have done) you define patriarchy as system of thought, the solution is to change the way people think about situations. Take, for example my earlier point about the patriarchal thought processes being the same root cause of statements like "You can't do that because you're a boy/girl."

Both arise from an expectation of gendered behavior, that boys and girls behave differently and are not allowed to cross those boundaries because implicitly to do so would invalidate their gender. This is limiting to all parties involved and arises from a long history of gender stereotypes that boys are tough/strong and girls are weak/pretty or whatever. If we challenge these ideas, we are "challenging the patriarchy" because (as I have described it) patriarchy is the system of thought which reinforces those ideas. You can still do that without believing in a patriarchy, and I hope you would because it would mean you're treating the next generation as whole people who can experience a range of activities and without being limited by outdated stereotypes.

I would also like to point out that I've been very hesitant to use the term "patriarchy" because I think it's an unnecessarily broad term that doesn't completely encapsulate the actual problems at play, thus my repeated use of "patriarchal thinking" to emphasize that it is the ways of thinking that are problematic. Sometimes that thinking is on a larger cultural scale rather than an individual's thoughts (cultural narratives to borrow a term from theory) and to say that this kind of thinking doesn't exist is to say that there aren't people or systems who are sexist (i.e. causing or supporting inequality), which is fundamentally wrong, because again, you can find sexism everywhere.

To summarize my entire argument:

• gender-based inequality exists, [and the experience of gender-based inequality is overwhelmingly one of sexism against women]
• the fact that such inequality exists proves the existence of a way of thinking that (most often) favors men
• by changing these ways of thinking and the institutional (legal/governmental/other regulatory bodies) structures (laws/norms/rules/representations) that support/reinforce them we can reduce inequality

mr-cappadocia:

Gender based inequality exists. That inequality exists does not defacto prove that it primarily benefits males. “Changing ways of thinking” often feels rather sinister to me. Presenting ones case is a far cry from “Changing how people think”. You mentioned overly broad terms… and that one sticks in my craw, yo.

I’m not saying inequality doesn’t exist, to the contrary. I take issue with the concept of patriarchy because it very intentionally narrows the discussion.

For example… people say “Patriarchy” and point to the majority of congress being male… and then conveniently and quietly forget that the majority of the voters are female (and have been for decades). Yet people will still describe this as a “Patriarchy”.

acelessthan3:

1. Fair point that the existence of inequality does not de facto imply a bias towards men, I should have backed that up better.

2. While in summarizing my argument I said “change how people think” which is a broad, general statement and you have every right to be uncomfortable with it because of that (normally I would be too); however, throughout this conversation I have repeatedly given concrete examples of very specific ways to change people’s way of thinking to address specific problems (don’t deny the existence of inequality because doing so perpetuates it; don’t reinforce and/or believe in stereotypes because they are harmful; don’t blindly accept an ideology that implicitly favors men because it’s sexist). Anyone who reads this entire exchange and still finds my final summary “sinister” has clearly missed the point.

3. With your congress example:

• the implications of having an established man-dominated institution on the access to said institution by women is one of deterrence (it’s a lot harder to join a men’s only club when you aren’t a man even if it’s no longer a men’s only club).
• When women voters are only presented with men to vote for, they can only vote for men, so who the voting demographic is means next to nothing (we can change this by encouraging women to join politics through multiple avenues like providing strong role models)
• This example ignores the socialization of women to not be strong leaders in the political sense (as evidenced by characterizations of people like Hilary Clinton as cold, power-mad bitches, a demonization that can deter other women from wanting to pursue this as a career avenue)
• Many women in power are not taken seriously unless they “act like men” because women are seen as weaker/incapable.
• The previous two points can be addressed by thinking of women as complex human beings who are able to act in leadership capacities (something that many men seem unable or unwilling to accept because of, you guessed it, sexist, patriarchal ways of thinking that reinforce inequality against women)
• The use of patriarchy here completely ignores my point about using conflicting definitions and thus is a complete derailment of the discussion at hand (especially since it is used very vaguely as simply “the patriarchy”). When it is not given specific meanings the way I have, patriarchy is an overly broad (vague) concept that can and has been abused in some feminist logic. I have worked very hard to not make that same mistake and would appreciate if you would stop insulting my intelligence by continuing to gloss over that fact. Yes, people make those kinds of arguments without offering concrete solutions the way I have above. Yes, that’s poor argumentation that delegitimizes the concept of patriarchal systems. Yes, you have every right to be skeptical of arguments that use partriarchy as the focal point because of that. No, that is not being done here, so please stop bringing it up because it isn’t adding anything new to the conversation.

mr-cappadocia:

I’ll address but one point… and I’d like you to think about it and the vast and far reaching implications of it.

If there is a field of ten men… and only men… the one that caters to a disproportionate number of females, even as he takes a proportional slice of the male vote… will win.

In other words it doesn’t *matter* what the gender of the person being elected is because that person knows who put them in office. In fact it’s incredibly bizarre to think that a man in office would automatically work in the interests of other men when history has proven universally that men in power almost never do that. Men in power help men in power.

And if the best way to stay in power is to vote for endless special benefits, programs, provisos and the like for women… that’s precisely what they’ll do. And that’s precisely what they *have* done.

acelessthan3: (this part didn't make it onto tumblr because I'd already publically stated I was done with this conversation on tumblr)

Your bolded statement is self-contradictory. If (as I understand it) you mean that a man in power would provide for his constituents (i.e. the women who voted him into office), I think the entire Texas State legislature's decisions on reproductive healthcare stand as a GLARING example to the contrary.

If by "special benefits, programs, provisos and the like for women" you mean things like welfare, reproductive rights, etc. As I understand it, most of those were never voted on, were instituted by men because they view women as weaker/incapable, and are currently being attacked across the country.

I don't see how any of this supports an argument against the existence of patriarchal thinking or even addresses it.

-----------------------------------------

To all who made it this far. Thank you for bearing with me. I hope I did the conversation justice. Please don't take out any anger or frustration on  Mr-cappadocia and instead find healthy outlets to vent them.

SAT Six Years Later

I was reminded today of the SAT.

I took it very late in my college application process. Like May or June late. There were a host of reasons, one of which being a complete apathy toward any and all forms of standardized testing.

I was part of the Washington State class of 2008, which means I received the brunt of the scare treatment when they told us we would be the first graduating class to have to take the WASL and have it matter for graduation. I was also the kid who, in the fourth grade, did so well on the WASL exam that they decided to put me in a special pull-out program for advanced students.

So given the WASL and all the AP classes I took, to say that I gave no fucks about taking the SAT would be an understatement. I actually forgot I'd even registered for the test until the week prior.

Obviously, I didn't do very much SAT prep. In fact, I did none. Given my AP classes though, it was actually more of a struggle in taking the SAT to remember material I hadn't studied in 2-3 years. The highest level it went was HS Algebra II and I was taking Calculus. Trying to remember things like the quadratic formula and basic stuff like that was almost laughable to me.

Ironically, I feel like I lost the most points in the essay portion of the writing, a subject that as a journalism student and someone who had already taken the AP Composition test I was confident I would do well in. I think part of the reason I lost points was because I tried to be creative. I think my mindset was along the lines of: I'm supposed to write inside the box? Well I'm going to write around the box so that you can see the outline and know that it's there but that I'm actively defying it and doing a damn good job of it.

So given all this, I bet you're asking yourself how I did?

Honestly for all the wonders it did for me, I don't remember. I had to dig through my files and find a faded paper copy gathering what little dust can filter into a closed file folder.

But I did find it eventually.

So with no studying or prep of any kind, I got a 1950/2400, which according to the Wikipedia page is roughly in the 90th percentile.

I can't complain about this because there are probably people out there who would kill to get a score like that, but for me at least it seems like an apt analogy for my entire high school career.

It's this huge thing that's pretty much required and everyone makes it a big deal because when it comes down to it, in our culture, it is a big deal. But it wasn't a challenge. Academics didn't excite me the way everything else about school did.

I excelled in high school because I was/am fairly intelligent. I didn't get bored and give up the way I know a lot of today's youth do because I had something else keeping me engaged where my academics didn't. As a friend recently put it to me, "You did the work because it was easy, I didn't do the work because it was easy."

A huge part of that difference is because I got lucky. I was a journalism student working for the school paper. I was active in my high school's literary arts magazine. I had summer camp experiences that taught me how to express myself through art and gave me a sense of community. Looking back, I'm a little disappointed I never took the opportunity to try a sport or two. Because of these things, and with some encouragement from teachers who I now call friends and mentors, I saw myself as leader.

Something changes inside of you when you think of yourself as a leader. You set yourself up for an expectation of success. You know you have to try, you have to do well or at least do the minimum required to have the appearance of doing well or you'll disappoint yourself because to not would mean you'd disappoint the people who believe in you. And that means something, it means quite a lot actually.

So even though this post started with me bemoaning the state of standardized testing that is the SAT, I want to end it by saying thank you. Thank you to everyone who believed in me, who believed that I could do amazing things (most notably my mom).

To everyone else reading this, go out and show someone that you believe in them. You never know, it might make a huge difference in their life.

Sex advice with Danny Civilized

So the last few days I've received some sex questions via text message and while I'm in no way trying to encourage people to send me questions (seriously, I have enough trouble keeping track of my currently non-existent sex life, I'm perfectly happy not being involved in yours), it's not in my nature to not attempt to answer. And if I've already answered the question, why not share the wealth?

I am not a medical professional or certified sex educator, my answers are based on extensive reading, working as a peer sex educator, and when I genuinely don't know, deferring to professionals who do know.

Random question, but if I were to use an anal douche would I fill it with water?

Mixed feelings here. Generally I wouldn't recommend douching or enemas to begin with, but if you are going to I would probably recommend water unless you know what's in the enema fluid you buy. Some kits contain laxatives that induce shitting (because for real am I going to say defecation?) while others are for more gentle cleaning. As with anything, know what you're putting in your body before you put it in. The rectal lining is fairly permeable to chemicals and things since a huge part of the lower colon's function is reabsorbing water (this why being on the receiving end of unprotected anal sex is one of the riskiest behaviors for exposing yourself to STIs). 

The rectum also is not meant to have hard stuff up in there which is why during anal play you go slow and use lots of lube. For similar reasons enemas and anal douching aren't usually recommended for normal activity because they have the potential to cause micro-tears to the rectal lining. Most brands of enema kit or anal douches say to use their product at least 30 minutes prior to any activity in part to help with this, it's a similar concept to not brushing your teeth at least an hour prior to performing oral sex.

But at the same time, I recognize that for some people poo is ew and they don't want that as even a remote possibility. You can help things flow so to speak, by eating a well-balanced diet with lots of fiber and water. Usually a shit followed by thorough shower about an hour before anal play is enough. But if you use an anal douche or enema kit, make sure you follow the directions and definitely don't make it a daily habit.

On to the next question!

Sometimes after I masturbate my penis stings for a little while, like in the urethra. Eventually it goes away and I have tested negative for any diseases. It only happens sometimes. Does this ever happen to you? Do you know what I'm talking about? Should I see a doctor?

This is one of those questions where I repeat several times that if you aren't sure and are still concerned, go see a medical professional.

If you regularly test negative for a variety of STIs or UTI (urinary tract infections) or trauma, and the stinging feeling isn't an intense burning, you probably don't have anything to worry about. To help the sperm survive in the vagina, semen is slightly basic which can occasionally be an irritant to the soft mucous lining of the urethra. This usually manifests as a need to pee after ejaculation and most people with penises experience this to some degree after ejaculation. A variety of factors from diet to hydration to how many times you've jacked off in the past few days can have effects on this, similar to the things that can cause changes to consistency. If you have no weird discharges and have tested clean, it's probably nothing. 

In very rare instances men can be allergic to their own cum, but that usually shows up like a flu after they shoot. Definitely doesn't sound like the case here, but in the interest of comprehensive information I'm including it.

There, the most complete answers I can give to these questions. Don't make me regret posting this, and for the people who have asked me questions, sorry I used your anonymous questions without permission. If you found any of this post to be heteronormative or trans*exclusive, please let me know and I will try to correct it.