Vaccination ignorance

Today on CNN there was an article about the combination MMR + varicella (aka chickenpox) leading to an increase in febrile seizures a week after the vaccine was given. The article told me that it was published in Pediatrics, so I went over to look at the math and make my own conclusions on the matter. It wasn't posted yet. So I went back to the article and made the mistake of reading some of the reader comments.

Some of them were ok. Some of them were from concerned parents. Some of them were plain wrong. So I started posting my own thoughts and replied to people that I thought were overreacting a bit. Didn't have much else to do.

It took only minutes before people began to attack me. I was crazy, these people thought, to believe everything that Big Pharma wanted me to believe, to put our children in danger. I was uneducated and unable to think critically, one person said before going on a rant about how ONE MILLION PEOPLE could not be a coincidence. "BALONEY!" another said, saying that they had gotten all the various diseases and they were fine. It was better to get the diseases naturally. They then went on to say that I must have gotten all my vaccines and then made the stretch that I must go to my doctor for every little thing, "no wonder why healthcare costs are astronomical".

I'm not sure what to do. I kept posting, explaining to the person who thought I was uneducated that I have a degree in biology (microbiology) and stretched my epidemiology education to say that I have my masters - with, what we are talking about, pretty much do already. I explained to people how vaccines work, that it's the same as being exposed naturally except that you don't get sick. I told people that yes, I did get all my vaccines, and I get the flu shot every year, and I go to my doctor for my annual physical and that's about it, cause I can deal with other illnesses at home. One person complained about aluminum - people who usually complain go on and on about the heavy metals in vaccines and list aluminum as one, forgetting that aluminum is one of the lightest metals around. I cited ATSDR for that person, showing that it wasn't as dangerous as they made it out to be. Another complained about thimerosal, and I explained the differences between ethyl and methyl mercury and the bad rap that thimerosal got.

But when people are so devoted to their beliefs, no amount of science in the world will change that. Is this a failing of the educational system in giving science the right amount of credibility? Is this because some of the science involved is far beyond the average comprehension of an American adult? Is it because people love to blame Big Pharma for everything?

I believe that I will be helping organize a flu clinic for the fall in a small town, and I'm wondering if I will have to face this in the organizational process. If I need to disseminate information in a simple, intelligent way to convince people that this is perfectly safe and is helping not just themselves but all the other people who are unable to get vaccinations and are at high risk for serious illness or death from some of these diseases, flu included.

I wish that this wasn't such an issue, but then again, if it wasn't, then I might not have as much of a field to get into. :/

What makes a children's book?

I was driving into work earlier this week when Morning Edition had an interview with Philip Pullman about his new book, "The Good Man Jesus and The Scoundrel Christ". Pullman was explaining the reasoning behind why this book was written, talked about the plot a little, and read a couple of excerpts.

Well, it sounded quite good. And since His Dark Materials is still one of my favorite books/series of all time, I put this new book on my todo list - either I'll cough up the money to buy it or I'll wait for the library to get it.

In the meantime though, I decided to look up the other books he has written, since I've only read HDM and I know that he's got more out there. So I looked up his official website, looked at the descriptions of the books, and realized that the majority are classified as "young adult" at best or "children's" for the rest. I didn't really care, wasn't going to let that bother me, and I went to the library and picked up four books to start: "The Ruby in the Smoke" and "The Shadow in the North", the first two books of the Ruby series; "The Broken Bridge", and "The White Mercedes", which are standalone books.

As of this writing, I have finished "The Broken Bridge" and have just started "The White Mercedes", and damn, we must be raising smart children now. That or I forget about the types of books that I read when I was little, but I think I was also reading out of my age group on a regular basis. But then this got me to thinking about how broad the category of "children's" is when applying it to a book. I had to go into the children's room at the Boston Public Library to get these books, and as I was sitting on the floor thinking about which ones were going to be the first to check out, I looked around. There were science fiction-looking books, with artistic covers and potentially deep material right next to "Froggy Goes To The Park", what I usually think of when I think of children's books.

So, then, what qualifies? "The Broken Bridge" wasn't a difficult read, but the themes that were presented were complex, and with each new revelation the story got that much more twisted and complicated, where I guess a kid could read it and say, "Well, that's bad," whereas I look at it and see how each new action impacts on the character's psyche. But perhaps that's because I have that much more experience in the world than kids? "The White Mercedes" apparently has a pretty graphic sex scene...and people complain about Harry Potter being bad for children. I KNOW that's not something that the under 13 year olds will fully comprehend, because I read books like that when I was young and I didn't get it. I'll have to repost after I get there, see what it's really like.

His Dark Materials I certainly read when I was younger, and again, there's a level of complexity that maybe you can understand as a kid, but certainly better when you are an adult. When you are a kid, you read about Dust and how it's this concept that's so important for their world, and that's that, but then when you are older you think of it as more of a philosophical thing, is Pullman trying to describe something else here, something that impacts children and then goes away in adulthood? There are BOOKS written on the topic of "What IS Dust?", and I think that's something that Pullman will revisit one day.

Or, if I may, pull up another of my favorites, "The Giver", which was read to me in sixth grade when I got the idea of what was going on, could follow the plot and feel sympathy for the protagonist, but when I was older and rereading this book in a matter of hours, I would think about the political and moral justifications behind the setup of the story, a bleak narrative of misguided ambition and unintended consequences. Do kids understand that? Or is that something that's picked up later?

So, I'm back to my original question: what makes a children's book a children's book? A character that a kid could relate to, mostly by having the main character be about that age? Showing that the child main character is able to handle all sorts of problems that come their way, therefore the child reading will be able to handle day-to-day things?

Well, whatever the answer, I'm enjoying the children's books that I'm reading now, and I don't care that I have to go into a little room with little chairs at a little table in order to find them. :)

RIP Mr. Tye

A. Raymond Tye was a great man - he was also my loving uncle. I spent a fair amount of time with him on the Cape during our summer vacations, and when he would visit Vermont in the fall to celebrate my aunt's and mother's birthdays. He was quiet, wise, and so very kind. I was able to drive him around the bay that he lived on in his little boat during those summer breaks, and he really enjoyed those rides. He would tell me to "open it up", and then I would go as fast as I dared, and he enjoyed feeling the wind whip by. These rides were private rides, just me and him, and anything that we talked about stayed on the boat. We were both honest, we both discussed things we probably normally wouldn't were we on land and with other people, and above all, he wanted me to be happy, and he was willing to help in any way to make that possible.

His illness took a toll on him in the last couple of months, but the last time I saw him, he still had that twinkle in his eyes, the same one that I would see every summer. I think he knew that that was our goodbye, based on how he was looking at me. I'm glad I had the chance to see him, and I am terribly saddened that he's gone, but trying hard to take the Irish point of view, celebrating all the good that he has done instead of lamenting the fact that he's gone. And there are many things to celebrate.

I bought the Boston Globe today and was pleased to see that he made the front page - not too surprised, he knew many people in the city and made quite an impact, even if he didn't want to take any accolades for it.

Boston Globe Obituary

I love you, Uncle Ray.

Mass Effect

Mass Effect 2 came out a couple of weeks ago, which anyone with an eye glancing near the realm of computer games would know about and think was old news. It showed up to my apartment on release day, having been preordered by my boyfriend David, which he quickly installed once his new computer arrived. I had heard enough about the series to be interested, so once he got his fill and played ME2 all the way through, let me start my own character on ME1.

So I went through the process of making a new character - first and foremost, my character was going to be female - cause you don't have to be a man to save the galaxy. I then had some fun tweaking her appearance, giving her blue eyes and dark brown hair pulled back in a ponytail (I had to submit to the "I am a hero, look my character looks like me!!" complex), and then had to give her a background. David told me that this didn't really impact on the story line, but was important to the character development, so I read through my options and actually had a hard time choosing.

The first choice, belonging to your upbringing, wasn't too difficult. I stuck with the spacer option, being a navy brat of sorts and jumping from spaceship to spaceship with my parents until I enlisted myself. The second choice, of what happens to you after you enlist, was a little harder. I was torn - do I want to be the war hero, risking my life to save others and ending up saving the colony, or do I want to be the sole survivor, through sheer might and will surviving when everyone else around me fell?

War hero seemed too pompous. Sole survivor seemed too dark. But there was a certain appeal to being the dark survivor - I could play a character with a hidden knowledge that other characters would respect or fear, which would give me clout. I could mow down enemies without remorse, be brutal, but also be forgiving to others, possibly with a hint of sadness or regret glinting in my computer-generated eyes, before walking off alone.

I stopped here. I realized that I hadn't even started the game, and yet I was struggling with minor choices and extrapolating to potential gameplay. And then I realized, if I was to play myself the first time through, since my character looked enough like me, then I should stay away from the sole survivor past. I would want to save others, at a potentially high cost, so I went with the war hero.

I stumbled through the first mission, David sitting next to me watching me get used to the controls, commenting on when I was getting shot and didn't notice, giving hints like, "Maybe you should use your sniper rifle," because I would forget that I had that item on me. The first time I brought out the sniper rifle I was expecting to remove the enemy several hundred feet from me easily, but when I aimed with the sight, I couldn't keep it steady. My character didn't have enough skill points to aim well, so struggling with the sight probably turns out to be fairly realistic. (And with enough patience I was able to blast that guy away and some of his friends, which led to a "Nice shot" or two from David.)

I actually had more problems with dialogue and interactions, since I knew that THOSE were important. And there are so many chances to interact with people, to be good or to be bad or indifferent, that I would stop at a point when my character needed to say something and I would turn to David and ask him, "Is this a good thing to do?" And pretty much every time he would shrug, tell me that it was my character, and I would feel frustrated. There were several times when I didn't know - do I let the jellyfish-looking character preach in a public place, or do I get rid of him like the guard wants me to? Do I help certain side characters by giving them items or information, or do I stick with the mission at hand and be dismissive of everyone else? In other games I felt it was easy to pick right and wrong; this game mimicked life, where right and wrong are not obvious, where you do what seems like the best idea at the time, and go from there.

Now that I feel better about selecting dialogue options, and have dusted off my Call of Duty and Resident Evil shooting skills, I'm looking forward to the rest of this game. That is, if I can get access to David's computer again. :)

A scientific misunderstanding, perhaps

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/health/02seco.html

I have a problem with this article.

It's mostly that I feel the author of the article, and quite possibly the author of the book, are viewing Ms. Lacks as a victim of something other than cancer, that by the pure virtue of her cancer cells surviving and doing things to advance medicine, something terrible has happened. And that terrible thing was led by the cold-blooded scientists in white lab coats, without a shred of sympathy for the poor man's plight, only looking to create a product that can be sold as a drug and thus make money.

See, as a scientist, that offends me.

As a biologist, I know a thing or two about cells. In fact, my college major could have been classified as having a concentration in cell biology. My thesis was part cell biology. Cells are kindof important. But small numbers of cells are not that important to you as a being.

Think about it. There are trillions of cells in your body. Scratch your skin - there go thousands of them. Do you miss them? No. So why does this matter?

Ms. Lacks died of incredibly invasive and aggressive cervical cancer. Once she's dead, she's got no need for those cells. In fact, I think that she would want them gone - after all, that was the whole purpose of the treatment, right? And in the course of treatment, there are biopsies completed - and now the doctors and researchers have these cells. This is standard practice, and yes, there are consent forms now before patients go on trials where they KNOW that their samples will go to research. Researchers like myself use the samples, do some experiments, learn information, and try to advance scientific knowledge.

OH but wait - there have been medical breakthroughs using these cells! Breakthroughs that thus created millions of dollars. NOW there's a difference - now there's money involved!! So of course the family wants in on the profits - they were created using Ms. Lacks' cells, so she deserves a cut!!

Bad news folks - they were created using Ms. Lacks' cancer cells. Cancer cells have mutated DNA, and since this is cervical cancer we are talking about, probably HPV infection as well. And now we enter the tricky realm of DNA - when it is still mine?

My personal opinion is that DNA has been over-glorified, where people are placing too much importance on a "unique" sequence that is so elegant, when in reality it's a messy, mostly nonsense strand of nucleic acids. There is not that much variance between us and other primates, not to mention us and other humans. The basic form is the same, just a couple of little letter differences that creates the differences that we see in each other. Sometimes - other times that's based on other influences, but I'll talk about that later.

Cancer cells are inherently immortal - that's the whole point, why they thrive, why it's so hard to kill them without killing good cells in your body, why we have to resort to things like chemotherapy and radiation treatments. If it wasn't this cancer that led to the discovery of indefinite cell lines, then another cancer would have. There was nothing exceedingly special about Ms. Lacks' cells - she was just in the right place and the right time with the right type of tumor (although not for her).

So, family of Ms. Lacks - relish in the fact that while your mother died too young, she provided a contribution to science that is ongoing, that future contributions will continue to advance scientific knowledge, and quit thinking that there is a monetary remuneration required.

Oh, hello

Hello there blogosphere. And by using the term "blogosphere" I have just revoked every credential I have ever had and probably made most of you blind or click the little x in the top right of your window (or the red circle thing on the left for the Mac users). And I am truly sorry for that.

If you are still reading because I used the term "blogosphere", the rest of this will disappoint you, and I'm sorry for that, but this is MY blog and I will use it the way I want.

And if you don't care - I like you, keep reading.

I used to have a Livejournal, which was a fairly personal space where I could rant, and occasionally I head back there and feel compelled to update. But now that I'm out of high school and college, I feel that something a little more professional sounding and maybe looking would be best should people try to Google me or something. Something to knock those hotel videos out of the top ten (I'm lying, don't go looking). But should you feel the need to see what I was like several years ago, there you go, Livejournal, the place for emo last decade.

Which brings me to now - I want a place where I can work out various issues that might be affecting me/my area/my state/my country/my solar system, as well as get out a few of my opinions. Granted, I'm open to many things, and I really like to examine my beliefs and opinions, so this won't be a "LISTEN MY WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY AND YOU ARE WRONG!" kind of blog. It will be a "So I've been thinking about it and here's what I have and you are free to think something different."

Also, Livejournal doesn't really feel like a place for politics or other serious stuff. For some reason this does.

That's all I need for an introduction, I believe. And if you are still here, then I hope you stay. :)