Saturday, October 20, 2007

The Human Paloma Picasso Virus

I'm always disturbed when pharmaceutical companies trying to make big money use scare tactics to get us to buy expensive drugs that they've just invented whether or not they work or whether or not they have any basis in reality. For instance, Aricept, the drug that may or may not slow down the progress of Alzheimer's. That is what they claim, It MAY slow it down, but how would you know? If you are taking the drug and surviving the diarrhea, the dizzy spells and the Alzheimer-like side effects, how could you tell you were progressing slower than you would have progressed to begin with?

It's the same thing with this Human Paloma Virus, or is it Pamplona where they run the bulls? Either way, it seems completely ridiculous to me that they can say a VIRUS may or may not create Cervical Cancer in you, at some vague future point in your life, so you need to get inoculated against possibly getting it 20 years down the road. Maybe. Perhaps.
First of all, who ever heard of a VIRUS causing Cancer? If that were true, wouldn't it be the biggest breakthrough for all mankind, EVER? You could immediately use the same shot to prevent breast cancer, lung cancer, etc;

Secondly, don't viruses MUTATE? Isn't that what they DO? Don't they practically morph the moment they go from one host to the other, and isn't that why the annual flu shots are such a joke (and an expense?) They maybe protect you from one form of flu, but by the time that flu gets around to your neighborhood it's no longer recognizable as the original strain?

People who swear by those flu shots cannot convince me that they wouldn't have avoided the flu that season anyway. You cannot prove that those shots kept you from getting the flu! They even tell you in the small print "You may get some form of flu this winter, just not the flu that this shot will protect you from."

In the case of the Human Paloma Picasso Virus, how can they tell that 15-20 years from now that particular virus will have stayed exactly the same so that the shots you got are still valid?

My cousin Tivo Jane Coggins has cervical cancer. It's a scary thing, but as she says, "I haven't used that plumbing in years so yank it out!" She is really a kicker, to say the least. Her husband Vernelle Coggins collects antique cars. He's got bunches of them up on cinder blocks in the front and back yard, gathering rust. It was perhaps this love of all things vehicular which led them to name their two children Rotary Motor Coggins, Jr. and Chassis Axle Coggins.

Gramma Frosty Baker has decided that Chassis Axle needs to get her some of them Human Paloma Picasso Shots, because she firmly believes that since her daughter Tivo has cervical cancer, her granddaughter Chassis Axle is soon to follow, 20 years from now.

If she thinks cervical cancer is hereditary, then why bother with the anti-viral shots? It makes no sense to me. But she's getting on the bandwagon and so are millions of others, and all I can think is that 20 years from now all those girls will be sterile.

Or have mutant multi-colored babies that have their eyeballs on the sides of their faces like this:

1 comment:

Beth said...

Hello Miss, the human papilloma virus is a yucky thing many learn about in public school 8th grade's a polite word for (you know which kind). That's why it can cause cervical cancer. Eeep. However, that leaves a whole other question as to which 13 year olds need the innoculation.

P.S. I'm still greatly enjoying all your meanderings!