ViziLite Plus

I am extremely tired of advertisements in the dentist's office for cosmetic procedures such as whitening and veneers. I thought that an important tenet of the medical profession (okay, dentist are barely part of the medical profession, especially ambulance-chasing dentists) was to do no harm, and making me think there is something wrong with me because my teeth don't have a certain appearance, IMO, is doing harm. It's one thing if they're so crooked I can't chew properly and I'm having indigestion, or they're jammed together and I can't clean them properly and have periodontal disease as a result. It's another to tell me that my smile might not be white enough.

Now that said, my dentist is not an ambulance-chaser (although there's one guy in the office who is the "TMJ expert" and I won't let him near me). My dentist had, in fact, just returned from Tanzania yesterday where he was doing dentistry as a mission. He's generally a decent guy.

So today I was faced with a choice that I think is on the ethical borderline: whether to be screened for oral cancer using something called ViziLite Plus. This is a rinse that you use, and then they peer into your mouth with ViziLite, a "specially designed light technology." This technology can reveal cancer before it is visible in ordinary light.

I was first shown an "informational video," which was actually a brief Fox "news" story about oral cancer and ViziLite, focusing on a 27-year-old woman who died from oral cancer. The "doctor" narrating the story offered some facts which are also available in the ViziLite brochure:
* 25% of oral cancers occur in people who don't smoke and have no other lifestyle risk factors.
* The American Cancer Society estimates a 5.5% increase in new cases of oral cancer and a 1.5% increase in deaths associated with oral cancer.
* When oral cancer is found early, treatment is 90% successful, otherwise the outlook is grim (I can't remember how grim she said in the "news" story, that info is not in the brochure, 50% five year survival rate?).
* Someone dies from oral cancer every hour.

Finally, the "doctor" shared that the test was some percent effective (90%? 98%?), which meant that you might have to undergo further tests because of a false positive, but "hey, better safe than sorry, right?" She also noted that most insurance won't cover the cost of the test (which is $45 at my dentist's office).

My hygienist came in and asked me if I wanted the screening. My hygienist and her husband have both had cancer, so I didn't want to have a discussion about the screening or cancer in general. I simply asked a question that wasn't answered on the video, "What percentage of the population actually gets oral cancer?"

She had no idea. "But I do know that 25% of the people who get oral cancer have no lifestyle risk factors." (In fact, in the pamphlet I was given, you can fall into three categories: increased risk, high risk, and highest risk. My question is, increased from what? Is there just "risk"?)

I told her that a quarter of an infinitesimal chance was pretty small, and I'd have to research the chances of contracting oral cancer before I made a decision. I've had enough screenings that are paid for by my insurance, such as mammography and colonoscopy, to know that a false positive is no picnic. Three times in my life I've waited for a result that might be cancer, and it never has been. In all three cases, I had actual symptoms. I appreciate that these screenings exist, but in some cases I question the value of "better safe than sorry." I don't like waste, I don't like false positives (which lead to more tests), and the dentist has eroded my trust with his ads for veneers and whitening and his shady cancer-screening scare tactic FOX "news" clip. In fact, many doctors have eroded my trust with their "I have a hammer, you look like a nail" philosophy. Doctors are what they are -- we must be realistic about this fact. You are a matching game to them -- match the symptoms to the prescription or procedure, not a complicated human puzzle to be solved and treated holistically.

So I decided to try to find the chances of contracting oral cancer on my own.

First of all, infection with HPV16/18 is a risk factor, which is why, they're speculating, more young people are contracting oral cancer. Is infection with HPV considered a lifestyle risk factor? The brochure is not clear. My gynecologist just tested me for HPV infection and I've never been exposed. Does that mean that I'm less likely to be one of the 25% of oral cancer sufferers who doesn't have lifestyle risk factors? It's not clear, but I'm definitely not a smoker, drinker, or tobacco chewer.

The oral cancer foundation* says that more than 34,000 Americans will be diagnosed with oral or pharyngeal cancer this year. (Does this test screen for pharyngeal cancer? The pamphlet says the dentist examines your mouth, not your pharynx.)

According to the National Cancer Institute, there will be 22,900 new cases diagnosed this year and 5,390 deaths. That's not one an hour, so I'm not sure what the discrepancy is. Perhaps one includes the pharyngeal and the other doesn't, but since the screening doesn't seem to screen for pharyngeal cancer, it doesn't seem right to use those statistics in the pamphlet. Clicking on a statistics link, the National Cancer Institute estimates 35,310 people will contract oral or pharyngeal cancer, with 7,590 deaths. (Still not one per hour. I can't shake the image of the ViziLite Plus people conking a few oral cancer victims on the head to round out the numbers to a nice neat one per hour.)

The statistics page also offers this: 0.74% of men will develop cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx between their 50th and 70th birthdays compared to 0.25% for women.

Now a quarter of that .25% will have no lifestyle risk factors, so that's .0625% of women contracting this cancer between the ages of 50 and 70. (I assume the risk is lower for women younger than that.) And what about women who have no lifestyle risk factors and don't have HPV? Not clear.

.58% of all women will develop ovarian cancer during that same age range,
5.62% of all women will develop breast cancer,
1.58% colorectal,
2.33% lung,
just for some similar statistics on other cancers. I read on one of these sites that it's the sixth-most prevalent cancer, but again, that includes the 75% of diagnosed sufferers with lifestyle risk factors.

So is it worth the screening? That depends on how much $45 means to you (or whatever your dentist charges) vs. how you will react to a positive result (false or otherwise) and what kind of further tests will be done (I'm guessing biospy). If the false positive rate is 2% (I have no idea what it is), I'm more likely to have a false positive than a true positive, and you most likely are getting a piece of your mouth sliced off for nothing.

I don't object to the screening, just the general lack of information and the scare tactics used to push it.

*Oh, say, guess who one of the corporate partners/sponsors for this ".org" is? Zila Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the makers of ViziLite Plus.

IT'S NOT TOO LATE!!

I can't wait until I stop getting mail, email and snail, either attempting to make me panic that a sale is going to be over ("Only two more days of..."), or telling me that I still have time. This morning Amazon informed me that all hope of giving them more money is not lost, I can still buy gift subscriptions to magazines. James got a coupon yesterday for $20 off a $100 purchase at Borders. Thank you, we've spent quite enough already.

I was thinking yesterday that I couldn't wait for Christmas to be over for the mailings to stop, when I got a card from Crate & Barrel... "After-Holiday sale starts December 26!"

Aigh.

Angel of Death, At Your Cervix

My gears are really grinding over this one.

Bad News: Deaths from cervical cancer could jump fourfold by 2050 to a million per year.

Good news: Vaccines for Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) are on the verge of FDA approval, which would prevent many of those cases of cervical cancer.

Bad news: There are religious groups in the USA preparing to oppose vaccination.

No, you didn't just go insane; you read that right.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.

Because the vaccine is most effective before a girl becomes sexually active, it needs to be administered before puberty. Say, age 11 to 13. These folks have gotten it into their heads that vaccinating girls will give them a license to have sex.

They oppose premarital sex. And, apparently they consider cervical cancer to be their freaking ally in that fight! This makes me extremely angry. A disease is not your friend. It doesn't care who it kills.

It's no different than opposing the capture of a serial killer because you think the threat of this guy will help you sell a few Bibles.

Luckily, the vast majority of parents favor vaccination. I imagine that I don't know anyone who would agree with these people. I'm not sure I'd want to meet anyone who'd side with a disease like this.

Of course, the lunatics referenced above are part of the Family Research Council. Affiliated with James Dobson. And Focus on the Family.

Whenever you think of these people, whenever you hear about the latest drivel these people are spewing, please remember this story and the fate they would like to befall those who disagree with them.

And think about how blatantly misogynistic their views are. The evidence shows that the abstinence programs they promote don't work. It is women who suffer from their twisted efforts, and their teaming-up with the woman-killing cervical cancer is perhaps the most dramatic example.

Any base level of respect I had before for people in these groups is now long gone. This is beneath contempt.

Hat tip to Hunter at Random for making my blood boil.

People of Georgia vote overwhelmingly to keep their heads up their asses

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue filed an appeal Wednesday asking the Georgia Supreme Court to reinstate an amendment to the state constitution that bans same-sex couples from marrying or receiving the 'benefits' of marriage."

The amendment was thrown out as unconstitutional because it violates a rule of the Georgia Constitution which prohibits multiple questions being presented to voters in a single proposition.

In 2004, 76% of Georgia voters approved the amendment. It is not known what percentage of these voters were illiterate monkeys wearing the Martha Stewart "whitest white" collection over their heads, what percentage saw "Brokeback Mountain" and secretly enjoyed the cowboy sex scene, and what percentage were simply socially pathetic and ethically bereft.

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue (R) will do everything in his power to get the question onto the Georgia ballot this fall, when he is coincidentally up for re-election.

"This question will bring the right people to the polls," fumed Perdue.*

Unreliable sources speculate that Governor Perdue's parents were a man and a woman joined in the union of marriage.**


*not really
**and were siblings

The Edgakashun Gub'nah

I am happy to see the legislators in Florida exhibiting a little common sense. The Thing of Ugly is Jeb Bush, whose "signature issue" is education. The question is -- which side?

"Two of Mr. Bush's education priorities were voted down by the Legislature last week at the end of this year's session. The constitutional amendments would have reversed a State Supreme Court decision invalidating school vouchers and loosened strict limits on class size." (From the New York Times.)

The people of Florida (what do they know?) approved a ballot initiative to cut classes to 18 students in K-3, 22 students in 4-8, and 25 in 9-12. Mr. Bush apparently made eradicating this initiative a central issue to his re-election platform, and has repeatedly tried to eliminate it since. Rather than working to improve the public school system, Bush would like vouchers for private schools. Vouchers would divert tax money from the public school system so parents could send their children to private school.

Again, from the New York Times article: "State Senator Dennis L. Jones, Republican of Seminole, was one of the Republicans who broke with his party on the issue. During the debate, he pointed out that voters have opposed vouchers in referendums in Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon and Washington State. 'Quit using public money to send our kids to private schools,' Mr. Jones said, as reported by The Tallahassee Democrat."

Interestingly, a recent study showed that education in private and charter schools is no better, and in some cases worse, than public school education. If this seems counter-intuitive because of all the bright bulbs you've seen come out of private schools, remember that private schools generally have better raw material to work with. Parents who value education enough to find a way to send their kids to private school are generally more intelligent themselves, and are going to encourage good study habits in the home. Children who get in on scholarship are, well, scholars. And while they all seem to have enrolled a percentage of rich dumbasses (hey, somebody's father has to pay for the new gym), many people who are wealthy enough to easily send their kids to private school got to be wealthy because of their brains, which they passed on to their kids.

But I don't want to lose focus on our Thing Of Ugly here. Jeb Bush clearly wants to hamstring the public school system in Florida, and he's lost the support of members of his own party. A grade of F for you, Gub'nah Bush.

Like Taking Candy

It is plainly rotten to cheat, steal and con people. But it takes a special kind of ugly rottenness to con your friends, family and a bunch of schoolkids.

Ex-teacher pleads guilty in cancer fraud case

A former special education teacher pleaded guilty today to charges she bilked students, friends and her community out of thousands of dollars by falsely claiming she was being treated for a rare form of cancer, Bristol County District Attorney Paul F. Walsh Jr. said.

She told her students she was sick. She told everybody she needed money to buy food. She took their money and went to the Carribean where she used it to chug shots while she danced on a bar.

Prosecutors recommended 2.5 years of jail. That sounds fair to me. While you can't correct the fact that she's duped everyone, there is real value in a substantial punishment.

The kids had the wool pulled over their eyes. By accounts I have heard, she was a good special ed teacher. So, what has she taught these kids now? To be cynical whenever they meet up with someone in need? Certainly, it is a difficult world filled with people who deceive, and it is an important lesson to learn that not everyone is honest. But these kids have learned an incomplete lesson.

It's time for this teacher to step up to take her punishment and teach these kids that society cares when your actions are a thing of ugly. Then their parents can tell them that even though they were betrayed, consequences of lies do catch up with liars.

(And a mini-Thing of Ugly to the people who hav expressed that she should get a very light punishment because she didn't really hurt anyone. Bilking people out of 35K which might have helped actual people in need and lying to kids certainly is hurting others.)

Asking For Some Respect

WRKO radio host defends talk of victim ‘asking for trouble’

WRKO midmorning host DePetro late yesterday denied blaming Imette St. Guillen for her demise, but said being out alone at 4 a.m. and drinking with strangers was “asking for trouble” and that women must use “common sense.”

Look.

We all know that the world can be a dangerous place. We all know that some places and some times are more dangerous. That's a reality.

Words matter. Your thoughts show through your words. People hear your words and it changes their thoughts. So, what is it that "asking for trouble" conveys? (It should go without saying that she was not asking to be beaten, raped and killed. She wasn't asking for that trouble.)

It conveys a lack of respect. Maybe you think that this person is just talking about the realities of a dangerous locale, or a dangerous time to be out. I disagree.

A war zone is a dangerous place. It's safer to be an accountant in New Jersey than it is to join our military and end up in Iraq. If a soldier dies in combat in Iraq, do we hear people saying "well, by joining the military he was asking for trouble?" Of course we don't, even though we all recognize the reality that certain choices he made may have increased his risk. We don't say that because we respect him.

When a man moves to a city after living in some rural area with a much lower violent crime rate, do we say that he was "asking for trouble" when he is mugged? Of course we don't. Why not? Because of basic respect for the man.

You know what? Women get beaten, raped and killed at all hours of the day. In all sorts of places. And something that contributes to the lack of respect of the women who are victimized by rapists and murderers is the way society treats female victims. Part of that poor treatment is the "asking for trouble" mentality. It exhibits a lack of respect. Worse, it perpetuates a lack of respect.

Certain people are allowed to make decisions and enjoy an expectation of safety. And even when they end up on the wrong side of a situation, they can at least enjoy an expectation of our sympathy and respect. But, apparently, women still exist at a lower level of respect because the first thing that occurs to some people is how much responsibility the victim had.

Don't excuse this criminal behavior in even the slightest way. Don't fool yourself by telling yourself that you're just being realistic. This isn't the same as telling your children to be careful, or pointing out the relative safety of certain situation. Nobody is asking for it. Don't perpetuate a myth that leads to the devaluation of women.

Blaming the victim is a thing of ugly. Show some compassion and some respect. And think about why you hear this attitude about some people, but not others.