I know my roommate is not a scientist or a mathematician. That's ok. I don't expect people to know much more than the basics in math or science. However, some forms of ignorance deserve harsh mockery.
While I mentioned someone named Stephen Wiltshire, who drew a picture of Rome entirely from memory, we talked briefly about autistics. My roommate asked me if people out there still believe that vaccines cause autism, and I told him that I believed so. He complained a bit about people who were dumb enough to believe the theories despite a lack of scientific evidence. I agreed, saying that even if the "vaccines cause autism" theory is true, vaccinations still cause more good than harm, since (my words) "we no longer have to worry about a lot of viruses anymore."
So he asks me, "What is a virus, anyway?" I don't know where to begin, so I ask him what he already knows. He tells me that he has no idea whatsoever, so I explain to him that viruses are tiny scraps of biological components that reproduce using the functions of cells in other organisms. Apparently this is too complicated for him, and he asks, "So...why does the word virus have a negative connotation? I mean, whenever I hear the word 'virus,' the tone of the sentence indicates that a virus is a bad thing."
I explain, "Well, this reproduction in many cases kills cells and interferes with normal cellular functions, and it can cause sickness in people. The cold, flu, herpes, AIDS, mumps, and a bunch of other diseases are caused by viruses."
My roommate, with a wild look of discovery in his eyes, like he's just discovered something really important for the first time ever, looks at me and asks -
12. "So is CANCER caused by a virus?"
I am utterly speechless. The answer is no, roommate. Cancer is not caused by viruses. And yes, I know the role of HPV in cervical cancer, but there is no justification for saying something like that.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
come on, that one wasn't that bad, seeing as how step one was having to explain to him what a virus was, thinking cancer is caused by a virus isn't that big of a surprise
At least his ridiculous ideas are expressed in the form of a question as opposed to some people who spew forth ridiculous ideas as fact.
I just haven't gotten around to critiquing his ridiculous ideas presented as fact. I have several bad ideas in the queue where he makes utterly ridiculous factual claims with no empirical evidence.
wow...as someone who works in the cancer research area, thanks for rectifying this.
To answer/point out the first part of this post, about autism. Some of those in medicine still believe that vaccines "can" cause autism. I've worked with autistic kids for at least 3 years now and done research on it. I think that vaccines do play a role in autism. There are theories for both arguments. What I believe is that the child already has a chemical imbalance that isn't shown (dormant) until triggered by vaccinations(MMR). Part of it is bc some ppl still use the vaccines with mercury in it. Full blown austism though does have a lot to do with genetics, even when the parents aren't diagnosed with it. Each parent may have a form of Asperger's which those genes pass to the child to get autism. But anyway, I can go on and on about this stuff. I think I already wrote too much. Oh well, this is what I'll be going to school for and working with kids like this later!
Annie,
While I agree that not much research has been done on the issue, studies thus far have generally shown no causal link between vaccines and autism. Vaccines most definitely save lives, and you would have to ask yourself whether the risk of death by a preventable viral disease (pretty low) with the risk of vaccine-caused autism (really low).
One reason why I am skeptical of any such link is because the proponents are usually parents that refuse to believe that their genes could be responsible. Another thing is that some blame vaccines because symptoms tend to show up at around the same age that children start to get vaccinated. I actually don't trust cutting edge medical science all that much (something about nearly a third of medical studies end up having their conclusions refuted by further studies) but I'm siding with the majority of doctors on this one.
Post a Comment