So you go to the doctor to get a pap smear and a couple days later you get that fear-inducing call: you have abnormal cells on your cervix. You don't know what that means but you are afraid it has something to do with cervical cancer.
The bad news: it probably is related to cervical cancer. The good news: if you are under 35, you probably don't have cervical cancer.
The Reality of HPV
So here's what they never told you in sex ed: the vast majority of sexually active adults (meaning: pretty much everybody) get human papillomavirus (HPV) sometime in their lifetime and continue to carry it for the rest of their lives. Unless you are a virgin that has only been with another virgin, chances are high that you have at least one of its strains (there are about 100 of them). Why? Because you cannot protect against HPV, not even with condomns.
On top of that, most men carry it and most men don't know they have it because it doesn't produce symptoms in men. In fact, most men don't find out they have it until their significant other gets an abnormal pap smear. So if this is a first for you, you might want to inform your man that sometime in his life he joined the ranks of the HPV-infected. Tell him I said "welcome to the club". And also tell him to calm the eff down because it isn't that serious. Most people have it.
Now here is the punchline: HPV is the cause of cervical cancer.
Does HPV have any symptoms?
Aside from causing cervical cancer? It doesn't seem like it. Some strains cause internal genital warts. So HPV's only real burden is the threat of cervical cancer.
What do I do?
Most of the time HPV clears on its own via your body's immune system. But don't take any chances: play it safe. Go to the specialist (OB & GYN) that your doctor recommends and get the HPV infected cells removed. Doing so is what has drastically dropped and basically eliminated the occurence of cervical cancer in the modern world. Get the precancerous cells removed and avoid cancer later.
How do you know I don't have cancer?
I don't. But if you are under 35, it is unlikely. Why? Because cervical cancer is very slow moving. It takes about 8-12 years to develop from those "abnormal" cells that your doctor found into full-blown cancer. This is plenty slow enough for OB & GYN's to effortlessly erradicate with periodic office procedures.
The Stages
Precancerous HPV starts by causing squamous cells. These are the "abnormal cells" your doctor saw in the microscope that alarmed him/her. They start low grade and then grow to high grade on various spots of the cervix. After 8-12 years of growth and incubation, they turn into cervical cancer and spread to the uterus and then other parts of the body just like any other cancer. And, like any other cancer, they become something lethal.
HPV Vaccine
If you are between 14-25, I highly recommend getting the vaccine for HPV (if you can afford it). Or (what is more likely), if you had this experience and would rather save your daughter from it, get her the vaccine if you can afford it. The vaccine has been shown to protect against the most cancerous strains of HPV. That way, you won't have to get the somewhat painful and inconvenient periodic office procedures to remove the HPV cells when the HPV gets out of control.
You keep saying "periodic". What do you mean? Is it going to come back?
From what I know about HPV, it sounds like it. Meaning, you will probably get another "abnormal cell" call from your doctor in a few years telling you that the HPV has resurfaced again and that you need to go to the OB & GYN and get it removed again. Some women get fed up with this and just get a full hysterectomy to eliminate the HPV once and for all.
What office procedures?
The one I've seen is called LEEP. The doctor uses an electric instrument to slice off the tip of the cervix. It only takes a minute. It is fairly painful for at least a week (especially if you become strongly sexually aroused while playing around with your partner..). I mean hell, he cut off your cervix. But it will grow back. And it typically eliminates the threat of cancer.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Brown Recluse Spiders (BRS)
My girlfriend, daughter, and I had to deal with an infestation of brown recluse spiders about a couple months ago. There was a sparsity of information available about them so I thought I would share what I learned through research.
How do I know if I have brown recluse?
Here is the one easily recognizable unique feature of brown recluse spiders: they have three pairs of eyes. They also typically have a light brown body. You'll find more information about what they look like here (the source of the images).
Bites
The Wound
First: the bites aren't deadly. They are just extremely (temporarily) damaging and painful. What will happen: you will experience necrosis, meaning anywhere from a centimeter to a few inches of your skin will just die over the course of a couple weeks. It will produce a big dip in your flesh and, again, the process is very painful. However, people only die from it when the open necrosis wound gets infected. If you keep the wound clean with disinfectant, you should probably be okay.
Treatment
Many sites I've been to say something to the effect of "if you get bit by brown recluse, seek medical attention immediately". This is a very common sense reaction and in most medical situations would be helpful. However, you may be surprised to learn that there is absolutely no effective treatment for brown recluse bites. If you get bit, you will experience necrosis. There is no getting around it. The only thing doctors can help you do is treat the wound for infections. But your skin is going to die.
On the bright side, you will also heal from necrosis if you tough it out and let the skin heal naturally. About the worse thing you could do is let a physician debride the infected skin. People who do this get permanent dips in their skin. Without that (temporarily) infected skin, you won't be able to grow back healthy skin later. So don't cut it off.
But if you get bit or aren't sure if you got bit, my advice is: don't sweat it. You probably don't need to go to the hospital or even a doctor (and if you did, there is nothing they can do anyways). You should just keep an eye on the wound and see how it develops. If it becomes throbbing, sharply painful, and pusy, there is a chance it is a brown recluse spider (BRS) bite.
Prevention
Shake out your clothes before putting them on. BRS only bite defensively and this is how the vast majority of bites occur. A BRS (or any spider) is never going to like chase after you trying to bite you. The only time they are going to bite is when they feel like their death (by squishing) is imminent. This happens most often in bed sheets, clothes, and towels.
Extermination
So fine, the bite isn't that bad for an adult. But what if you have children? And what if you just don't like the idea of having a huge open-wound hole in your skin for a few months or otherwise suffering the pain of a bite? That is understandable. My girlfriend and I were worried about our daughter and we really didn't want to get bit ourselves. So how do you get rid of these damn things?
Pesticides Don't Work
First, let me tell you up front that an exterminator is a waste of your money. Like doctors, when it comes to BRS, there is nothing they can do. In fact, it has been theorized that pesticides will actually increase the amount of BRS you have. This is because, unlike other spiders, BRS aren't picky: they will eat dead bugs. And they (and other spiders) are immune to pesticide because their long legs keep them up off the ground away from the chemicals. So if you use pesticides, you are at best doing nothing and at worst giving the BRS a free lunch.
Fancy Gadgets Don't Work
We tried sonic devices. I had one of the BRS we captured in a jar and held it next to the device. It did not respond. I also killed two BRS within inches of sonic devices. I wrote a full review about how ineffective these devices are against BRS here.
Manual Extermination
What does work? Good old-fashioned squishing them with a paper towel. After discovering we had an infestation, I went on a hunt every night to kill them. They were mainly right out in the open but I checked every room. Some nights I killed as many as 3. Some nights I didn't find any. But after a few weeks of this, their numbers rapidly dissipated.
Spider Traps
What is a spider trap? Basically a piece of duct tape turned upside-down. The spider steps on it, can't get off, and starves to death (or you come by and expedite the process by squishing it since they can survive for weeks without eating). Some upside down duct tape caught a couple spiders for us. Place these near dark, structurally crowded places like utility closets.
Encourage the Presence of Other Spiders
You may be surprised to learn that other spiders actually kill BRS. That's right: spiders eat each other. How do you know which ones to encourage? Well for one, BRS don't have webs; they are walking hunters. So if you see any webs in your basement and don't mind the aesthetic blemish, don't tear them down. Those spiders will eat your BRS. Basically almost any spider but BRS in the United States (other than black widows) are not a serious threat to anyone in your house and they will eat pesky bugs as well as the painful, semi-dangerous brown recluse.
How do I know if I have brown recluse?
Here is the one easily recognizable unique feature of brown recluse spiders: they have three pairs of eyes. They also typically have a light brown body. You'll find more information about what they look like here (the source of the images).
Bites
The Wound
First: the bites aren't deadly. They are just extremely (temporarily) damaging and painful. What will happen: you will experience necrosis, meaning anywhere from a centimeter to a few inches of your skin will just die over the course of a couple weeks. It will produce a big dip in your flesh and, again, the process is very painful. However, people only die from it when the open necrosis wound gets infected. If you keep the wound clean with disinfectant, you should probably be okay.
Treatment
Many sites I've been to say something to the effect of "if you get bit by brown recluse, seek medical attention immediately". This is a very common sense reaction and in most medical situations would be helpful. However, you may be surprised to learn that there is absolutely no effective treatment for brown recluse bites. If you get bit, you will experience necrosis. There is no getting around it. The only thing doctors can help you do is treat the wound for infections. But your skin is going to die.
On the bright side, you will also heal from necrosis if you tough it out and let the skin heal naturally. About the worse thing you could do is let a physician debride the infected skin. People who do this get permanent dips in their skin. Without that (temporarily) infected skin, you won't be able to grow back healthy skin later. So don't cut it off.
But if you get bit or aren't sure if you got bit, my advice is: don't sweat it. You probably don't need to go to the hospital or even a doctor (and if you did, there is nothing they can do anyways). You should just keep an eye on the wound and see how it develops. If it becomes throbbing, sharply painful, and pusy, there is a chance it is a brown recluse spider (BRS) bite.
Prevention
Shake out your clothes before putting them on. BRS only bite defensively and this is how the vast majority of bites occur. A BRS (or any spider) is never going to like chase after you trying to bite you. The only time they are going to bite is when they feel like their death (by squishing) is imminent. This happens most often in bed sheets, clothes, and towels.
Extermination
So fine, the bite isn't that bad for an adult. But what if you have children? And what if you just don't like the idea of having a huge open-wound hole in your skin for a few months or otherwise suffering the pain of a bite? That is understandable. My girlfriend and I were worried about our daughter and we really didn't want to get bit ourselves. So how do you get rid of these damn things?
Pesticides Don't Work
First, let me tell you up front that an exterminator is a waste of your money. Like doctors, when it comes to BRS, there is nothing they can do. In fact, it has been theorized that pesticides will actually increase the amount of BRS you have. This is because, unlike other spiders, BRS aren't picky: they will eat dead bugs. And they (and other spiders) are immune to pesticide because their long legs keep them up off the ground away from the chemicals. So if you use pesticides, you are at best doing nothing and at worst giving the BRS a free lunch.
Fancy Gadgets Don't Work
We tried sonic devices. I had one of the BRS we captured in a jar and held it next to the device. It did not respond. I also killed two BRS within inches of sonic devices. I wrote a full review about how ineffective these devices are against BRS here.
Manual Extermination
What does work? Good old-fashioned squishing them with a paper towel. After discovering we had an infestation, I went on a hunt every night to kill them. They were mainly right out in the open but I checked every room. Some nights I killed as many as 3. Some nights I didn't find any. But after a few weeks of this, their numbers rapidly dissipated.
Spider Traps
What is a spider trap? Basically a piece of duct tape turned upside-down. The spider steps on it, can't get off, and starves to death (or you come by and expedite the process by squishing it since they can survive for weeks without eating). Some upside down duct tape caught a couple spiders for us. Place these near dark, structurally crowded places like utility closets.
Encourage the Presence of Other Spiders
You may be surprised to learn that other spiders actually kill BRS. That's right: spiders eat each other. How do you know which ones to encourage? Well for one, BRS don't have webs; they are walking hunters. So if you see any webs in your basement and don't mind the aesthetic blemish, don't tear them down. Those spiders will eat your BRS. Basically almost any spider but BRS in the United States (other than black widows) are not a serious threat to anyone in your house and they will eat pesky bugs as well as the painful, semi-dangerous brown recluse.
Secular Evangelism
I recently joined a Christian forum called Worthyboards. Using this forum, I attempted to share the (unwanted) truth I had learned about the Gospels and the Bible in general. My screen name was Emissary because I hoped to bridge the gap between Christians and atheists.
The following are excerpts from a dialogue I had with the only member that was willing to speak with me at length. The rest (and even the person quoted here) said that I was a servant of my "father the devil" and responded to literary citations which I used to support the claims below with "get thee behind me Satan".
The final response from my correspondent was that everything I'd said was just the opinion of atheists with no basis in factual evidence (if you want such evidence, please reference the Synoptic Gospels and The Gospel of John on Wikipedia). I was banned from the website by a moderator before I could respond.
Without further ado, I present an atheist's Evangelism:
No, I say various independent authors came to the same conclusions based on independent sources. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all used the same source, Q, which we believe is a set of quotations from Jesus. On top of this, Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source.
In fact, it appears that they were a little taken aback at how angry Mark portrayed Jesus so they made Jesus sound more compassionate in their versions. John on the other hand did not use the same sources as the other three and his gospel is, accordingly, very different. All of the miracles he cites are completely different.
So in summary, Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke were based heavily on Mark, and John was written independently, which resulted in a characteristically different story.
Top this off with the fact that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus died. Early Christians (who had based the majority of their faith on the writings of Paul) wanted a story of what Jesus was like so the Gospel writers delivered. They combed through quotes of Jesus (Q) and devised a story. Now can you imagine anyone in the modern era trying to write a biography about someone based only on quotes from them?
And yes, the Gospels were written after the letters of Paul. It should be no surprise that they conform to his views. Do you see how the New Testament and indeed the entire Bible is interrelated with new books conforming to the old because they were based on them?
Should we be amazed that the books in a trilogy like the Lord of the Rings conform to each other? Should we be amazed that the Return of the King fulfills the prophecies referenced in the Fellowship of the Ring? The point is, prophecies are fulfilled because writers read the prophecies and conform their writing to the prophecies.
In any case, four writers using many of the same literary resources (and even copying each other) is really quite different than scholars of drastically different fields of study (genetics, philosophy, cosmology, and religious studies) coming to the same conclusion that there really does not appear to be a supernatural being ruling our universe.
Unless you have something specific in the Bible that you would like me to read, I really feel that it would be a waste of my time to read it [further than I extensively have].
This is rather like me saying "if you want to give Richard Dawkins a fair shake, you should really read all of his books cover to cover". Rather, I quoted a very specific passage in one book [a study documented in The God Delusion revealing Christians and atheists to make identical moral judgments] that Dawkins wrote and I can give you the page number so you can quickly read it if you like.
Further, I am telling you time and again to read the very specific story in the first chapter of Bart Erhman's book [Misquoting Jesus]. I'm not asking you to read the whole book. Just to look at the short story of his personal experience [of transforming from devout Evangelical Christian to secular Bible scholar].
Indeed it doesn't. And there is a miscommunication here: I was not using the Hell argument [found on my dA in the deviation Oops I Created Hell] to disprove God. I was using it to show that you must choose between a loving God and Hell because they are directly contradictory. You are obviously choosing Hell so you don't believe in a loving God.
You believe God is a sadist, the Demiurge I mentioned when I first introduced the argument. The Demiurge is the God that gnostics believe in. They think that there is a God but that He is evil.
Thus, you believe that God is real and that he is a sadistic creator that creates people knowing full well that they will spend the majority of their existence in Hell. Instead of sparing them the torment by not creating them (or by not creating Hell!), he creates them anyway.
Personally, I would never stand for such a sadistic God and would side with the gnostics against Him. But if you would like to pledge your loyalty to a tyrant, be my guest. As for myself, I will forever stand for what is righteous and good and would gladly burn in Hell with the righteous before lounging in heaven with the fearful and subjugated.
I believe in justice and any God who would create a Hell and a devil and blame his own creations for being the way he designed them is not just.
There is a lot of purpose in persuading people. But let me give the one that mirrors your own: since I have become an atheist my life has become vibrantly more meaningful and rich. I want to save people from the dull lives they live in the pews. I want save them from a wasted life (which I believe is the only life they have).
The forums provide a testing ground for me to understand what Christians think and why they think it. This helps me to become a more effective witness.
To truth and intellectual freedom. The freedom to question anything and to grow beyond the cage that theistic belief puts you in. When I was a Christian, every thought I had, every observation I made, was filtered through a maze of doctrine that had to be trusted without evidence.
Now I think quicker because I simply judge things for how they appear to be. There is no need for me to filter what I see and think anymore. I grow quicker. I'm able to provide for my family faster. I am able to devote time to exploring the true mysteries of life. I no longer have to pretend that the words of the Bible hold some kind of untapped wisdom.
I am also a witness to a unity that rises above beliefs without evidence. A Christian can do nothing to quell the difference between himself and a Muslim. They both hold their beliefs without evidence so nothing can be done.
An atheist, however, can resolve the situation by convincing both to base their beliefs on evidence. Since we all have have access to the same evidence we will come to many of the same conclusions. There will be more agreement and more unity. This is a path to world peace.
There are more. So in short, a witness to more wonders than anyone can imagine. A witness to the freedom to think and explore.
Change
I will tell you that if you ever decide to look at the evidence and change your views, you would be an asset to the secular community because you have experienced life as a devout Christian and you know the english Bible well.
It's not like when you decide that Christianity is too small for you, a big "Game Over" screen pops up or that you lose all of the essential traits that make you You. On the contrary, these positive traits are not only sustained but amplified as we are free from the doctrinal chains that kept us from growing. I was a kind person before I became an atheist and I am kind person now. I was a knowledgeable person before I became an atheist and I am ten-fold more knowledgeable now. My ability to absorb information has sky-rocketed. And I assure you, yours will too.
You care about hope now and you will care about hope then. You care about truth now and you will care about truth then. Love still exists. Fellowship still exists. Purpose still exists. Even faith, in a more bridled, stable, and realistic form, still exists.
For most of us, changing our views was the beginning of the most meaningful pursuits of our lives. It was the point when we saw the magnificent larger world that eclipses the tiny worlds we had built for ourselves within Christianity.
In any case, I hope you the best and I assure you I would never wish upon you the curses you have pronounced for me. Someday you will probably look back at what you've said to me and feel foolish for saying it. It's okay. We all have ended up saying things that in the end we did not really mean. I understand. There was a time when I had similar concerns about other people's damnation and said some pretty ridiculous things as I was defending my religious views. It is all a part of growing.
In peace,
Emissary
(This was originally posted on deviantart)
The following are excerpts from a dialogue I had with the only member that was willing to speak with me at length. The rest (and even the person quoted here) said that I was a servant of my "father the devil" and responded to literary citations which I used to support the claims below with "get thee behind me Satan".
The final response from my correspondent was that everything I'd said was just the opinion of atheists with no basis in factual evidence (if you want such evidence, please reference the Synoptic Gospels and The Gospel of John on Wikipedia). I was banned from the website by a moderator before I could respond.
Without further ado, I present an atheist's Evangelism:
You say that various [secular] authors came to the same conclusions? That sounds a lot like the 4 gospels. They are 4 separately written accounts of the life of Jesus, with the same conclusions.
No, I say various independent authors came to the same conclusions based on independent sources. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all used the same source, Q, which we believe is a set of quotations from Jesus. On top of this, Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source.
In fact, it appears that they were a little taken aback at how angry Mark portrayed Jesus so they made Jesus sound more compassionate in their versions. John on the other hand did not use the same sources as the other three and his gospel is, accordingly, very different. All of the miracles he cites are completely different.
So in summary, Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke were based heavily on Mark, and John was written independently, which resulted in a characteristically different story.
Top this off with the fact that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus died. Early Christians (who had based the majority of their faith on the writings of Paul) wanted a story of what Jesus was like so the Gospel writers delivered. They combed through quotes of Jesus (Q) and devised a story. Now can you imagine anyone in the modern era trying to write a biography about someone based only on quotes from them?
And yes, the Gospels were written after the letters of Paul. It should be no surprise that they conform to his views. Do you see how the New Testament and indeed the entire Bible is interrelated with new books conforming to the old because they were based on them?
Should we be amazed that the books in a trilogy like the Lord of the Rings conform to each other? Should we be amazed that the Return of the King fulfills the prophecies referenced in the Fellowship of the Ring? The point is, prophecies are fulfilled because writers read the prophecies and conform their writing to the prophecies.
In any case, four writers using many of the same literary resources (and even copying each other) is really quite different than scholars of drastically different fields of study (genetics, philosophy, cosmology, and religious studies) coming to the same conclusion that there really does not appear to be a supernatural being ruling our universe.
To give it a fair shake, you should at least read [the Bible] cover to cover once.
Unless you have something specific in the Bible that you would like me to read, I really feel that it would be a waste of my time to read it [further than I extensively have].
This is rather like me saying "if you want to give Richard Dawkins a fair shake, you should really read all of his books cover to cover". Rather, I quoted a very specific passage in one book [a study documented in The God Delusion revealing Christians and atheists to make identical moral judgments] that Dawkins wrote and I can give you the page number so you can quickly read it if you like.
Further, I am telling you time and again to read the very specific story in the first chapter of Bart Erhman's book [Misquoting Jesus]. I'm not asking you to read the whole book. Just to look at the short story of his personal experience [of transforming from devout Evangelical Christian to secular Bible scholar].
As to the character of God, as I said earlier, God has many characteristics. Just because you feel the way he does things are unfair, doesn't mean he isn't real.
Indeed it doesn't. And there is a miscommunication here: I was not using the Hell argument [found on my dA in the deviation Oops I Created Hell] to disprove God. I was using it to show that you must choose between a loving God and Hell because they are directly contradictory. You are obviously choosing Hell so you don't believe in a loving God.
You believe God is a sadist, the Demiurge I mentioned when I first introduced the argument. The Demiurge is the God that gnostics believe in. They think that there is a God but that He is evil.
Thus, you believe that God is real and that he is a sadistic creator that creates people knowing full well that they will spend the majority of their existence in Hell. Instead of sparing them the torment by not creating them (or by not creating Hell!), he creates them anyway.
Personally, I would never stand for such a sadistic God and would side with the gnostics against Him. But if you would like to pledge your loyalty to a tyrant, be my guest. As for myself, I will forever stand for what is righteous and good and would gladly burn in Hell with the righteous before lounging in heaven with the fearful and subjugated.
I believe in justice and any God who would create a Hell and a devil and blame his own creations for being the way he designed them is not just.
What good does it do to persuade anyone to your atheistic beliefs? What do you gain from it? The reason Christians try to persuade unbelievers into accepting Christ is to hopefully save them from the torments of hell. We have a purpose besides simply trying to cause someone who believes one thing to believe something else.
There is a lot of purpose in persuading people. But let me give the one that mirrors your own: since I have become an atheist my life has become vibrantly more meaningful and rich. I want to save people from the dull lives they live in the pews. I want save them from a wasted life (which I believe is the only life they have).
The forums provide a testing ground for me to understand what Christians think and why they think it. This helps me to become a more effective witness.
Witness to what?
To truth and intellectual freedom. The freedom to question anything and to grow beyond the cage that theistic belief puts you in. When I was a Christian, every thought I had, every observation I made, was filtered through a maze of doctrine that had to be trusted without evidence.
Now I think quicker because I simply judge things for how they appear to be. There is no need for me to filter what I see and think anymore. I grow quicker. I'm able to provide for my family faster. I am able to devote time to exploring the true mysteries of life. I no longer have to pretend that the words of the Bible hold some kind of untapped wisdom.
I am also a witness to a unity that rises above beliefs without evidence. A Christian can do nothing to quell the difference between himself and a Muslim. They both hold their beliefs without evidence so nothing can be done.
An atheist, however, can resolve the situation by convincing both to base their beliefs on evidence. Since we all have have access to the same evidence we will come to many of the same conclusions. There will be more agreement and more unity. This is a path to world peace.
There are more. So in short, a witness to more wonders than anyone can imagine. A witness to the freedom to think and explore.
Change
I will tell you that if you ever decide to look at the evidence and change your views, you would be an asset to the secular community because you have experienced life as a devout Christian and you know the english Bible well.
It's not like when you decide that Christianity is too small for you, a big "Game Over" screen pops up or that you lose all of the essential traits that make you You. On the contrary, these positive traits are not only sustained but amplified as we are free from the doctrinal chains that kept us from growing. I was a kind person before I became an atheist and I am kind person now. I was a knowledgeable person before I became an atheist and I am ten-fold more knowledgeable now. My ability to absorb information has sky-rocketed. And I assure you, yours will too.
You care about hope now and you will care about hope then. You care about truth now and you will care about truth then. Love still exists. Fellowship still exists. Purpose still exists. Even faith, in a more bridled, stable, and realistic form, still exists.
For most of us, changing our views was the beginning of the most meaningful pursuits of our lives. It was the point when we saw the magnificent larger world that eclipses the tiny worlds we had built for ourselves within Christianity.
In any case, I hope you the best and I assure you I would never wish upon you the curses you have pronounced for me. Someday you will probably look back at what you've said to me and feel foolish for saying it. It's okay. We all have ended up saying things that in the end we did not really mean. I understand. There was a time when I had similar concerns about other people's damnation and said some pretty ridiculous things as I was defending my religious views. It is all a part of growing.
In peace,
Emissary
(This was originally posted on deviantart)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)