Debunking common myths about HPV: A series

So here's the deal: we've been in the middle of a move (finally complete — whew!) and I've been working on this writing for some time now. I'm not finished, and I keep coming across more things I want to add, so I'll post it in parts over time. Welcome to Part 1. UPDATE: I originally posted this series in two big chunks, but after seeing how many people were landing on the page looking for answers about HPV, I decided to break it down into individual myths and answers to ease navigation.

So there's much to discuss. On with the myth debunktion! Get ready to hear from some kooks, and my take on their kookery — I found that they really helped illustrate some excellent points. In other words, they provided the perfect opportunities for some fisking.

DEBUNKING HPV MYTHS
Misconception #1: HPV isn't harmful. It's no big deal.
Misconception #2: All about stains of HPV.
Misconception #3: HPV always says dormant for years and years.
Misconception #4: It's impossible for men to know they have HPV. Or, HPV doesn't affect men.
Misconception #5: I know I have HPV, but I never developed a symptom, or I don't currently have symptoms, so I don't have to tell my partners.
Misconception #6: If you wear a condom, you won't get HPV.
Misconception #7: I might've been exposed to HPV, but it'll take months/years for me to find out, because I have to wait and see if I get symptoms.
Misconception #8: Having a positive HPV test and having symptoms are the same thing.
Misconception #9: I had a normal pap, so that means I don't have HPV.
Misconception #10: The HPV test is always run as part of your pap smear.
Misconception #11: If I know I have HPV, or if I've already had sex, I can't/shouldn't get Gardasil.

For the whole series, click here.

In other news, here's my interview on The Talk with Sharon Osbourne in case you missed it. I'm humbled and honored that I got to speak to millions of viewers on a Friday afternoon, and I had a fabulous time. I met so many wonderful, inspiring, brilliant people — the producers, the crew, and the fellow guests. I'm hearing from hundreds of men and women who want to share their stories and can relate in all kinds of ways. And there's more on the horizon — details to come!

Like I said before, there's one thing I'd change about my interview: I wish I'd had an opportunity to discuss the details about HPV and the prevention of cervical cancer in particular. There wasn't time. That's how TV works, and I knew that going into it. Given that limitation, my hope was that people would look into it on their own — and I know they have, which is even better. But I want to help it happen both ways, so I'm going to blog about the misconceptions I didn't get to bring up that I think are important.

And I hope everyone enjoys the series and finds it helpful. It's a rare occasion, but every now and then I come across people who have no idea what HPV is. However, the majority of those I talk to have at least some knowledge of HPV, and much of this is a result of Merck's Gardasil campaign, which is an excellent resource . The trouble is, even with all the opportunities to get the facts, there are still too many misconceptions about the virus. The danger is when people rely on bad information. I understand that because there are so many strains of HPV, so many factors, and so many potential unknowns, the details can be confusing. But getting the basics right is a huge step in the right direction.

Details about the Rossiter v. Evans case

"Four years ago, I decided that the most valuable thing I could do with my story was to help people by being public about it. My article has now been released in other editions of Glamour magazine around the world and syndicated on the MSN.com homepage. I thought it was only being run in the United States, but it appears it has now been distributed worldwide in other versions of Glamour magazine and to MSN, although I didn't know any of that would happen or that it was even a possibility.

Anyway, I'm hearing from more people daily. It's been wonderful to get so many messages of support, and to know that others are brave enough to speak out and stand up for themselves as a result of hearing about this. And there's more good news: I'm working on some other projects as well. Details to come down the road.

I wanted to talk quickly about some things that weren't included in the article because I get questions about the missing pieces. The story was long, but not long enough, and a lot of important backstory surrounding the case and facts that helped the jury reach their decision weren't able to be included. I just want to cover a few items for now.

On my decision to file suit against Dr. Alan Evans: Deciding to proceed legally was not easy, but in the end I felt like I didn't have a choice. I knew I was right, and I was worried about past and future victims. What would stop him from doing it again? (Since the trial, I've had others Alan was involved with come forward and contact me that I never had any idea about.)

On events leading up to trial: Alan tried to settle with me a few weeks before trial and I rejected his offers. The main reason was that if I settled, I would've had to keep everything that had occurred confidential. It would have done nothing to deter him from doing it again to someone else — it would have protected him. And no amount of money was ever going to take away a cancer-causing virus. I asked my attorney about other options instead of money — maybe we could ask for an apology, or some kind of acknowledgment — but these things were simply not a reality.

On proceeding to court: I went into the Muscatine, Iowa courtroom knowing very well that I could get less than Alan had offered in his settlement attempts, get nothing, or could even end up owing him money because he countersued me. (All of his counterclaims were dismissed during the trial.) What I wanted was the chance to be heard by a jury and a chance for him to be held accountable.

On the jury's decision: Fortunately, the jury saw through him. I didn't ask the jury for $1.5 million, or for any named amount of money. I asked them to compensate me as they deemed just and proper, if they agreed with my position. I could never put a price on my own health, and the jury decided on $1.5 million based on what they learned over the course of a three and a half day trial. They sat and listened attentively to everything, which was followed by a lengthy deliberation.

Over half of the amount — $800,000 — was awarded in the form of punitive damages. Let's be clear: Punitive damages are different than compensatory damages. They are not awarded to compensate, or "to make up for." They are something extra, awarded to deter and punish. In my case, the jury awarded them to punish Alan Evans for the "willful and wanton disregard" for my rights and safety. I think that sends a very clear message of disapproval as to his behavior, and I'm thankful.

On other evidence...: It's been noted around the blogosphere that the number of partners a person has had often presents a ridiculous double standard in everyday life, and I'm glad people are taking notice. I was forthright with my past during discovery, and as you can see, so was Glamour.

...Like evidence about number of partners
So people want to know, why was Alan Evans' number of sexual partners not mentioned in the article, and what was his number? No one seems to know what it is exactly. Before trial, my attorney asked Alan to turn over a list of his sexual partners, as I'd already done. We asked for this information multiple times. Alan responded in writing that his sexual partners were "irrelevant and immaterial to any issue before this Court" and refused to turn over his list — he provided no names, and certainly no actual number.

Alan's own expert had no idea as to Alan's total number of partners for use in forming his professional opinion and testified as to that fact. His expert also said that Alan's number was relevant, as did my expert. By the end of our relationship, I estimated Alan's number to be over 50, and I testified as to that. Based on additional calls and conversations since then, I now estimate it to be significantly higher.

(Towards the end of trial, Alan Evans casually testified that his number was maybe 14. For a man who was dating at least three women in January 2004 at the age of 32 and lost his virginity at a younger age than most (including me), this seems suspect. Okay, maybe it's even a little mystifying that he thought "14" would ever be taken seriously, especially since his testimony indicated that exclusivity was not really his thing.)

And lastly for now, I want to address Alan's quote toward the end of the article.

“Despite what happened in court, I do not and have never had any STD. Furthermore, I have never had any sign or symptom of HPV.”

It's par for the course. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that he never showed symptoms of anything (even though he did, and the Iowa Court of Appeals agreed: "However, Evans had genital warts, which Dr. Brotzman testified was 'the most common way for someone to know they had HPV.'"). We were still involved for a year and a half when I was absolutely positive for two distinct strains, meaning he was absolutely exposed. Finally, and most importantly, what he said in the article flies in the face of his own testimony:

Q: You did tell Karly you were clean and didn't have STD's and had never been exposed, correct?
Alan: No, I told her I'd never had an STD to my knowledge.
Q: So you didn't tell her you'd never been exposed to STD's either to your knowledge?
Alan: I don't think I would have said that. I think if you are sexually active, I think it's very likely that you are exposed to STD's.

Right!

So I'll wrap things up with my favorite portion of the decision (I am a lawyer, after all, so I get into this stuff) by the Court of Appeals of Iowa:

In determining reprehensibility, the court considers a number of factors including whether the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic, the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others, the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident, and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident. On our de novo review of the record, we find all of these factors were established in the evidence. The harm caused was not only physical, it concerns the most intimate and private interests, including sexuality and childbearing. Evans's conduct demonstrated a reckless disregard for Rossiter's health and safety. Evans is a dentist. . . . The harm was not a result of mere accident.

(Emphasis mine, citations omitted.)"

Article about Rossiter v. Evans September 2010 Glamour Magazine

A brief note, for now...

As many of you know, there's an article about Karly K. Rossiter v. Alan B. Evans in Glamour magazine's SEPTEMBER ISSUE! Condé Nast has reported that it's their biggest issue in twenty years, and it's Rossiter's hope that the  story reaches and helps as many people as possible. It touches on serious issues for both women and men, and the bottom line is that these problems are real and human lives are at stake.

Says Rossiter: "To those who've already reached out to me, my family, my attorneys, or Glamour, thanks again. It's been incredible to hear so many words of support and reaction stories in the past four years -- keep 'em coming. It's also been heart-wrenching to hear how many people have had similar experiences. No one in this world should have their health put at risk because of dishonesty. But what's notable is that even in the messages of other victims, time and time again, the resounding themes go back to strength and courage. So keep those coming too!"