Accepting facts can be hard

LOL:

Baby Ruth?

"I have no idea why the jury seem[s] to have overlooked the testimony and medical records showing the lady had a bad pap [smear] two years before meeting the man ... Did anyone hear the male's testimony that he did not have sex with her until months AFTER her Jan. 11, 2005 positive HPV finding?” -- Ruth

Oh, 'Ruth'! Stamping your little cartoon feet, while entertaining, isn't going to help you because the facts are not on your side.  Rossiter didn't have a pap indicating HPV positivity prior to meeting Alan Evans. And Rossiter never had a trace of dysplasia. And Rossiter never had a problem. She always got regular paps, so she would have known if she did. Then Alan Evans comes along and suddenly Rossiter has not one problem (high risk HPV), not two problems (low risk HPV), but three problems (BV), all after he said he got tested regularly as a dentist and hadn't been with anyone in months (both shown to be false at the trial).

We kinda like the game 'Ruth' is playing though, so let us have a go at it! We have no idea why 'Ruth' seems to have overlooked the testimony and medical records showing that Rossiter had just had a perfectly normal annual pap TWO MONTHS prior to meeting Alan Evans - not to mention all the others that came before it. 'Ruth' also overlooked the gynecologist saying that she thought Rossiter was wasting her time and money getting tested in January since everything was fine just two months prior at the  annual exam. Why did Rossiter want this again, the doctor wanted to know? Two words: Alan Evans. And 'Ruth' somehow ignored another big nagging issue, which, apparently, the jury did not: Alan Evans suffered from a severe lack of medical records at trial (since he brought ZERO medical records dated prior to the filing of the lawsuit), and his attempt to get the case dismissed with the one irrelevant medical record he did bring did not help his cause.

And 'the male's' testimony' that 'Ruth' mentioned? It doesn't exist, since no one said that at trial. Alan Evans didn't say a word about not having sex for months after January 11. He didn't claim to remember too much related to the timeline, and only said that he thought there was more on top of what already had occurred on January 1 "in late January." Yes, indeed, you read that right: Alan Evans agreed with Rossiter that there was sexy time on January 1, he just disagreed as to the nature of that contact.  Another glaring omission courtesy of 'Ruth' is that intercourse isn't required to transmit HPV. But why should someone like her let scientific facts get in the way? We would suggest that 'Ruth' feel shame, but given that she couldn't be bothered to get the simplest fact about HPV transmission right before acting like her sense of justice had been offended (or worse, maybe she knows how HPV works and deliberately ignored it), we don't know if that's possible.

We're not sure who the poster is, but it would be quite a coincidence if it was a random commenter with no connection to Alan Evans. And by the way, Alan's mother's name is Ruth. But here's the thing: she wasn't present for most of the trial. The only people who were present on an in-and-out basis were various members of the families. The only people who were there the entire time were the attorneys, the judge, the jury, Rossiter and Alan Evans. Occasionally members of the general public would pop in, but no one stuck around for long. So it's probably safe to say that Joe Blow didn't pass these fake gems on to our indignant pal 'Ruth.'

But if Alan Evans' mother was the one who posted this comment, there's a problem somewhere - because if she was there to "hear" the part of the testimony she's claiming to refer to, well, you can see that she's wrong across the board, and maybe should get her ears checked. And if she wasn't there in person for the stuff she's referring to, she had to have heard it secondhand, in which case, she would be wise to consider her source. Or read the appellate decision?

And if it was indeed Alan Evans' mom who posted this, and she did hear her information secondhand from someone who was there, I'm sure that "source" was only doing their best to stick up for Alan Evans in saying whatever they had to say to make him seem halfway presentable to the world. There'd be no surprise there. Of course they're desperate and they probably have to be quite the revisionist to get anyone with a conscience on their side. But just remember, everything was on the record. So if they're going to play fast and loose about facts and what happened at trial, they'd better tell the person they're talking to not to repeat the line of bullshit they told them on the internet. They don't want to look stupid... right?

HPV and skin cancer

A 2010 study headed by Margaret R. Karagas looked at 16 genus β human papillomavirus types to see if there was a correlation between those HPV types and the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. And as it turns out, certain types of HPV can increase your risk for skin cancer. This is not new knowledge, but it isn't widely known, either. It's definitely worth pointing out, because skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States.

In addition to this link between HPV and skin cancer, the research "found a clear increasing trend in risk of squamous cell carcinoma with increasing number of human papillomavirus types positive." In other words, while one type of HPV is enough to increase your risk, the more types of HPV you have, the greater your risk.

The study also showed "a stronger association between HPV and squamous cell carcinoma among patients with a sun sensitive phenotype." So if you've got fair skin and light colored eyes (read: you sunburn easily), for example, your risk is even higher.

Really, the only good news is that even more about this should be known in the future: Karagas plans on further study to investigate whether HPV types beyond genus β are associated with nonmelanoma skin cancers.

In the airport corridors and in the magazines in stores

• France - oui oui

Palais de Justice

The Cannes Film Festival is in full swing, and Lady Gaga performed the other night on the beach (video of the performance right here). You should watch it. The Côte d'Azur is gorgeous during daylight hours, with glowing bright blue water, rocky cliffs capped with terracotta rooftops, and at times the backdrop includes the edge of the French Alpes du Sud. But that clip pans about and gives you an idea of how stunning it is at sunset too.

In Monte Carlo, they're all set up for the Grand Prix of Monaco, kicking off next week. The streets are essentially turned into a racetrack and lined with guardrails and bleachers. It's a little strange, but anyone who has been to Monaco knows that the country is anything but normal.

• And in other news...

The Rossiter v. Evans case is still making headlines around the world. If you're reading from Ireland, head out and pick up the latest issue of Stellar magazine. It's got a solid article about the case, and if you need some extra motivation, here it is: it's got some exclusive information that hasn't been published before.

New study on HPV and men

First spotted on MSNBC:

"We found that there is a high proportion of men who have genital HPV infections. At enrollment, it was 50 percent," said Giuliano, whose study appears online in the journal Lancet.

Read that again. Half of men had genital HPV infections at enrollment in the study. They're not saying these men simply had it at some point in their lives and cleared it. Half of those men were testing positive for at least one type of HPV on day one. And the high rate of HPV was true across all age groups for guys. Also, "[w]hereas risk of HPV decreases with increasing age in women, men seem to have a stable risk for acquiring new HPV infections throughout their life." (Purchase the full text here.)

The distinction is important. Other studies have estimated that there's a good chance that most people - both genders included - will have HPV at some time in their lives. This new study is saying something unique about men, because this is talking about males at this very moment - not at some point within a lifespan, but right now.

Aside from the 50% prevalence on day one, the study also reflects that over 1500 new infections were contracted during the study. It's possible to have more than one strain at once. If you get a new strain, it's a new infection.

What else makes men different? Well, it appears that once guys contract HPV, they hold on to the virus for a longer time. In other words, their bodies don't clear the virus as easily as women can - assuming they clear it at all:

"What is different is men seem to have high prevalence of genital HPV infections throughout their lifespans." She said it appears that women are better able to clear an HPV infection, especially as they age, but men do not appear to have this same ability.

Remember, number of lifetime partners is the #1 risk factor for getting HPV. In light of that, everyone should have a look at this part of the study:

Clearance of oncogenic HPV infection decreased in men with a high number of lifetime female partners

and

Men who had sex with more than 50 female sexual partners were 2.4 times more likely to have a cancer-causing HPV infection than men who reported having only one or no sexual partners.

(Ahem - consider that alongside this information.)

One last thing. The men in this study all got tested for HPV. Yes, you read that correctly - although there is currently no FDA approved test for men in a clinical setting, when it comes to research, it's a different story. It's how the researchers were able to say that half of the men had HPV at enrollment.

At each visit, three specimens of penile and scrotal cells were obtained from the coronal sulcus, glans penis, penile shaft, and scrotum for the detection of HPV DNA and for HPV genotyping.

And then we have the bigger picture. The purpose of this study was to inspire the development a cost effective model for vaccinating men. It speaks volumes for why we have to change the way we think about HPV. It's not just scary for women, it's scary and a problem for men too. And it's the responsibility of both genders to be on the lookout for it, to get vaccinated, and to be aware of their status so we can make this virus a thing of the past. HPV causes serious health problems for men and women.

The first thing, and the easiest thing people have to do: get Gardasil.

And the second thing that has to change that's just as important: testing for HPV in men needs to be made available outside of a research setting, period. There's no good reason why not. Why isn't it? No clue, but maybe it's just the myth that it doesn't affect men, so it's not their problem, so there's really no utility in having a test for men, because apparently, you know, knowing your HPV status is useless information. Reason begs to differ. Men deserve to know for the same reason that women deserve to know: so that they can protect themselves and their partners.

On another continent: Australia

 
The story made it to Europe several times over, plus Asia, and now... 

Cleo magazine in Australia has a fantastic article about the Rossiter v. Evans case featured as a cover story for their March 2011 issue. The interview was conducted by the fabulous Rebecca Whish, who has also written for Vogue, Project Runway, and GQ.

And what a cute cover. LC looks great. The write-up is awesome, too. So if you're down under, grab a copy of the mag and head to the nearest beach to soak up the summertime rays with this great read. Don't forget the sunblock.