Amelia Guimarin   

 

Critically Cultural: Blog

 

I MOVED MY BLOG! GO HERE: http://criticallycultural.blogspot.com/

November 9, 2006 We have the House and the Senate! Woohoo!  And, Rumsfeld is out! You have to admit it's getting better.

October 12, 2006 Immunization and broadcasting, what do they have in common? Corporate (as well as private and organizational) contributions to political campaigns (and Political Action Committees or PACs. By now, every American should know that media associations such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) 1 2 and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) 1, as well as many corporate media producers and broadcasting outlets, contribute substantially to political campaigns. But then again, every American (except maybe babies) should also know where the Axis of Evil countries are located on a world map, something that only few actually know (I guess geographic placement would lead to acknowledgement that those countries are real places with real people and that would not be good for the American cause, even cartological familiarity is an activity too humanizing to be encouraged of the general public during times of war, which seems to be always. Pyongyang? Isn't that what I ordered from China House Restaurant last night?).  Anyway, I'm not going to elaborate on the broadcasting issue (see References for more info), rather I will focus on the immunization issue.    

Raymond Gilmartin, former CEO of Merck, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, (never mind Gilmartin's sullied name from the 2005 Vioxx scandal) donated $1000 (I know, political chump change, but still . . .) to Henry Bonilla, a Republican Congressman from Texas, (never mind his sullied name from the 2003 redistricting scandal recently ruled illegal in July ) in January of 2004.  In April of 2005, Bonilla released this message in support of the state-wide initiative to immunize all infants in Texas, provocatively titled, evocative of rifalry (what's with Texas and guns?), "Shots Across Texas."  The column states that immunizations will be provided free of charge to those who cannot afford them as "Public Health Policy wisely picks up the tab." But, exactly what entity is mentioned as "Public Health Policy," and for whom is it "wise" to "pick up the tab?"  Actually, it doesn't matter what organization is referred to as "Public Health Policy." I think it's safe to assume that "Public Health Policy" refers to some governmental organization and that's all we need to know, that's also all most people think they need to know about campaigns like this one.  You read the column, it talks about babies, and diseases, and vaccines, and the government paying for them, it's all good, but what I have found most people don't pick up on (judging from the responses I got from my relatively liberal [for Orange County] co-workers regarding this article) is that just because it comes from the government doesn't mean it's free.  The government has to pay for the things it provides its people.  All those vaccines have to be purchased by the government from pharmaceutical companies. 

The article didn't specify which diseases Texan infants are to be immunized against, but I did a little research and found out that the Shots Across Texas program, which was original put in place in 1994, was meant, in part, to target measles after several outbreaks between 1988 and 1992 left 26 people dead and supposedly cost private and public health care provides $8.5 million.  Merck makes two of the most popular measles vaccines and though vaccines make up a small about of their profits, a large portion of those profits come from the sale of vaccines to government and non-governmental organizations in the US and abroad.  And, even if the manufacture of vaccines is not directly profit-driven, as Marvin Fischbaum of the Indiana State University Department of Economics argues, it is definitely socially driven.  According to Fischbaum, Merck continues to make and market vaccines because it is good for their image, just as it is good for Bonilla's image to promote vaccination campaigns.  And, what's good for your image is good for your business, especially in today's market where individual corporations spend millions of dollars on marketing and advertising, creating brand identity, to foster brand loyalty in their customers.  Merck wants people to think, subconsciously, "Merck makes vaccinations, vaccinations that save the world and keep me and my family safe, maybe I will get that Zocor (or Singulair, or Propecia, or Fosomax, or . . . )" Anyway, to make a long story short, and to outline the main connections I've been trying to draw, I'll lay it down for you like this: Gilmartin, Merck's #1 Man, gave Bonilla, major Texas GOP political player, $1000 (at least, maybe more) a year before Bonilla, with his influential relationship to the FDA ("As Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I oversee funding for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  This important administration approves, regulates, and monitors all vaccines.  I have diligently worked to increase funding for the FDA.), pushed a campaign to administer 'no cost' vaccines to all of Texas' infants, vaccines that would have to be purchased by the government from manufacturers such as (or rather, most probably) Merck. 

If you think I'm just getting carried away with a conspiracy theory here, consider this, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), "Since 1997, measles incidence in the United States has remained <0.5 cases per 1,000,000 population."1  The CDC attributes this statistic to immunization.  Measles vaccination has been available in the United States since 1963.  Prior to 1963 there was an average of 450 measles-related deaths per year.  Since 1963 there have been several isolate measles outbreaks in the United States.  One such outbreak occurred between 1989 and 1990.  There were 55,622 reported cases of measles, mostly in children under 5 years of age.  Of those 55,622 cases, there were 123 measles-related deaths, or 0.2% of the total number of cases. Of those measles-related deaths, 90% were in people who had not been vaccinated. 1  These figures all suggest that immunization is what prevents measles death, which I agree is partly true.  However, the World Health Organization states that "the overwhelming majority (> 95%) of measles deaths occur in countries with per capita Gross National Income of less than US $1000" suggesting that access to treatment, not solely vaccination, has an effect on measles-related deaths.1 

I'm not trying to argue that vaccines are good or bad (if you want to investigate those claims, check out the References), I'm just trying to say that policies, especially those which affect our health, should be free of suspicion of financial interests, we shouldn't have to worry if what our government is telling us to do about our health is in our best interest or the best interest of the politicians and corporations behind the policy making.  Or maybe what I'm so fired up about is the way that immunizations are pushed upon young children and their parents.  Childhood immunizations have become implicitly, if not explicitly, mandatory.  In order to enroll your child in school, you must have proof of her immunization.  Many doctors wouldn't even think to suggest to parents that they have a choice when it comes to immunizing their child, and so many parents think they don't have a choice (Immunizations are just one of the many health care practices that patients have come to regard as "necessary" and "beyond their choice."  All too often patients view doctors as all-knowing, indubitably benevolent, decision-making gods, "If M.D. says its good for me, then it must be what I need."  But, that's a separate issue I'll save for a separate entry). 

I'm all for the common good and public health and safety, but I'm also for choice and knowledge, informed consent, as should be all patients and doctors.  Parents should be allowed to choose whether or not to immunize their children.  I don't think we'd end up a nation of epidemics and dead children. I think that given the knowledge, including the reasonable suspicion surrounding immunizations relationships to politics and money, and the choice, parents would choose to immunize their children.

Reference:  

Reference:   http://www.merck.com/about/public_policy/docs/2005_corporate_political_contributions.pdf Merck's public disclosure of corporate political campaign contributions 

http://www.vote-smart.org/resource_govt101_07.php information about political campaign financing

http://www.publicampaign.org/ campaign for public, versus private, campaign financing

http://www.opensecrets.org/ who gives, who gets, and how much

http://www.netreach.net/~kaufman/network.ownership.html who owns the broadcast medai 

http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/08/8344.php Oaxacan media coup  

http://www.outfoxed.org/  Who doesn't like Rubert Murdoch?  

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/15592429.htm vaccines and profits  

http://www.wellbeingjournal.com/profits-vaccines.htm more vaccines and profits    

http://www.909shot.com/ vaccines aren't all good

And last, but certainly not least, the best idea ever . . .  
 

August 5, 2006 [UPDATE-September 20, 2006: Used products, did not get poison oak, did not even see poison oak.  I think there was no poison oak because it was too hot and dry, and the elevation was too high.]  About to embark on a one-day backpacking/camping trip.  Will be hiking in, along/up a river/creek bed, a few miles to a primitive site, setting up tent, exploring, sleeping, and hiking back out.  Why am I writing this in my blog?  I am writing this because I am extremely sensitive to poison oak.  Poison oak is a plant that causes allergic reactions of the skin which results in a red, blistering rash, itching, and pain.  The last time I went backpacking/camping, I got a terrible case of poison oak, and I want to know if there is a good explanation for why poison oak causes allergic reactions.  I know how, but why? Why is poison oak poisonous?

    A little googling later and the answer seems to be . . . no one knows.  Hmmm . . .  I started in my quest for why by asking, "Are all humans allergic to poison oak?"  The answer, yes (mostly).  Some individuals (my boyfriend and backpacking/camping partner included) are "immune" to poison oak and suffer no reaction. However, some such "immune" people have only been so before or after prolonged exposure to poison oak. There is no explanation, only hypotheses regarding why some people gain or lose "immunity" or even why they are "immune" at all. Furthermore, there is no evidence, only some speculative information, that reaction to poison oak varies by population.  Next question, "Do animals (aside from humans, who are, of course, animals, but who do not consider themselves as such when speaking generally of "animals." Which is something completely different that will have to be addressed in another post) have allergic reactions to poison oak?"  The answer, no.   They can touch it, rub up against it, lie in it, use it to build their nests and homes, and even eat it, and still no reaction. Now I'm stumped, just like everybody else.  If animals, who would seem to be the natural predator of poison oak can eat it, then why is it poisonous to humans.  Did it evolve to become poisonous to us because we were threatening its existence, perhaps by doing with it the same things animals do with it, using it as home and food?  There is some evidence to suggest that this might be true.  Some native Californians used it for such things as weaving baskets, but maybe they were just very careful with it or knew of some special way to treat it to remove it toxicity.  No one knows.   But, like I said before, what I do know is how poison oak is poisonous. Urishiol

    Urishiol is the chemical compound in poison oak that cause the allergic reaction.  Urishiol is an oily and resinous substance found in the leaves, stems, roots, and berries (pretty much the entire plant) of poison oak and other poisonous plants.  Urishiol is hard to wash off because it is oily and resinous and for the same reason it easily transfers from the plant and can be released into the air as well.  It only takes a minute amount of urishiol to trigger a reaction. Urishiol is not my friend.  As I mentioned, I have had poison oak. I have had it externally, I have had it internally (in my eyes, nose, ears, mouth, and throat after our idiot neighbors cleared their yard of brush and burned it, poison oak and all.  Burning poison oak releases urishiol into the air.  I inhaled the urishiol-infused smoke, not even that much, as much as you would normally inhale from a campfire or bonfire, and the next day, I was miserable), I have had it after petting my dogs and cats and hugging my dad (urishiol can transfer from the plant to fur or clothing and then to skin), after my dad weed whacked the backyard (disturbing the plant releases urishiol into the air), I have had it enough, and I don't want it anymore.  It takes too long to go away and there are very few things you can do to speed up the healing process, most remedies are only work to soothe the pain and itch.  When I was a kid, my mom took me to our chiropractor who would give me a few adjustments and I would heal up relatively quickly, without the use of steroid creams or pills, which are the only things a general medical doctor can prescribe to help end the allergic reaction, and which are what I now take when I get poison oak, which is something I don't want to happen anymore. And, that is why I am quite nervous, but also hopeful, about this upcoming trip. 

    I went to R.E.I. today and bought two different preventative topical solutions for poison oak..  The first is a cream called Ivy Block and works (supposedly) by creating a barrier that prevents the urishiol from touching the skin and chemical binds it to make it inactive.  You apply it 15 minutes before possible exposure and you should be poison oak free, however it does recommend to avoid intentional contact with poison oak, which I will surely do.  The second is a cleanser called Tecnu and was originally developed to remove radioactive fallout dust from skin without water (so if it doesn't work for my poison oak, I'll keep it around, because with the way things are going around the world, I just might need it).  Tecnu works (again, supposedly) by washing away the oily, resinous urishiol that can be hard to remove with other cleansers.  If these things work for me and I return from this camping/backpacking trip poison oak free, I will be delighted and will surely let everyone know it.  And, if I return with another bad case of poison oak, I will surely let everyone know it, including R.E.I., where I dropped nearly $30 for a combined 8 ounces of product.  Until then, check my sources for more info about poison oak.

Reference: 

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0802.htm

http://www.cramscience.ca/drcram.php?a=21

July 10, 2006 [UPDATE-Augst 5, 2006: Will be researching Myspace]  What could I spend several years researching and writing about? What am I that passionate about? Body piercing? Meh. Myspace? It's a passing fad, plus if I have to write about it, what will I do to escape my research? I am passionate about ebay. I could really rant about ebay, but besides that, it'd be a good thing to study, and more, much more than this, I did it ebay.  

July 3, 2006   I have decided that even if I am too tired or disinterested to write something eloquent, I will still write something here because, well, look how long it has been since I last updated!  So, right now, I am going to write (probably poorly) about "ditzy" women.

On June 30th, my sister turned 18 years old and at my mother's request I chaperoned her and a few of her friends for a night out to dinner and a movie and ending in a sleep over at a local hotel.  One of my sister's friends is 16 years old, I consider her to be a woman, or at least a young woman, yet she speaks in a voice almost identical to that of my 4 year old sister, minus the slight speech impediment characteristic of any kindergartener.  This 16 year old also didn't know, or pretended not to know, the meaning of the word "regal" in any other context except that of the movie theater chain.  When I say "pretended not to know," I can't say whether she was really pretending or not, or whether or not she was consciously pretending or doing it mindlessly and out of habit. 

It is in reference to those such women, who manifest these or similar charecteristics, that I use the term "ditzy." I do not mean it to be an insult, in fact I have heard it used, much in the same way as the term "bitch," as a self-descriptive, without being self-defeating adjective (or is it still self-defeating, but people just pretend to use it in an empowering way? too many questions).  What makes me curious about these "ditzy" women is whether or not they consciously choose to be "ditzy" or, like I previously mentioned when speaking about "pretending," they have just become conditioned to do so without realizing it.

Of course, being "ditzy" is a learned behavior, but there are many learned behaviors that are consciously chosen to be pursued or not pursued, and I wonder where "ditzy" falls among those.  Why would one choose to be "ditzy?"  It's not my choice, so I cannot say, but I would really like to find out.  

Many female characters in literature and media assume the exterior role of "ditz" (or "helpless," "naive," etc.) in order to carry out their ulterior motive in a male-dominated world that would otherwise not allow them to act as strong-willed, intelligent, independent, savvy women (there are of course similar narratives with male characters assuming the role of "dumbie," "oaf," etc. in order to fly below the radar to carry out their plans).  I wonder if this is the idea behind choosing to be a "ditz."  I think it may be.  I have occasionally played "ditzy," "helpless," or "naive" to get out of certain situations like a traffic violation, an overdue lending fee, or building a campfire, but I would never assume that role indefinitely.  Maybe I'm more tenacious than "ditzes." Or maybe I'm stupid, maybe the "ditzes" have really got the system to work for them, maybe that's their way of "sticking it to the man" ("the man" in this case being male-dominated society).  Or maybe it's not a choice at all, maybe "ditzes" have just assumed that learned behavior without noticing it. Hmm . . .  

May 6, 2006  I can't spell.  I hold a Bachelor's degree in Anthropology, a writing-intensive field of study.  I've written hundreds of pages of academic text.  I've worked jobs writing public correspondence. And still, I can't spell. But, it's not just me, my peers can't spell either.  And, I feel that this has become, in academia, not only the norm, but even considered, at least somewhat, acceptable.  

Turning in a term paper with spelling errors is a bad move, but in-class writing assignments are graded far less critically for spelling errors.  Professors and Teaching Assistants alike express the commonly accepted mantra that spelling errors in typed papers are unacceptable not because as a university student you should be expected to exhibit proper spelling, but because as someone using word processing software you should be expected to use spell check. 

Almost everything we write today is electronic, processed on the computer with spell check software. We've become so reliant on spell check software, that it has caused us to slack on our own spelling skills.  And, spell check programs with automatic word correction are further hindering our spelling skills because the incorrectly spelled word is corrected as quickly as it is typed, leaving us unable to recognize our mistakes, thus unable to learn from them.  We go on spelling (processing in our heads and typing) the same word incorrectly over and over again because we never have the chance to see that it is wrong.  And, it's not just in word processing software, Gmail has a spell check, I don't even have to mentally check my emails for spelling.  The only place I have to do that is here, in Google Pages, and I've already put in my request to get spell check here, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

April 27, 2006  Medical school is not for writing. Working with MDs (and clinical PhDs) has taught me this. I have to rewrite everything so that our general public audience can understand what our doctors are trying to get across to them.  And this makes me question, how much information is lost, blurred, or skewed in the communication between doctor and patient?  Enough to have a significant impact on the reception and implementation of healthcare?  Probably so.

Medical anthropological studies have already shown that cultural (ethnic) differences (and obviously langauge barriers) effect how healthcare is perceived and received, but what about the culturally differences between highly educated doctors and their lay person patients, how do they effect the healthcare experience of patients?  Some doctors are better than others as dissolving that cultural barrier, and for those patients who happen to be doctors, the barrier is transparent, but for everyone else,  how does the cultural difference between doctor and patient play out in the patients perception and reception of healthcare?  Are the effects negative (many of the aforementioned medical anthropological studies found them to be so)?  And, if so, what can be done to change things for the better?  My first suggestion would be to help doctors realize that there is a cultural difference between them and patients and that that difference is important to how their patients perceive and receive healthcare.

April 22, 2006  The Internet is where it's at. Television sucks. Radio sucks.  And, more and more people are begining to realize it.