Feministe on Gardasil

One, I'm willing to bet if it were for boys and not girls, we wouldn't have this problem.

I wonder. They're a *very* anti-sex crowd.

Second, it suggests there is a subset of parents that feels that if their children somehow violate the rules of sex that disease and death should be the wages of their sin.

This I doubt. Having grown up among fundies, I think that most of them would say that *their* child wouldn't have sex before marriage. They would say that this disease would punish *other* peoples' kids.

I saw this news break and shuddered. Especially when the case the station I was watching highlighted relied on an unnamed doctor who "suspected" that Gardasil was related to the girl's death.

Ugh.

"Having grown up among fundies, I think that most of them would say that *their* child wouldn't have sex before marriage."

Note that if you suggest their child be vaccinated, you are effectively saying that their child is a slut. They will react with the expected hostility.

Their child will not have sex before marriage. Other people's teens may have sex, the teens's peer group may have sex, the statistics may show that premarital sex is far more likely than not, but all of this only applies to *other* teenagers. Each parent considers their own child a special case. To vaccinate them, or to educate them about contraception, would be an admission that this belief may be wrong.

The original HPV vaccine study, conducted only a few years ago, was significantly flawed from its very inception in its basic design and its conclusion and Merck & Company knew it.

The study was carried out by Merck Research Laboratories, a unit of Merck & Company, who also made the vaccine and paid for the research.

Yes. This is relevant to the issue.
And, yes, this is all about the money. Surprise!!!

Imagine if someone came up with a vaccine that prevented tooth decay. Would they oppose vaccination because, if you behave right (regularly brushing and flossing) and see your dentist regularly to remove pre-cavity plaque, you can avoid cavities? Does it really make sense to avoid vaccinating kids because, without the threat of cavities, they might eat more sweets, leading to obesity?

but they won't get much money if the vaccine is a wash. It's hardly in their favour to release something they are going to get sued for.

One, I'm willing to bet if it were for boys and not girls, we wouldn't have this problem.

I wonder. They're a *very* anti-sex crowd.

But how many "purity pledges" and "purity dances" are there for sons instead of daughters?

If it was boys then they would give them the vaccine. I detest the unequal tone of girls are responsible for premarital sex. It takes two to tango, boys should be held responsible also.

While the fundies think their child won't have sex I find it abhorrent that they want the "other" children to suffer death etc. (If they have sex). These are children; this is the time of life that we should try to protect them from life long negative consequences. Sick, very sick attitude.

The original HPV vaccine study, conducted only a few years ago, was significantly flawed from its very inception in its basic design and its conclusion and Merck & Company knew it.

The study was carried out by Merck Research Laboratories, a unit of Merck & Company, who also made the vaccine and paid for the research.

Yes. This is relevant to the issue.
And, yes, this is all about the money. Surprise!!!

Gee, Wiliam, you're right, honest. A private company shouldn't be allowed to do this because it is just so important. Thankfully, it isn't too late because this vaccine only protects against a few of the known strains of HPV.

How about you and I start do something about it right now. We'll get the government to fund proper research (at least as you see it, anyways), and then, we'll distribute the vaccine for free. That way our children will be assured that the evils of money aren't influencing something so important. Deal?

PS, I used to be a youth counsellor for Youth for Christ, I'm not a fundie, but most of the members were...good times...good times...

Second, it suggests there is a subset of parents that feels that if their children somehow violate the rules of sex that disease and death should be the wages of their sin.

It's worse than that, since a young women could follow that virginal religious model until marriage, and still become infected due to her husband's premarital or extramarital activity, or through forcible rape.

Hmm...just realized my 'PS' could be misinterpretted, so in the interest of clarity I will say that the fundie girls were at least as 'pure' as their Chatholic peers, but didn't drink quite as much. ;-)

But how many "purity pledges" and "purity dances" are there for sons instead of daughters?

None. They're called "integrity balls". See the difference there? Girls have "purity" and boys have "integrity"?

It's worse than that, since a young women could follow that virginal religious model until marriage, and still become infected due to her husband's premarital or extramarital activity, or through forcible rape.

You aren't understanding the fully integrated mindset here. If she were a good girl, she'd pick the right man. That man would be "clean". If she were a good wife, her husband won't cheat. If she were doing what she ought, where she ought to be, she wouldn't get raped.

See how nice and neat that all works out? /snark

Integrity _balls_ for men. /snigger

You aren't understanding the fully integrated mindset here.

The full mindset is, "I am in control, I am safe, Bad Things can't happen to me because I do All The Right Things."

A necessary corollary is that if Something Bad happens to someone, it's because they didn't do All The Right Things. So if, for instance, a woman gets uterine cancer subsequent to herpes it's because she's a slut. If she got herpes from rape, it's because she was advertising like a slut. No matter what the facts are, the determined victim-blamer can always make up more reasons why the victim was really to blame. This is important, because if Bad Things can happen to Good Women, then they can also happen to (perish the thought!) me!

Note that this is a prime element in most woo: reality acknowledges that Shit Happens and Sometimes It Happens To You. Woo provides a comfortable illusion where the Righteous are safe from all that.

forcible rape

Is there any other kind?

I suspect a lot of this opposition to Gardasil comes from fundie parental guilt about having done it before marriage, and they think that cancer/death is the only effective deterrent for teens since teens are obviously too fucking stupid to be persuaded any other way.

You'd think though with this DEATH DETERRENT idea that fundies would stop boozing it up because they may face CIRRHOSIS and GOD WILL DENY YOU A LIVER TRANSPLANT for your sins, or something.

One month ago, my 14-year old daughter, a competitive swimmer with no prior medical history of neurological issues, suffered two generalized tonic-clonic seizures, of 20-30 minute duration, within 10 and 16 hours, respectively, of receiving her second dose of Gardasil.

If you've never witnessed your previously healthy child suffer an unprecedented tonic-clonic seizure, believe me, it is horrifying. There wasn't much I could do except call 911 and feel powerless.

While she was subsequently hospitalized for testing and observation, I googled +Gardasil +seizure at a friend's suggestion, and began an awakening to this whole issue. My daughter is not out of the woods yet - she's still undergoing evaluation by pediatric neurologists, and still possibly suffering simple partial seizures centered in her motor cortex.

If anything, the CNN article is too watered down. It tamely mentions Gardasil being blamed for "ailments" and making girls "sick", without exposing or elaborating the serious neurological effects, such as seizures and Guillain-Barre Syndrome (which causes paralysis), suffered by some recipients of the vaccine. I'm disappointed that "Habladora", the author of the Feminste blog entry (there titled "CNN Spreads HPV Vaccination Doubts", reproduced on Alternet with title "CNN Spreading Inaccurate Info on Cervical Cancer Vaccine", chooses to suggest that the CNN article might be "fear-mongering" on CNN's part. From my perspective as a progressive-minded parent of a victim of this vaccine's side-effects, I applaud any exposure given to this issue by the mainstream media.

Why does Alternet assert, through its chosen title for the reproduced blog entry, that the information CNN has reported is "inaccurate"? The fact of the matter is that the reported information is not inaccurate. Gardasil *is* to blame for "ailments", and it *is* making girls "sick". My daughter is a prime example. And if you want more examples, all you have to do is peruse the websites of a couple of watchdog organizations monitoring the issue by making Freedom of Information Act requests against the national Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database. Here are the links:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/story/2008/may/judicial-watch-investigates-side-effects-hpv-vaccine
http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/HPVrpt.htm

Further, I take issue with Habladora's supposition that "there is no solid evidence that Gardasil is dangerous", which she makes by citing a CDC webpage that attempts to explain away the deaths and paralyses reported to VAERS in connection with Gardasil, and which fails to even mention seizures and other reported effects. So what constitutes "solid evidence that Gardasil is dangerous"? Absent some formal technical argument, understandable only to medical professionals, that conclusively links cause and effect at a molecular biology level or something, all we have is statistical correlation. I'm a believer in statistical correlation. When people who have received a vaccine soon die, become paralyzed, have seizures, and suffer other effects, more prevalently than in the general population, then that constitutes evidence of danger, in my estimation.

Habladora also inexplicably characterizes the CNN report as a "sensationalist rumor". That adverse events associated with Gardasil vaccinations have occurred is not a rumor - it is a fact, supported by 7802 reports to VAERS between June 8, 2006 and April 30, 2008. Nor is CNN's reporting of it "sensationalist". Again I view it as appreciable journalism, and it is surprising that Habladora, an apparent feminist and therefore progressive, would cast aspersions on such reporting (perhaps she suspects CNN of raising fears about HPV vaccine on behalf of the religious right, who oppose it for the same reason they oppose contraception - they view it as encouraging teen sex). After all, we're talking about Big Pharma pushing a vaccine through the FDA's approval process and lobbying state and local governments to make it mandatory for public school attendance by teenage girls. What is Merck's motive - altruism, or profit?

Even Dr. Diane Harper, the leading scientist for the clinical trials of Merck's and GlaxoSmithKline's HPV vaccines, has doubts about the adequacy of their clinical trials, their efficacy, and the sensibility of mandating them for school girls - you can watch an investigative reporting team's interview with her here.

To me this whole saga has the appearance of Merck strong-arming compliant governments in the pursuit of profit, while simultaneously performing a drug safety experiment on the population at large. I'm wary of Gardasil not for religious reasons, but because of concerns about its safety, and about the integrity of Merck and the current governments' processes for approving and mandating drugs. In general I'm a freethinker and a believer in science, and not opposed to vaccination. But this whole experience has awakened me to the need to think about the vaccines I give my children, and their necessity, instead of just "going with the flow" of the CDC's recommendations (the latest one of which, added only two years ago, is Gardasil). In the particular case of HPV, cervical cancer, and Gardasil, I found this analysis, of the prevalence and treatability of HPV-related disease in American women, to be pretty clarifying and thought-provoking.

The bottom line for me is that, in my family's experience, Gardasil is dangerous, and we won't be having any more of it.

"Gardasil *is* to blame for "ailments", and it *is* making girls "sick". My daughter is a prime example."

But you don't know that. All you know is that event a happened, followed by event b. You have absolutely no evidence that a and b are related in any way, much less that one caused the other.

RPS, while I can understand your outrage, you have to understand what you are stating is hardly scientific. Many things in this world happen in close proximity in this world and are totally unrealated. In fact, epilepsy can manifest itself at any time - the overall health of the individual notwithstanding.

As you have said in your post, she is still being evaluated by the neruologists, if they conclude this was the trigger, then perhaps, there may be something to this, and even then this would require study. However, I doubt this will be the answer you are given.

Natalie, you wrote: "But you don't know that. All you know is that event a happened, followed by event b. You have absolutely no evidence that a and b are related in any way, much less that one caused the other."

Yes I do have evidence that Gardasil and seizures are related: I have the VAERS database, which contains consistent reports of numerous other Gardasil injectees suffering unprecedented seizures within hours of receiving their injections. In other words, unprecedented seizures are correlated with Gardasil injection.

And, as long as we're presuming to tell each other what we don't know, Natalie, I will tell you that you don't know that Gardasil didn't cause my daughter's seizures. I've known her for 14 years, skied with her, biked with her, coached her volleyball teams, watched her place in state-level swim meets, and never in 14 years observed any seizure or other neurological abnormality. Then all of a sudden she has a Gardasil shot, and boom - our lives change.

I know my daughter's medical history better than you and everyone else on this planet except my wife, and certainly well enough to believe that Gardasil provoked her seizures. And there is supporting statistical evidence on my side of the argument.

Why are you defending Gardasil anyway? You must be an agent or sympathizer of Merck...

forcible rape
Is there any other kind?

Certainly. Statuatory rape is when no force is required, but the partner cannot be said to have given consent due to being under age. Morning after rape where a woman consents, but changes her mind afterwards.

RPS said "I have the VAERS database, which contains consistent reports of numerous other Gardasil injectees suffering unprecedented seizures within hours of receiving their injections. In other words, unprecedented seizures are correlated with Gardasil injection."

VAERS is a self-selected passive collection of reports. As demonstrate in the following website a resident of the UK reported that his daughter turned into Wonder Woman after a vaccine: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=342

I do sympathize. My son suffered the same kind of seizure about a week after his MMR. Though it wasn't due to the vaccine, it was due to him being dehydrated while suffering from a nasty gastrointestinal bug. But you have to understand, it may not be exactly what you think (plus, it doesn't happen to EVERYbody... my fourteen year old daughter did just fine).

Oh, and the pharma shill crack doesn't help at all, it just make you sound strident and stupid.

HCL- dismissing the entire VAERS database on account of one or two known crank entries makes you sound stupid and pessimistic.

I find it quite ironic that on this website, which is supposedly all about calling out denialism, people are acting denialistic about the significance and validity of the data in the only/canonical national reporting database in existence for this kind of phenomenon.

Surely no rational person would seriously try to argue that all 7802 Gardasil adverse event reports in VAERS, or even a non-trival fraction of them, are suspect as prank or propagandistic entries. I can tell you with absolute sincerity that one entry, from my daughter's pediatrician, is a cold objective reporting of fact - injection given, seizure suffered. And I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption that the vast majority of reports in that database are of the same quality, and posted by medical professionals with respectable motives.

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that your son suffered the same kind of seizure. Has he ever had any others? How do you feel about describing him as "epileptic"? (a term which is only vaguely defined, according to one pediatric neurologist we met, to mean "suffers seizures"). In my daughter's case, her nutrition and hydration the day of the injection were good and healthy - and there were no other complicating factors e.g. other vaccines administered concurrently.

And I know it doesn't happen to everybody. But it does happen to some people, according to the VAERS reports (and who knows how many other adverse events haven't been reported), and "it" is serious and life-altering for the people to whom it does happen. If I had known in advance that my daughter would have this reaction, I obviously would not have gone ahead with the injection. As I originally said, this has been an awakening for me.

Hi Holloman, you wrote: "you have to understand what you are stating is hardly scientific".

So is it your view that statistical correlation is not scientific?

You also wrote: "As you have said in your post, she is still being evaluated by the neruologists, if they conclude this was the trigger, then perhaps, there may be something to this, and even then this would require study. However, I doubt this will be the answer you are given."

During her hospitalization after the second tonic-clonic seizure, we met with two staff pediatric intensivists, and one pediatric neurologist, who gave us the following professional medical opinions:

1. HPV vaccination is not really necessary for the prevention and treatment of HPV-related disease in the first place (consistent with this analysis, which I came across later).

2. My daughter's seizures were probably provoked (caused) by the vaccination.

3. We should not give my daughter the third Gardasil dose in the series.

Yes, she will be undergoing another evaluation by a pediatric neurologist, but that evalation is focused on follow-up EEG testing, and the possible simple partial seizures centered in her motor cortex, of which there was also no medical history prior to the injection.

Kind Regards, RPS

RPS said "I have the VAERS database, which contains consistent reports of numerous other Gardasil injectees suffering unprecedented seizures within hours of receiving their injections. In other words, unprecedented seizures are correlated with Gardasil injection."

Stick around -- this whole nonsense has finally pushed a friend over the line into doing a full-up, case-by-case analysis of the VAERS Gardasil reports.

Here's one: Information has been received from a physician concerning a 14 year old female who was vaccinated IM with a dose of Gardasil. Subsequently the patient "came down with some syndrome", may have been Guillain-Barre syndrome. Medical attention was sought and the patient recovered. The consumer noted in this report was not one of the physician's patients. Upon internal review, Guillain-Barre syndrome was considered to be an "other important medical event". This is a hearsay report in the absence of an identifiable patient. Attempts are being made to identify the existence of a patient.

"And, as long as we're presuming to tell each other what we don't know, Natalie, I will tell you that you don't know that Gardasil didn't cause my daughter's seizures. "

Posted by: RPS

At this point, RPS, I've lost all sympathy for you. You don't know that [insert very, very, *very* long list of things] didn't cause [insert very, very, *very* long list of things].

There's a point where sympathy for a parent should be dropped, and hatred for an antivaxer should be given free rein.

What happened with RPS's daughter - two 20-30 minute long tonic clonic seizures - represents significant clinical symptoms that need to be properly assessed by a paediatric neurologist.

However, these symptoms bear absolutely no resemblance to the majority of the "seizure" reports in the VAERS database. If you read them, in almost every case they are clearly vasovagal reactions: the kid fainted during or shortly having a needle. Mild, brief (a few seconds), tonic-clonic activity is common when people faint.

Anxious kids often faint when they have needles, whether they are vaccinations, penicillin shots, or blood tests. In many cases, the mere sight of a syringe can set it off.

It's important to sort out whether 20 minute seizures were related to the vaccine or whether they were just coincidental - epileptiform disorders can spontaneously first show up in adolescents, irrespective of vaccination history.

But the "unprecedented seizures" in the VAERS reports are for the most part nothing remotely like the symptoms RPS's daughter had.

"Yes I do have evidence that Gardasil and seizures are related."

Too bad that's not what you claimed. To refresh your memory, you said "Gardasil *is* to blame for "ailments", and it *is* making girls "sick"." That sounds like you are pretty positive you have evidence that Gardasil causes seizures. Now you are claiming that you have evidence that the two things are related. Way to shift the goalposts, honey.

And, as long as we're presuming to tell each other what we don't know, Natalie, I will tell you that you don't know that Gardasil didn't cause my daughter's seizures."
I never said I did. Care to argue against more points no one is making?

"Why are you defending Gardasil anyway? You must be an agent or sympathizer of Merck..."
I'm not defending Gardasil - I'm calling you on your bullshit. And if I was an agent of Merck, you can bet I'd be doing something a lot more effective than talking to you in blog comments.

Natalie wrote of me: "you said 'Gardasil *is* to blame for "ailments", and it *is* making girls "sick".' That sounds like you are pretty positive you have evidence that Gardasil causes seizures."

No, that sounds like I think Gardasil is to blame for ailments, and it is making girls sick. Those were phrases used in the original CNN article, and I intentionally repeated them in rebutting Alternet's characterization of the article's content as "inaccurate".

"Now you are claiming that you have evidence that the two things [Gardasil and seizures] are related. Way to shift the goalposts, honey."

I didn't shift the goalposts, "honey". I responded to your assertion that "you have absolutely no evidence that a [Gardasil] and b [seizures] are related", where your "event a" and "event b" obviously refer to my daughter having a Gardasil injection then suffering a seizure. It is you who is disingenously conflating two separate statements of mine, made in two separate contexts.

And, as long as we're presuming to tell each other what we don't know, Natalie, I will tell you that you don't know that Gardasil didn't cause my daughter's seizures."

I never said I did. Care to argue against more points no one is making?

You were first to argue against a point I wasn't making. I merely responded in kind. In your reply to my original comment, you said "But you don't know that". There is no statement in my original comment saying "I know Gardasil causes seizures" or even "I know Gardasil is to blame for ailments, and I know it is making girls sick".

I'm not defending Gardasil - I'm calling you on your bullshit.

I'm not committing any bullshit, but that seems to be a bad habit of yours.

In general I'm finding a couple of the commenters here to be pretty full of unprovoked hostility, vitriol, and hatred, which is most detracting in a community around a website purporting to celebrate science - whose finer traditions, IMO, include some maintenance of collegiality even during disagreements of opinion.

Now if you wouldn't mind moving past ill-formed accusations of denialist rhetorical tactics on my part, I'd like to focus the discussion on the actual evidence, and on science.

First, here is a report from VAERS of all adverse events reported in connection with Gardasil vaccinations since the date of its FDA approval through June 3rd 2008. There are 8864 entries. The word "seizure" occurs 924 times in the document, but the number of distinct reports of unprecedented seizure is less than that for various reasons, and I have yet to count it. Whatever that number turns out to be, is it your contention that all reported cases of unprecedented seizure are pure coincidence? That the seizures would have happened anyway even if Gardasil hadn't been injected? That the Gardasil injections had absolutely nothing to do with the seizures, and are completely unrelated? Further, is it your contention that none of the 8864 reported adverse events constitute ailments or sicknesses, and that none of them are attributable to Gardasil injections? Or is it your contention that the entire VAERS database, or the entire set of Gardasil-related reports, is not credible? Please do elaborate.

Second, let's talk about how key elements of the scientific method apply to this issue - namely, hypotheses, experiments, and data collection, analysis, and interpretation. With 8 million doses already given in the US [ref], American girls are part of a "big public experiment", in the words of Dr. Diane Harper herself [ref], on the health effects, good and bad, of Gardasil. The VAERS database collects data on adverse effects observed during that experiment. Analysis of that data reveals significant occurrence of seizures soon after injection, which is consistent with the hypotheses that Gardasil provokes seizures in some fraction of the population, and that it provoked my daughter's seizures. I'm not against evaluating other hypotheses, and in my daughter's case already have (e.g. dehydration, other medical conditions, and other vaccinations administered concurrently, all of which are not supported by the facts of the case). But Occam's Razor suggests Gardasil provocation as the leading hypothesis. All of the foregoing is just basic application of the scientific method to understanding the phenomenon of seizures after Gardasil injections, and I really have to question the thought processes of people who insist on attempting to discredit the evidence, dismiss the reasoning, and deny the interpretation.

There's a point where sympathy for a parent should be dropped, and hatred for an antivaxer should be given free rein.

Posted by: Barry | July 11, 2008 9:59 AM

What a noble and valuable sentiment on your part, Barry. Congratulations, and well done.

In referring to me as an "antivaxer", you're conveniently overlooking this statement from my original comment: "In general I'm a freethinker and a believer in science, and not opposed to vaccination."

Regarding sympathy, I never asked for anyone's. As you might guess from HCN's expression of sympathy, which I appreciated, you might have a different perspective on this issue if it happens to your own child.

No, sorry, RPS, you did in fact say "Gardasil *is* to blame for "ailments", and it *is* making girls "sick". That would be your post timestamped July 10, 2008 2:31 AM. So your subsequent statement that "There is no statement in my original comment saying "I know Gardasil causes seizures" or even "I know Gardasil is to blame for ailments, and I know it is making girls sick"." is a lie. Game over.

Yes, I believe Gardasil is to blame for ailments, and that it is making girls sick, which I asserted in my original comment, and I believe that it has provoked seizures in my daughter and other injectees, all based on 8864 adverse event reports in VAERS, and on personal experience in my daughter's case. But I never stated that I provably know that, as you allege. So my subsequent statement is not a lie, and you're committing bullshit again.

If the game is over, it is because you're quitting. Answer my questions about the VAERS evidence, and respond to my discussion about the scientific method, or be dismissed as a pedantic, cowardly, unscientific quitter.

"Yes, I believe Gardasil is to blame for ailments, and that it is making girls sick, which I asserted in my original comment, and I believe that it has provoked seizures in my daughter and other injectees, all based on 8864 adverse event reports in VAERS, and on personal experience in my daughter's case. But I never stated that I provably know that, as you allege. So my subsequent statement is not a lie, and you're committing bullshit again."

But that is not what you said. All of your previous posts are here for everyone to see, so lie all you like. Anyone literate can check the evidence themselves.

"be dismissed as a pedantic, cowardly, unscientific quitter."

In case you haven't noticed, I stopped reading your last post when you started lying. I'm not planning on reading it, either, since you have already shown your respect for facts and evidence. You can dismiss me all day. It doesn't change a thing, and it certainly won't win me or anyone else over to your pseudoscience.

Yes, the entire transcript is here for all to see, and in it I never claimed "I know Gardasil causes ailments/sickness/seizures". That is your strawman. I did assert my belief that it does, based on available evidence including professional medical opinion. If you can't distinguish an assertion of belief from a claim of knowledge, that's your problem and you're not worth arguing with. In addition you've made it perfectly clear that you prefer to avoid the issue, and I won't be wasting any more of my time on an irrational ignorant person like you.

RPS, I'm growing weary of your crankery.

You pointed out this is a site about denialism and were stunned, stunned that we could not agree with you. However, your argument is a classic example of a denialist argument, not ours. We say, such things need careful study, because over large populations even rare events will become common.

I've seen presentations on this vaccine from one of the inventors and read the research. The vaccine is efficacious, and I believe the evidence is in that it remains safe. That may change but your cherry-picked assertions and grand claims do not constitute evidence.

Your argument fits with classic denialist tactic number 5 - the logical fallacy. Specifically post hoc ergo propter hoc. It came before, therefore it is the cause. That is not so clear, and actual studies have to be performed before such events can be considered anything more than coincidence. I'm sorry your daughter is ill, but the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. You further attack the vaccine with the pharma gambit - that because a drug company did it it is not to be trusted. This is foolishness. Drug companies need to be watched sure, but most of their products work, and work like they say they do. Their dishonesty is mostly around about the edges, not about the fundamentals. Your accusations against my commenters that they are pharma shills is classic and I won't tolerate it. It virtually confirms your crank status.

Further, in true crank style every criticism is dismissed and never addressed, you just jump to the next piece of nonsense argument.

We do not argue with cranks here, I'm done with you. Get lost.