HPV in the brain

Yes, in.

http://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com/say-its-not-so-hpv-in-the-brain/

“We know that HPV can cross the placenta and infect the fetus. In one study, this happened in over twelve per cent of women with HPV.”

As always it’s the innocent who suffer.
The sins of the father…

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34%3A7&version=ESV

“keeping steadfast love for thousands,[a] forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

And before you think I’m man-hating, no.

It’s the data.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/half-adult-males-carry-hpv
“The virus notorious for causing cervical cancer in women also turns up frequently in men and can hang on unnoticed for months or even years, researchers report online March 1 in Lancet. The study solidifies earlier research indicating that human papillomavirus is highly prevalent in men and strengthens the case for vaccinating men and boys against it, the report’s authors say.”

Imagine my shock.

“The study, in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that 11 million men and 3.2 million women in the United States had oral HPV infections. Among them, 7 million men and 1.4 million women had strains that can cause cancers of the throat, tongue and other areas of the head and neck.”
“The rate was higher among men who also had genital HPV. (Almost half of men aged 18 to 60 have a genital HPV infection, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)”

TLDR?

It’s a male-carried disease.
By far (that was a 5:1 male to female ratio, deny it).

7/1.4=5 for the illiterates at home.

https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm
The penile cancer risk for men goes unmentioned. Some informed consent, right? Feel empowered yet?
No, there is currently no approved test for HPV in men.”
Routine testing (also called ‘screening’) to check for HPV or HPV-related disease before there are signs or symptom, is not recommended by the CDC”
They want the men to spread it.

Back to the original doctor.

This is major news, and I’m wondering – why no headlines about it? There were no press conferences with Dr Crino, and no statements from SIECUS or Planned Parenthood, our leaders in “comprehensive” sexuality education.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There’s a double standard at work: if research suggested that sugary drinks cause fetal malformations, it surely would be announced with alarm by every media outlet.

Cover-up isn’t a double standard but okay.

With sexual health it’s always been different. The negative consequences of sexual license are often ignored or minimized. Young people are led to believe that with condoms and STI testing they’re safe, or safe enough. But it’s not so.

“Free lust” is anything but free of consequences. If only the Bible mentioned fornication and how sinning against oneself is different.

I believe that one day there will be congressional hearings about the persistent whitewashing of STIs, the exaggerated efficacy of condoms, and the endorsement by sex educators of high risk behaviors. Until then, the madness continues.”

One day there might be real science, we can all dream!

They make so much money off pelvic exams, which by the way, were pioneered in Nazi concentration camps!

And that’s just the tip of the hooker berg.
It was the same with syphilis and other diseases. Men would catch it, usually from hookers and infect their wife (or eventual wife) and their children would have medical issues (look up the syphilis skulls). Deliberate honeypots for this purpose would bring down an entire nation quickly via its leaders. Wouldn’t it, France?

We have DNA testing to trace precise strains of types but that’s small comfort.

If you can get it from a handshake or a peck on the cheek (children, Europeans) nobody is safe.

With ‘kindergender’ and ‘clovergender’ 4chan pre-empts pedophiles

They were going to do this so I guess it’s delayed.

View at Medium.com

‘Age-dysphoria’ to get around age of consent laws, also called trans-ageism. Yeah I identify as a pensioner, gibs.
That is supposedly already a thing, in my day (today) we called that being a retard, the French for slow (to mature).

Calling someone retarded is literally calling them immature. Biologically.

themoreyouknow.jpeg

http://www.snopes.com/are-people-identifying-as-clovergender/

“We should point out that the definition of “clovergender” does not describe any form of gender, but a sexual identity generally accepted as deviant.”

wow
generally accepted?

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/clovergender
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Clovergender

you know in 6 months they’ll start on the pedophile defense program again

don’t shun the predators
end the criminal stigma

take the serpent to your breast
let them nanny your children

the people who defend pedophiles in any way, shape or form should never be allowed anywhere near children, or to make their own
it’s a crimson neon flag

rabbits just wanna make more rabbits
fastest way is childhood sexual trauma

Kindergender would’ve been more successful.

The push to accept pedophilia

Predators all operate in the same way.

It starts like a certain religion, with children.

Step One of Infiltration: “We’re harmless!”

Like the Big Bad Wolf in nana’s dress. The Trojan (sorry) Horse. They say they want to live in peace, while constantly stirring up trouble. Peace is code for ‘Leave me alone whatever I do’.

Then comes the request.

Step Two: “Pity me.”

Rhetorical, appeal to emotion. “Real” victim, by existing. And probably money. They get you to trust them, make their deviance socially acceptable. This way, they can get close to authorities e.g. the classic single mother, the social workers whoring off helpless orphans as having ‘boyfriends’, prevent teachers from reporting them or just freely search for victims to target.

Then finally, what they’ve been working up to…..

“Let me in.”

They say ‘You can’t choose who you’re attracted to.’ As if you can rape anyone you’re attracted to in the street a la Roosh’s ‘satire’. As if people don’t have rights, and private bodies, and physical attraction cannot be ignored.

Actually, sexual tastes are mutable/fluid/changeable/trendy/fashionable, as porn users have proven in various studies. You seek what you feed. A man seeks out anal porn, they’ve turned themselves homosexual. They’re conditioning themselves, training their body’s sexual response cycle. A man seeks out goat porn, child porn, etc. They choose to orgasm to these deplorable things, out of personal weakness. You may hear them say they are shocked by those things, not sexually aroused. Okay, then why touch your junk while viewing it? Nowadays, it is common for men to consider that masturbation requires porn… a view pushed by degenerates, wishing for new recruits, knowing about the desensitization cycle because slippery slope does apply to physical stimulation. Like going to the gym and building muscle. You load on more until you buckle. The body is one big input and output machine. Sex is the biggest carrot (sorry) of incentive in behaviourism. It builds Empires and destroys them.

If you take up babysitting jobs while fantasizing about little girls, you don’t get to blame other people for being ‘bigoted’. Projection of guilt doesn’t work. He already lied to himself, to other people, stalked around his chosen demo, scoped a target, and engineered a situation where he could commit a crime. That is 100% him.

Hold adults responsible for their actions, victim culture is based on infantilization, babying people and holding them to lesser standards. Standards are not ‘unfair’, they are necessary if you want respect. Sometimes I get accusations of being sexist toward men. It isn’t my fault men commit the majority of sexual crimes. That is my exact point. They are 100% responsible for their actions, including the oven-worthy ones. As are women when they rarely make those evil choices  e.g. https://www.icetrend.com/morgue-worker-arrested-after-giving-birth-to-a-dead-mans-baby/

Evil isn’t a male/female/Christian/Muslim/Hindu/atheist/whatever thing. That is my exact point, exactly. It is a choice, which everyone has. If you cannot accept the responsibility of adult choices, you do not get the rights associated with adulthood either e.g. the ability to consent to sex, a choice. Such people are correct, they should be treated like children – but with no half measures. Hence, the asylum was made, to give these people the peace they needed.

Briefly, on stigma.

Every time I see a BS argument about ‘ending stigma’ like a mean rumour on the playground, in practice trying to blame other people for being the victim and reacting as such to unacceptable behaviour from the sick who inconsiderately refuse to get help or take their meds, I know I’m seeing a person that has never witnessed true mental disease. Psychiatry follows the Medical Model. Mental illness, is also mental disease. They are the same thing in synonym and in theoretical backing. Like client and patient refer to the same person. It’s like someone with Black Death who visits family, not caring if someone else gets hurt. At best, they’re terrible sociopaths lacking remorse and empathy in spreading it by choice (cough HIV cough). They should seek solitude and treatment until they are safe for society.
Depression isn’t someone posting crying emoji on social media. Psychosis isn’t limited to thinking you shit unicorn sprinkles. Mania isn’t painting pretty swirly pictures with cutesy hashtags. Depression is a mother drowning her baby because the father refused to co-parent and there aren’t enough hours in the day alone*. Psychosis is murdering your parents because they refused to make you Mac n Cheese so they were obviously demons. Mania is jumping off a building because they thought they were could fly on the power of good intentions. Enabling those sick people for your own ego is also sick. Sick people require treatment, this is common sense. If they don’t require treatment, they are not sick, and therefore, require no sympathy, as they are perfectly well and simply bad at coping with everyday stressors. As many people are without bellyaching about it and promptly seek mechanisms to forever fix their own issue, responsibly. Stigma is the sane reaction to the insane. Diseased people are dangerous, whether the illness is mental or physical. You cannot guilt people into placing themselves in harm’s way. That is wrong.

Abnormality isn’t any excuse for criminality. The law is not a guide on what is psychologically healthy.

Back to pedophiles.

Acceptance, it starts. Everybody accepts that degenerates exist. We have the internet. We know you’re there. What they mean is Accept me in your life.

Against freedom of association and its less-discussed flipside, the Right to Ostracize. 

Eventually they move onto celebration, but all the parades in the world won’t quiet that little voice inside called a Conscience. They don’t like the idea of God because God sees all, even the things that person is in denial of while it is convenient.

But if it’s something you can’t help, there’s nothing to celebrate. If it’s a medical condition, it needs to be kept private for treatment. Otherwise social pressure comes in. That’s why therapists must be confidential, because even their balanced account will bias the recovery. These people slander themselves, happily. They are quite stupid. Reputation has repercussions. You want to write about rape in a lascivious tone? People will think you’re a rapist. You want to write about abusing little girls? People will think you’re a pedophile. Nobody forced you dudes.

It’s like how the self-styled ‘pansexuals’ love orientation theory, although an All option is an impossible orientation (it’s like a sphere as a degree) but then they begin listing all the things they aren’t into. When Pan means all. So no, the meaning of the word implies you are a necrophile, and a pedophile, and into bestiality. That is the meaning of the word. If you use that choice of word, you are going to be considered among that lot. Personal definitions don’t apply to the public. You don’t get to play thought police.

Educate yourself = Brainwash yourself with my opinions for me.

FYI This is Pan.

At the very least, pansexuals are goat-fuckers. If you are not a would-be goat-fucker, don’t call yourself a pansexual, dipshits. Otherwise, when you use that term thinking you’re cool on tumblr, you’ll find yourself swiftly unemployed as the creepy guy. It is creepy. Creepy is the new edgy. If you get a face tattoo or stupid hair, you’ll be fired for that too. Welcome to social consequences for social ineptitude, brought to you by maths.

*Anyone who disputes that very common story, ask yourself ‘Where was the father?’ At literally any point beforehand.

Sluts are rejected by other women, even sluts themselves

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-05-women-promiscuous-female-peers-friends.html

They're so stupid it's a laughriot

Literally nobody likes them socially (cause and effect are bidirectional). And they think behaviour is without consequence? They are “unsuitable for friendship” and long-term relationships, never ‘wife material’ certainly.

Participants’ preference for less sexually active as friends remained even when they personally reported liberal attitudes about casual sex or a high number of lifetime lovers.

They know, deep down, how fucked up they are and don’t want to deal with drama twice over, acting up because it’s the only form of attention you can scrape.
“poor psychological and ” – did it measure this? which came first?
Average men don’t want to be friends with players either:

Even sexually modest men preferred the non-permissive potential friend in only half of all variables.

Only half? Yeah, the researcher is a broad. There isn’t a ‘double standard’ as she claims. Players want wingmen friends some of the time, but still, not one more successful than them. Totally different consideration, nothing to do with ‘stigma’, what is she on?

Never occurs to these people that “stigma” is in fact, true? No studies on that, are there?
Nobody asks the question of whether the stereotypes are true? The stigma is justified? Or is the answer un-PC so they never published it?

It’s like drunk-driving and wondering why nobody trusts you with their car keys, they’re socially retarded. Social reputation in a social species, which you’re never going to change, is crucial to social survival. Don’t wanna be treated like a goatfucker? Don’t fuck any goats. They want the reward of the bad girl (behaviour) AND the reward of the good girl too (being treated with respect). They want to have their cake and eat it. It’s impossible. Nobody likes a slag (not even themselves). Never will. You have to choose and you did choose, quit crying about the consequences of your foolish agency.

Feminist trying to remove stigma of STIs

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/i-have-herpes-woman-tells-the-world-about-life-and-love-with-the-sti-to-battle-stigma-10185284.html

There is a stigma for a reason. (Birth defects and miscarriage).

It’s terrible you weren’t told by the presumably random man who gave it to you, it’s awful wearing protection didn’t stop it, but if you choose to have casual sex – it happens. I’d feel sorry for you if you got it from your husband, though. Because again, it’s female fertility that suffers.

Guardian feminist misses the prejudice and negative stigma of tattoos

It makes her feel less special.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/24/new-wave-tattoos-prejudice-nice-people-evan-davis

Of course I hate myself too. For what could be more close-minded and short-sighted than passing judgment on what someone chooses to do with their body? I feel like a throwback, obliged to stifle an involuntary shudder when the waitress who serves my flat white reveals a sleeve tatt as long as, well, her arm. “What on earth does your mother think?” I inwardly tut, avoiding the uncomfortable thought that her mother probably has one too.

Of course, anyone with an ounce of intellectual curiosity or emotional openness will know that all this is wild nonsense, socially constructed. Indeed, it’s at this point someone always pipes up that “tattoos used to be upper class”. Winston Churchill had one and so did his mum. However, these days we have Sam Cam with a dolphin just below her ankle while Emma Parker-Bowles is reported to have a kitten on her bottom. By this reckoning, today’s tattoo wearers may simply be social climbers, adopting a status symbol in the way that people 10 years ago would wear green wellies in the King’s Road.

Or you could suggest instead that the current trend for “respectable” young people to get a tattoo is a response to the current crisis in body image; they may simply be kicking back against society’s demands that they should be absurdly slender, shaved or pumped. By this reading, tattooing is not an act of disguised self-harming, but a celebratory turning of the ordinary self into a work of art.

For the political analyst, meanwhile, today’s mild and well-mannered skin inkers are simply playing with nostalgic ideas of rebellion. Since there is nowhere to be an outlaw any more, the best anyone can do is fiddle on the margins. Getting a rose on your upper thigh may be your way of working for the man while signalling to your nearest and dearest that you are not a slave to him.

All these arguments are wearingly familiar, yet they make not a jot of difference to my visceral reaction when I see a Celtic cross marching down someone’s upper arm. In response to a stranger’s body my own starts to respond with waves of nausea. Today’s tattoos make me anxious because they jumble the categories by which I first learned to make sense of the world, the difference between safe and unsafe.

This doesn’t make me proud, but it is worth attending to because this is how prejudice starts, with a fear so deep it cannot be reasoned away, no matter how much we wish it to be. The best we can do, perhaps, is acknowledge it freely to ourselves, then learn to bite our tongues.

We are dealing with children’s minds in adult bodies.

Drugs #101: Addiction and Physical Dependence

They’re completely separate things.
A drug is a typically organic substance that can impair physiological functioning or kill when given to the healthy population and a drug as medicine is a chemical composition that will repair your improper bodily functioning or you will die without it in an individual body, long term. Addicts may develop non-medicinal physical dependence but medically-obligated physical dependents are not addicts per se.

A drug user with medical physical dependence only can take a processed form of their medicine without the psychological effects (commonly a high) very happily whereas an addict would require the high, the specific form of drug is merely a trigger for the brain created by past memories of use by the amygdala. These extreme-intensity usage memories create many of the symptoms of withdrawal (psychosomatic) and delude the brain into believing it genuinely needs the drug e.g. claims marijuana is as healthy as a vitamin and the push to normalize (the societal danger of addict populations, social contagion and acceptability).

The sole cause of addiction beyond a doubt is beginning use in the first place. It is impossible to be addicted to (or physically dependent on) a substance the body (and brain) has never experienced. This is a self-selecting type of stupidity (hubris/arrogance) regularly found in teenagers (immature prefrontal cortex) because such users do not think or disbelieve their mind could be compromised by addiction. Their brains already create this illusion to necessitate the anticipated reward (high) prior to initial use or they wouldn’t take it (such as the processed form with no high). The foolproof layman method to test for addiction is simple: substance deprivation for a year. Prepare for a list of excuses.

A physical dependency is often created by doctors to treat patients with chronic conditions, usually chronic pain symptoms (ongoing). Addicts try to ape this category (some sincerely, others deceptively) but are increasingly thwarted by processed (reward-weakened) variants of their poison. Specific advocates for drug legalization ignore the essential fact of escalation and compensation. As part of the brain’s hedonic treadmill, it craves increasingly more of the reward from use, compelling drug users to harder toxins (harder reward, creating deeper addiction and physical damage) and this is the biological component of addiction that makes the habitual behaviour of use so challenging to physically extinguish from the brain.

Physical dependency creates withdrawal symptoms too but the patient’s individual physical needs (inc. not dying) and substance type distinguish this from addicts e.g. insulin to a diabetic.The human brain is connected to facilitate the reward response feedback loops because they are evolutionally guided by the basic needs to survive (food, water, sex) and this is why there is no such thing as a food addict, water addict or sex addict, merely people with impulse control issues seeking a social ‘displacement of responsibility’. Beyond these essential elements for the sustenance of our individual life and species general, anything chemical creating a vacuous boost in the reward system is a drug, whether you like it or not. Drug users resent the stigma for their activities whether or not their poison is legal (ethanol/alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine etc) because the positive emotional response loop (dopamine, serotonin release) caused by their usage memories creates defensive dissonance when challenged by non-users. Even polite persistent enquiry can sometimes trigger a psychotic episode where the patient is completely detached from reality and VERY DANGEROUS. This is why trained professionals intervene. In the latter stages, the drug/s become integrated into personal identity and extraction or therapeutic measures become unlikely to resolve the issue without constant medical care (rehabilitation facilities). Moreover, this reduces the risk of sudden death caused by the somatic shock of going ‘clean’ and allows overall physiological strength to be built up (reverse what the drugs did) while the problem is gradually resolved.

If a substance exists in a natural form within, say, a foodstuff, it is not addictive because food reward circuits are natural and normal and can never be extinguished. This is why milk (dairy), sugar, chocolate, chilli, coffee and caffeine ‘addiction’ is a misnomer. However, a person habitually needing a purified artificial version of these may constitute a non-medical physical dependence or perhaps a behavioural addiction e.g. alcoholism. Behavioural addictions require holistic (whole life) perspective for diagnosis e.g. someone who works online cannot be an internet addict if those hours online constitute their occupation (add to their success and life) and they can easily disconnect for a while. Behavioural addictions where they do exist are more accurately termed compulsions and relate to personality disorders or obsessions created by unmet needs. Substitution is the norm where one behaviour is broken, another is taken up. Social contagion is a significant factor for poor impulse control. Behavioural or result-based addictions when positive are discounted for lack of stigma nor bodily harm e.g. ‘high’ grades, promotion (power/status boost), painting. However, they can display withdrawal symptoms from endogenous neurotransmittor levels e.g. low serotonin creates acute compulsiveness completing the cycle to repeat a rewarding behaviour and low dopamine creates psychomotor agitation including pacing and fidgeting, also apathy, chosen social isolation and anhedonia (nothing is enjoyable and everything fast becomes boring).

 

By most definitions, Sherlock Holmes is not an addict. However, he qualifies as an addictive personality with a high arousal threshold and high need for cognition.

By most definitions, Sherlock Holmes is not an addict. However, he qualifies as an addictive personality with a high arousal threshold and excessively superhuman high need for cognition.

Related terms: Dosage Response Curve and (innate) Arousal Thresholds causative of addictive personality tendency.

Post inspired by this video, Sherlock Holmes’ withdrawal symptoms

Mark the positive addiction withdrawal symptoms from endogenous behaviour-triggered stimulation.

And yes, you can be addicted to love.