# slo.sex.clam

> `

>        From: rick@callamer.com (Rick Castello)
>        Newsgroups: slo.sex
>        Subject: Dave Vindicated or Mollusca Revisited
>        Date: 5 Sep 1996 06:49:44 GMT
>        Message-ID: <50lt6q$j5g@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        Keywords: cambler, kluce, doh!

> `

Well, I was listening to LoveLine tonight in my car, and heard an interesting call. A young man called in asking about an STD he thought he might have, called Mollusca Contagioso.

Dr. Drew, (A board certified physician) instantly verified the existence of said STD, explained that it is a common occurence, is harmless, often appearing like zits, but instead of being filled with pus, they contain a small semi-hard whitish "marble" that contains the virus. Once the "marble" is removed, the carrier is no longer contagious.

He did not discuss whether Mollusca has been "officially" attributed to cause an increase in sexual drive, but I intend to fax the show and ask what they've heard.

Dave, kudos! You reported a fast-breaking "epidemic," shared what information you had with your friends, and steadfastly withstood wrongful persecution for it multiple times. I appreciate the fact that you weren't joking about something so serious as an STD, though others may have believed you to be so petty.

Vindication.

-Rick

> `

>        From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
>        Newsgroups: slo.sex
>        Subject: Re: Dave Vindicated or Mollusca Revisited
>        Date: 5 Sep 1996 16:02:17 GMT
>        Message-ID: <50mtih$4gf@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        References: <50lt6q$j5g@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        Keywords: cambler, kluce, doh!

> `

Great, now Rick is in on the joke. Funny, I listen to Love Line too, and didn't hear it...

> `

>        From: rick@callamer.com (Rick Castello)
>        Newsgroups: slo.sex
>        Subject: Re: Dave Vindicated or Mollusca Revisited
>        Date: 5 Sep 1996 16:49:25 GMT
>        Message-ID: <50n0b3$5rm@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        References: <50lt6q$j5g@twizzler.callamer.com> <50mtih$4gf@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        Keywords: cambler, kluce, doh!

> `

    In article <50mtih$4gf@twizzler.callamer.com>,
    Christopher Ambler  wrote:
    >Great, now Rick is in on the joke. Funny, I listen to Love Line too,
    >and didn't hear it...

You're kidding, right? Fax the station and ask them if they mentioned it. I believe it was about 10:30 that they mentioned it.

There comes a time when the balance of evidence tips, such that the burden of proof tips to the side of the skeptic, rather than the bringer of information.

-Rick

> `

>        From: ealdrich@galaxy.csc.calpoly.edu (Eric M. Aldrich I)
>        Newsgroups: slo.sex
>        Subject: Re: Dave Vindicated or Mollusca Revisited
>        Date: 5 Sep 1996 10:24:41 -0700
>        Message-ID: <50n2d7$6ur@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        References: <50lt6q$j5g@twizzler.callamer.com> <50mtih$4gf@twizzler.callamer.com> <50n0b3$5rm@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        Keywords: cambler, kluce, doh!

> `

For those who are still taking Dave seriously, hit up deja news and check out the newsgroup alt.folklore.urban (or is it alt.urban.folklore? -- I can't remember). A few months back Dave posted something rather interesting

> `

>        From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
>        Newsgroups: slo.sex
>        Subject: Re: Dave Vindicated or Mollusca Revisited
>        Date: 5 Sep 1996 18:38:01 GMT
>        Message-ID: <50n6mg$8tp@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        References: <50lt6q$j5g@twizzler.callamer.com> <50mtih$4gf@twizzler.callamer.com> <50n0b3$5rm@twizzler.callamer.com> <50n2d7$6ur@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        Keywords: cambler, kluce, doh!

> `

It's a well known fact, as evidenced by Dave's post today in slo.punks about the LA Times taking his propaganda "hook line and sinker" that he delights in spreading misinformation in hopes of creating new and bigger urban myths.

The only disappointing part is that his attempts are becoming less and less interesting, and stopped being funny quite some time ago.

> `

>        From: rick@callamer.com (Rick Castello)
>        Newsgroups: slo.sex
>        Subject: Re: More mollusca info
>        Date: 5 Sep 1996 20:17:38 GMT
>        Message-ID: <50nch8$bs2@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        References: <50na4e$ak8@twizzler.callamer.com>

> `

    In article <50na4e$ak8@twizzler.callamer.com>,
    Wolfgang Selenium  wrote:
    >Thanks, Rick, for the pointer for the radio show information.  Was anyone
    >else listening?  I don't ususally catch that show.  Sorry, Chris, that you
    >still seem to think this is supposed to be funny.

It's a syndicated show, LOTS of people listen, though I don't know of anyone Chris would believe was listening last night...

More links for your page:

I'm sure your german is better than mine, check out:

> http://hiv.net/hiv/k/derma/mollus.htm

Also Check out:

> http://www.iacnet.com/health/09112524.htm

It's a good way down the page, listed under Mollusca Contagiosum, rather than -oso, but it's there... (Source- Pamphlet by American Foundation for the Prevention of Venereal Disease, Annual 1988)

Chris, have you looked at any of the "non-Dave propagated" sites? I can understand your worry about false information on such an important subject, but I think perhaps you're accusing Dave of crying wolf again, when he's pointing at the slavering wolf behind you.

-Rick

> `

>        From: dave@boobs.eorbit.net (amassed child vigor)
>        Newsgroups: slo.sex
>        Subject: Re: More mollusca info
>        Date: 5 Sep 1996 23:53:18 GMT
>        Message-ID: <50np5l$i10@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        References: <50na4e$ak8@twizzler.callamer.com> <50nch8$bs2@twizzler.callamer.com> <50nedm$ct0@twizzler.callamer.com>

> `

    Christopher Ambler  wrote:
    >Please cite for me one AMA journal article on this. Just one.

Gee. I dunno which journals are AMA journals (other than JAMA itself). The research I've read is mostly in journals devoted to dermatology, epidemiology, retrovirus stuff, etc. How does the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology strike you as a solid source?

> Molluscum contagiosum in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection. A review of twenty-seven patients. Schwartz, JJ, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992 Oct; 27(4):583-8

Or, maybe the British Journal of Dermatology?

> Mollusca credulis: a marker for advanced HIV infection. (Letter) Koopman, RJ, et al. British J of Dermatol 1992 May; 126(5): 528-9

You could, I suppose, check the "Encyclopaedia of Virology:"

> Molluscum contagiosum virus. In: "Encyclopedia of Virology" Porter, C.D. & Archard, L.C., Academic Press, 1994, 848-53

And then there's the Journal of Medical Virology:

> Molecular epidemiology of Australian isolates of mollusca credulis. Thompson, CH, et al. J. Med. Virol. 1990 Sep; 32(1): 1-9

Or perhaps Pathology:

> Detection of molluscum contagiosum virus DNA by in situ hybridization. Thompson, CH, et al. Pathology 1990; 22: 181-6

Maybe the Journal of Obstetrics/Gynecology?

> Molluscum contagiosum venereum in a women's outpatient clinic: A venereally transmitted disease. Wilkin, JK J. Obstet. Gynecol 1977; 128: 531-35

Put up or shut up.

> `

>        From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
>        Newsgroups: slo.sex
>        Subject: Re: More mollusca info
>        Date: 6 Sep 1996 00:15:48 GMT
>        Message-ID: <50nqfq$imb@twizzler.callamer.com>
>        References: <50na4e$ak8@twizzler.callamer.com> <50nch8$bs2@twizzler.callamer.com> <50nedm$ct0@twizzler.callamer.com> <50np5l$i10@twizzler.callamer.com>

> `

I'm afraid I just don't understand, then, Dave. I found information on the name you're screaming about, but all journal entries I could find seem to indicate that this is a non-issue. Most of the things that you've been saying over the past few months I cannot find. You seem to have taken a real illness with no serious effects or symptoms and made a huge deal out of it. All journal entries I've found call this a ignorable at best, and a nuisance at worst.

The problem here, of course, is that you've so totally ruined your credibility with your pranks that it's hard to believe you anymore.

> `

>     From: David Gross
>     Newsgroups: slo.sex
>     Subject: Re: More mollusca info
>     Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 18:33:23 -0700
>     Message-ID: <50nv35$kp7@twizzler.callamer.com>
>     References: <50na4e$ak8@twizzler.callamer.com> <50nch8$bs2@twizzler.callamer.com> <50nedm$ct0@twizzler.callamer.com> <50np5l$i10@twizzler.callamer.com> <50nqfq$imb@twizzler.callamer.com>

> `

First it was "this disease doesn't exist, if it does exist, show me a cite."

Now, Christopher Ambler writes:

    > I'm afraid I just don't understand, then, Dave. I found information
    > on the name you're screaming about, but all journal entries I could
    > find seem to indicate that this is a non-issue.

Well, it was until you suggested that it was non-existant and I was a liar.

    > You seem to have taken a real illness with no serious effects or
    > symptoms and made a huge deal out of it. All journal entries I've
    > found call this a ignorable at best, and a nuisance at worst.

Unless you're Chris, in which case it's an opportunity to question my credibility at best, and an opportunity to act self-righteous at worst. Remind me again why you thought that this disease was such a big deal and so crucial to be upfront and honest about even though it doesn't really exist? You're the one who made a federal case about all of this, not me.

    > The problem here, of course, is that you've so totally ruined your
    > credibility with your pranks that it's hard to believe you anymore.

I think the person who claimed that there was no evidence that this disease existed at all is much more likely to be suffering from a credibility problem at this point; so far I only seem to have lost credibility with you, and that isn't much of a loss...

> `

>     From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
>     Newsgroups: slo.sex
>     Subject: Re: More mollusca info
>     Date: 6 Sep 1996 03:54:38 GMT
>     Message-ID: <50o7a4$oq9@twizzler.callamer.com>
>     References: <50na4e$ak8@twizzler.callamer.com> <50np5l$i10@twizzler.callamer.com> <50nqfq$imb@twizzler.callamer.com> <50nv35$kp7@twizzler.callamer.com>

> `

David Gross says:

    >Well, it was until you suggested that it was non-existant and I was a
    >liar.

I can take my licks just fine, thank you. You were right, it does seem to exist. I still maintain that it's harmless, and question why you even posted in the first place, but that's immaterial.

    >Remind me again why you thought that this disease was such a big deal
    >and so crucial to be upfront and honest about even though it doesn't
    >really exist?  You're the one who made a federal case about all of this,
    >not me.

I was influenced by your tendency to spread misinformation in the guise of a joke. Nothing more, nothing less.

    >I think the person who claimed that there was no evidence that this
    >disease existed at all is much more likely to be suffering from a
    >credibility problem at this point

I know of quite a few who would disagree. For example, how about the letter to High Times? The letter from the Lambda Sigma Delta fraternity to New Times? The story about clubbing baby harp seals? The UV+ thread? They were all somewhat funny, but established your reputation as someone to be taken with a big grain of salt.

If nothing else, the people who had their party interrupted by the police when you saw fit to publicize it as a meeting of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association for those who don't know) might tend to agree with me. I know of a few of them who are *still* pissed at you.

I think my skepticism is well founded and well placed. I'm fine with my reputation, are you fine with yours? If so, matter closed.