Page 5 | Study of Monkeypox in Women in the Lancet

Igneococcus · 2022-12-30T22:26:10+00:00

Have a guess what percentage of the study are actually women. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02187-0/fulltext#:~:text=The%20clinical%20features%20of%20monkeypox%20in%20women%20and,anal%20and%20genital%20lesions%20with%20prominent%20mucosal%20involvement.

Pallisers · 30/12/2022 22:47

Well they seem to have done a comparison of how monkey pox infects and affects women as opposed to men except they used transwomen as the male part of the study. Not sure why they didn't use men or call them men.

yeah there is some useful data but the design of this study "let's look at monkey pox in women where the woman cohort for the study is half women and half biological men who identify as women that we will need to call out as such by use of trans and cis" - who thought this was a good idea or added value to the study? Well the Lancet. the people who brought you the spurious autism/vaccination link.

bellac11 · 30/12/2022 22:46

Etinoxaurus · 30/12/2022 22:42

You’re having an irrational reaction.
It’s a study of transmission methods amongst different self identifying groups. You may believe as I do that self id is ridiculous but the point is that if different groups transmit and contract a disease according to how they identify it’s definitely worth examining.

Show quote history

I mean that to use unscientific language undermines the outcomes and the message (for me). Im not irrational though thanks

It only has to mention men and women, no need for all the wrong language.

FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 22:45

pursudebyablackdog · 30/12/2022 22:42

When a supposedly medical journal refers to biological women as 'cis' they can just fuck right off...muppets. It also makes me question the quality of the research, I mean c'mon if you can't tell the difference between male and female how can trust the data?

But they clearly can tell the difference and have grouped the individuals accordingly.

you’re simply dismissing it because you dislike the labels used. FWIW, so do I, but that doesn’t mean their findings aren’t valid

Pixiedust1234 · 30/12/2022 22:44

I didn't even get as far as doing the cookie settings as I saw the words "women and non-binary".

Very scientific.

pursudebyablackdog · 30/12/2022 22:42

When a supposedly medical journal refers to biological women as 'cis' they can just fuck right off...muppets. It also makes me question the quality of the research, I mean c'mon if you can't tell the difference between male and female how can trust the data?

Original poster

Igneococcus · 30/12/2022 22:42

"Similarly, large case series describing the 2022 outbreaks of monkeypox virus have included no or few women"

And this study doesn't really change that.

OP posts:

Etinoxaurus · 30/12/2022 22:42

bellac11 · 30/12/2022 22:39

It refers to women as cis women and uses terms like 'sex assigned at birth'

Its hardly scientific.

Show quote history

You’re having an irrational reaction.
It’s a study of transmission methods amongst different self identifying groups. You may believe as I do that self id is ridiculous but the point is that if different groups transmit and contract a disease according to how they identify it’s definitely worth examining.

Yonderashgrove · 30/12/2022 22:42

Cross posted with loads of others!

Yonderashgrove · 30/12/2022 22:41

I actually don't think that study is bad apart from the obligatory language. It clearly distinguishes between women and transwomen and groups non-binary AFAB with women.
There are useful comparisons of routes of infection etc.
There are also some really nasty pics of lesions so don't look if squeamish.

Original poster

Igneococcus · 30/12/2022 22:41

I actually agree that there is useful data in that paper, I just wish they wouldn't claim that this is a study about women when almost half of the cohort aren't.

OP posts:

bellac11 · 30/12/2022 22:39

Etinoxaurus · 30/12/2022 22:37

Read it. The abstract of the findings are only a couple of hundred words long. It’s very clear that Monkey pox affects pp according to their sex not gender. It’s a useful piece of research.

It refers to women as cis women and uses terms like 'sex assigned at birth'

Its hardly scientific.

FurAndFeathers · 30/12/2022 22:38

Etinoxaurus · 30/12/2022 22:37

Read it. The abstract of the findings are only a couple of hundred words long. It’s very clear that Monkey pox affects pp according to their sex not gender. It’s a useful piece of research.

Yes this. The conclusions contrast multiple findings and how they’re different in trans women versus women.

Etinoxaurus · 30/12/2022 22:37

Read it. The abstract of the findings are only a couple of hundred words long. It’s very clear that Monkey pox affects pp according to their sex not gender. It’s a useful piece of research.

Iliveditwizbit · 30/12/2022 22:36

Gosh it’s like one of those riddles from the 70s magazines. ‘If two horses have black spots and three have black and brown spots how many have green spots?’ Or something 🤯
i don’t know the answer my brain is frazzled. Is it zero again 🤨

NotRightNowNo · 30/12/2022 22:34

I'm so sick of this shit 😒

Runningfire · 30/12/2022 22:33

How does that help advance science.

NotRightNowNo · 30/12/2022 22:33

Indeed. Pity the data is useless 😕

dementedpixie · 30/12/2022 22:32

It's a bloody joke tbh

Original poster

Igneococcus · 30/12/2022 22:32

That's one way of looking at it.

OP posts:

NotRightNowNo · 30/12/2022 22:31

All of them because they say they are?