#Global Animal Care Market

[animal-care]

Expanding Opportunities in the Animal Health Market: Trends and Outlook

Introduction

The Animal Health Market is witnessing dynamic growth and evolution, fueled by changing consumer preferences, advancements in veterinary medicine, and increasing awareness of animal welfare. In this blog, we explore key trends shaping the animal health industry and provide insights into the market's outlook for the future.

Rise of Pet Ownership

One of the most notable trends driving the animal health market is the growing popularity of pet ownership. As more people welcome pets into their homes, demand for veterinary services, pet care products, and preventive healthcare measures is on the rise. This trend is particularly evident in urban areas, where pet ownership is becoming increasingly common among young professionals and families.

Focus on Preventive Care

Preventive healthcare has emerged as a key priority for pet owners, leading to increased demand for vaccines, parasite control products, and wellness exams. Veterinarians are increasingly emphasizing the importance of regular check-ups and preventive treatments to maintain pets' health and detect potential issues early. This shift towards proactive healthcare is driving growth in the animal health market.

E-Commerce Boom

The rise of e-commerce platforms has transformed the way pet owners access veterinary products and services. Online retailers offer a wide range of pet care products, prescription medications, and veterinary supplies, providing convenience and accessibility to pet owners. This trend is expected to continue, with e-commerce projected to play an increasingly important role in the distribution of animal health products.

Focus on Animal Welfare

Consumer awareness of animal welfare issues is driving demand for ethically sourced and sustainably produced animal products. This includes pet food, livestock feed, and pharmaceuticals used in animal health care. Companies in the animal health market are responding to these demands by implementing sustainable practices, ensuring the welfare of animals throughout the supply chain.

Technological Advancements

Advancements in technology are revolutionizing the practice of veterinary medicine, with innovations such as telemedicine, digital health monitoring, and artificial intelligence gaining traction. These technologies enable veterinarians to deliver remote care, monitor patients' health in real-time, and make data-driven treatment decisions. As technology continues to advance, it is expected to further enhance the quality and accessibility of veterinary care.

Regulatory Landscape

The Animal Health Market is subject to a complex regulatory landscape, with stringent requirements for product safety, efficacy, and labeling. Regulatory agencies play a critical role in ensuring the quality and integrity of veterinary products and services, safeguarding animal and human health. Companies operating in the animal health market must navigate these regulatory requirements to bring products to market and maintain compliance.

Global Expansion Opportunities

The animal health market offers significant opportunities for global expansion, particularly in emerging markets with growing pet populations and increasing disposable income. Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East are emerging as key growth regions for the animal health industry, presenting opportunities for investment and market expansion.

Conclusion

The animal health market is experiencing rapid growth and transformation, driven by evolving consumer preferences, technological advancements, and regulatory developments. From the rise of pet ownership and the focus on preventive care to the adoption of e-commerce and the expansion into global markets, the animal health industry is poised for continued growth and innovation. By staying abreast of key trends and embracing opportunities for innovation and expansion, stakeholders in the animal health market can position themselves for success in this dynamic and evolving industry.

[crop-protection-market]

Market Exploration and Decoding the Animal Care Market

Introduction: Nurturing the World of Animal Care

In the realm where compassion intersects with responsibility, the Animal Care Market stands as a cornerstone. This exploration embarks on a journey through vital aspects of the sector, illuminating market analysis, demand dynamics, growth patterns, revenue insights, market size, prevailing trends, challenges faced, and emerging trends in animal care.

Animal Care Market Analysis: Unveiling the Compassion Economy

Our journey begins with a foray into the expansive field of Animal Care Market Analysis. Beyond the transactions, this market represents a compassionate economy, with a global valuation reaching a remarkable USD X billion. This valuation acknowledges the sector's vital role in ensuring the well-being of our furry and feathered companions.

Demand Dynamics: The Heartbeat of Animal Care

At the core of the Animal Care Industry is the pulsating rhythm of Demand Dynamics. The ever-growing demand reflects the collective responsibility of society towards the welfare of animals. This section delves into the nuanced patterns that dictate the need for diverse and innovative animal care solutions.

Animal Care Market Growth: Nurturing a Flourishing Ecosystem

The heartbeat of the Animal Care Industry resonates in the rhythm of Animal Care Market Growth. With a projected growth rate of Y% over the next five years, the industry charts a course of expansion. This growth isn't just numerical it signifies the continuous commitment to enhancing the lives of our animal companions. The global Animal Care Market is valued at USD X billion in the current year and Projected growth at a CAGR of Y% from the present year to the foreseeable future.

Revenue Insights: Investing in Animal Well-being

The fiscal landscape of the Animal Care Industry is explored in the Revenue Insights section. Beyond monetary figures, this segment highlights the investments made in ensuring the well-being of animals, showcasing the financial dedication to the cause.

Statistical Insight:

The total investment in animal care and wellness initiatives has witnessed a Y% increase over the last two years.

Market Size: Gauging the Scope of Compassion

Gauging the scale of compassion, the Animal Care Market Size segment brings attention to the vast scope of the industry. It encapsulates the expansive network of products and services dedicated to catering to the diverse needs of animal welfare. The Animal Care Market encompasses over X thousand products catering to various aspects of animal well-being.

Trends in Animal Care: Navigating Evolving Practices

Trends in the Animal Care Market Trends segment are akin to an evolving ecosystem, gradually altering practices and approaches. From holistic wellness solutions to personalized care, the industry is witnessing transformative trends that align with the growing global emphasis on responsible and caring animal ownership. Adoption of advanced technology and smart devices in pet care has surged by Y% in the last year.

Animal Care Market Challenges: Addressing Compassionate Complexities

Beyond the apparent strides, the Animal Care Industry faces challenges explored in the Animal Care Market Challenges section. From regulatory frameworks to evolving consumer expectations, addressing these challenges demands continuous innovation and a commitment to ethical practices.

Emerging Trends in Animal Care: Pioneering the Future

In any evolving landscape, new trends emerge as pioneers. The Emerging Trends in Animal Care inject fresh perspectives into an industry that is witnessing transformative shifts. These trends foster healthy competition, pushing the boundaries of what's achievable in the realm of animal care.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, the Animal Care Market is not merely a financial domain; it's a compassionate force steering the course of global responsibility. From market analysis guiding strategic decisions to emerging trends shaping practices, each facet contributes to the resilient evolution of the animal care industry. As society continues to embrace compassion, overcoming challenges, and pioneering innovative solutions, the Animal Care Market remains an indispensable force in nurturing the well-being of our cherished animal companions.

[acti-veg]

Leather vs. Pleather: 8 Myths Debunked

Since we are all beyond tired of seeing the same regurgitated leather posts every day, I've compiled and briefly debunked some of the most common myths peddled about leather and pleather… So hopefully we can all move on to talk about literally anything else.

1) Leather is not sustainable.

Approximately 85% of all leather (almost all leather you'll find in stores) is tanned using chromium. During the chrome tanning process, 40% of unused chromium salts are discharged in the final effluents, which makes it's way into waterways and poses a serious threat to wildlife and humans. There are also significant GHG emissions from the sheer amount of energy required to produce and tan leather.

Before we even get the cow's hide, you first need to get them to slaughter weight, which is a hugely resource-intensive process. Livestock accounts for 80% of all agricultural land use, and grazing land for cattle likely represents the majority of that figure. To produce 1 pound of beef (and the subsequent hide), 6-8 pounds of feed are required. An estimated 86% of the grain used to feed cattle is unfit for human consumption, but 14% alone represents enough food to feed millions of people. On top of that, one-third of the global water footprint of animal production is related to cattle alone. The leather industry uses greenwashing to promote leather as an eco-friendly material. Leather is often marketed as an eco-friendly product, for example, fashion brands often use the Leather Working Group (LWG) certificate to present their leather as sustainable. However, this certification (rather conveniently) does not include farm-level impacts, which constitute the majority of the negative environmental harm caused by leather.

2) Leather is not just a byproduct.

Some cows are raised speciifically for leather, but this a minority and usually represents the most expensive forms of leather. This does not mean that leather is just a waste product of beef and dairy, or that it is a completely incidental byproduct; it is more accurate to call leather a tertiary product of the beef and dairy industries. Hides used to fetch up to 50% of the total value of the carcass, this has dropped significantly since COVID-19 to only about 5-10%, but this is recovering, and still represents a significant profit margin. Globally, leather accounts for up to 26% of major slaughterhouses’ earnings. Leather is inextricably linked to the production of beef and dairy, and buying leather helps make the breeding, exploitation and slaughter of cows and steers a profitable enterprise.

3) Leather is not as biodegradable as you think.

Natural animal hides are biodegradable, and this is often the misleading way leather that sellers word it. "Cow hide is fully biodegradable" is absolutely true, it just purposely leaves out the fact that the tanning process means that the hide means that leather takes between 25 and 40 years to break down. Even the much-touted (despite it being a tiny portion of the market) vegetable-tanned leather is not readily biodegradable. Since leather is not recyclable either, most ends up incinerated, or at landfill. The end-of-life cycle and how it relates to sustainability is often massively overstated by leather sellers, when in fact, it is in the production process that most of the damage is done.

4) Leather is not humane.

The idea that leather represents some sort of morally neutral alternative to the evils of plastic is frankly laughable, at least to anyone who has done even a little bit of research into this exploitative and incredibly harmful industry. Cows, when properly cared for, can live more than fifteen years. However, most cows are usually slaughtered somewhere around 2-3 years old, and the softest leather, most luxurious leather comes from the hide of cows who are less than a year old. Some cows are not even born before they become victim to the industry. Estimates vary, but according to an EFSA report, on average 3% of dairy cows and 1.5 % of beef cattle, are in their third-trimester of pregnancy when they are slaughtered.

Slaughter procedures vary slightly by country, but a captive bolt pistol shot to the head followed by having their throats slit, while still alive, is standard industry practice. This represents the “best” a slaughtered cow can hope for, but many reports and videos exist that suggest that cows still being alive and conscious while being skinned or dismembered on the production line is not uncommon, some of these reports come from slaughterhouse workers themselves.

5) Leather often involves human exploitation.

The chemicals used to tan leather, and the toxic water that is a byproduct of tanning, affect workers as well as the environment; illness and death due to toxic tanning chemicals is extremely common. Workers across the sector have significantly higher morbidity, largely due to respiratory diseases linked to the chemicals used in the tanning process. Exposure to chromium (for workers and local communities), pentachlorophenol and other toxic pollutants increase the risk of dermatitis, ulcer nasal septum perforation and lung cancer.

Open Democracies report for the Child Labour Action Research Programme shows that there is a startlingly high prevalence of the worst forms of child labour across the entire leather supply chain. Children as young as seven have been found in thousands of small businesses processing leather. This problem is endemic throughout multiple countries supplying the global leather market.

6) Pleather is not a ‘vegan thing’.

Plastic clothing is ubiquitous in fast fashion, and it certainly wasn’t invented for vegans. Plastic leather jackets have been around since before anyone even knew what the word vegan meant, marketing department have begun describing it as ‘vegan leather’ but it’s really no more a vegan thing than polyester is. Most people who wear pleather are not vegan, they just can’t afford to buy cow’s leather, which remains extremely expensive compared to comparable fabrics.

It is striking how anti-vegans consistently talk about how ‘not everyone can afford to eat plant-based’ and criticise vegans for advocating for veganism on that basis, yet none of them seem to mind criticisms directed at people for wearing a far cheaper alternative than leather. You can obviously both be vegan and reduce plastic (as we all should), but vegans wear plastic clothing for the same reason everyone else does: It is cheaper.

7) Plastic is not the only alternative.

When engaging in criticism of pleather, the favourite tactic seems to be drawing a false dilemma where we pretend the only options are plastic and leather. Of course, this is a transparent attempt to draw the debate on lines favourable to advocates of leather, by omitting the fact that you can quite easily just buy neither one.

Alternatives include denim, hemp, cork, fiber, mushroom fiber, cotton, linen, bamboo, recycled plastic, and pinatex, to name a few. Alternatives exist for everything from materials designed to ensure sub-zero temperatures and specialist motorcycle equipment. There are exceptions in professions like welding, where an alternative can be difficult to source, but nobody needs a jacket, shoes or a bag that looks like leather. For most of us, leather is a luxury item that doesn’t even need to be replaced at all.

If you'd like to see a detailed summary of the comparison between leather/wool and plastic, as well as the available alternatives, you can find that here.

8) Leather is not uniquely long-lasting.

The longevity of leather is really the only thing it has going for it, environmentally speaking. Replacing an item less often means fewer purchases, and will likely have a lower environmental impact than one you have to replace regularly. Leather is not unique in this respect, however, and the idea that it is, is mostly just effective marketing.

As your parents will tell you, a well-made denim jacket can last a lifetime. Hemp and bamboo can both last for decades, as can cork and pinatex. Even cotton and linen can last for many years when items are looked after well. While some materials are more hard wearing than others, how long an item will last is mostly the result of how well made the product is and how well it is maintained, not whether or not the item is leather.

[lillipad72]

Anne's World: A New Century of Anne of Green Gables

Part 1: Introduction (Irene Gammel)

"Anyone who has ever encountered her in one of L.M. Montgomery's novels will never forget her, for she is what we're not - and all that we long for and shall never become." - Jack Zipes on Anne Shirley

Key questions the book wants to answer:

"How do we read this early twentieth-century novel in ways that are relevant for readers of the twenty-first century?

How do the novel’s ethical dimensions fit into our own era?

Can Anne of Green Gables be read as a therapeutic text, capable of counteracting depression?

What is the power and danger of digital encounters with Anne?"

The goal of this book:

To consolidate and expand upon previous scholarship and information by placing Anne in its contemporary context while also exploring the reception and cultural impact, providing new references for future study.

The essays:

'Seven Milestones: How Anne of Green Gables Became a Canadian Icon' (Carole Gerson) "argues that Anne’s longevity is partly the result of a series of ‘institutional, commercial, and grassroots interventions."

'Matthew Insists on Puffed Sleeves: Ambivalence towards Fashion in Anne of Green Gables' (Allison Matthews, David and Kimberly Wahl) "argues that the text allows Anne Shirley to have it both ways: others want her to be fashionable and ambitious, whereas she wants to fit in."

'I'll never be Agelically Good: Feminist Narrative Ethics in Anne of Green Gables' (Mary Jeanette Moran) "reveals that the novel conforms to a feminist ethical paradigm because it tends to value those ethical choices that preserve or maintain relationships to support the principle that those who nurture others must also care for themselves, and to challenge the assumptions that women naturally care for others or that they alone bear the responsibility to do so."

'Too Headless and Impulsive: Re-reading Anne of Green Gables through a Clinical Approach' (Helen Hoy) "argues for the possibility of reading Anne Shirley as a psychological case study."

'Reading to Heal: Anne of Green Gables as Biblio-therapy' (Irene Gammel) "argues for reading Montgomery’s fiction within the important context of bibliotherapy, or the use of books in the treatment of personal and mental disorders."

'Reading with Blitheness: Anne of Green Gables in Toronto Public Library's Children's Collections' (Leslie McGrath) "examines how Montgomery’s literary reputation endured wide swings of critical opinion"

'Learning with Anne: Early Childhood Education Looks at New Media for Young Girls' (Jason Nolan) "looks closely at Anne of Green Gables: The Animated Series, Anne’s Diary, and New Moon Girls as prominent examples of how Anne of Green Gables and the work of Montgomery in general have been taken up as locations for formal and informal learning, through the identifi cation of Anne as variously a marketing icon, as an ideal young girl, and through the way Montgomery constructed learning environments within her novels."

'On the Road from Bright River: Shifting Social Space in Anne of Green Gables' (Alexander MacLeod) "studies the ways in which the characters inside the novel, like the readers outside of the text and the real-world visitors to the Green Gables National Park site in Cavendish, Prince Edward Island, are all engaged in a complex process of reading and rewriting social space"

'Anne in a "Globalized" World: Nation, Nostalgia, and Postcolonial Perspectives of Home' (Margaret Steffler) "explores the impact of the novel and character both outside and within Canada, arguing that the attraction of Montgomery’s work continues into the twenty-first century because it resonates with conditions in contemporary lives and culture, specifically the emotions and activity involved in migratory patterns of losing and creating home"

'An Enchanting Girl: International Portraits of Anne's Cultural Transfer' (Andrew O'Malley, Huifeng Hu, Ranbir K. Banwait, Irene Gammel) "shines a light on the crossover points from one culture to another, identifying cultures that have ‘appropriated’ Anne for very different purposes"

'What's in a Name? Towards a Theory of the Anne Brand' (Benjamin Lefebvre) "draws on film and cultural theories to consider paratextual Annes in terms of authorial ownership, control, and narrative pleasure"

'Mediating Anne' (Richard Cavell) (afterword) "closes off the book by providing a jumping-off point, looking forward to future research exploring the global Anne."

hi hi hi! I just discovered this book from 2010, which is a collection of essays on Anne of Green Gables, and I thought I might go through each essay and share my thoughts on the pieces! If anyone else has this book or access to any of the essays (some of which I think you can find online) I would love to discuss them with you! xoxo lily

[gossippool]

STOP WAIT A MINUTE! so i've always wondered what exactly vanessa meant by "show me you care about something bigger than you", and for some reason my mind has always jumped to like world issues, championing social causes and shit. this may just be an absolute reach but guess what dots my brain just connected

wade: those are my feelings. on abortion, religious freedom, animal rights, privacy rights, vaccines, free market capitalism, global climate change.

guys do you think he read up on these things for vanessa. i need a defibrillator

[goldensmilingbird]

I watched the interview with Zag and Aton Soumache (he's the executive producer for ML and honorary president of Mediavan) and took some notes. I'm not going to retell the whole interview here, only certain parts, you can watch it on your own if you wish (it's an hour long).

It bugged me a bit that it's called "Meet the creators of Miraculous" even though Astruc wasn't there and Aton is more on the business side, from what I understand. But anyway.

The interviewer asks Zag about how they developed this universe, and Zag talks about how the market at the time was against girl power and it was hard to sell, but ultimately "the world embraced the vision and it became what it is today". He also says: "we didn't just want to produce just content, we wanted to launch a brand". To make it huge, one of them had to go to US, so Jeremy went, and Aton stayed in France. The idea with Miraculous was to be "glocal" - basically to keep their local, French culture and influences while making it global.

Then he talks about anime influences - and this sent me, I'll just put the whole quote: "And when you look at the anime from Japan, there are girl powers, there are girl power superheroes, but they're very very sexy. [...] And this is something that is culturally okay there, but in France or America, it's just impossible. But when you look at the message behind it, these are girls who save the world. And when I grew up watching like, Sailor Moon, at this age I didn't even realise that she was super sexy. I was just...watching, and her aspirational character, and I was waiting for the final combo when she will do, you know, the super flashing light from the power of the Moon and kill the villains, and that's just what I was excited about".

So he wanted to mix this magical girl power with American look and feel of the comics. He thought about how he liked Goku or Spiderman and as a kid he didn't care about what studio was behind them, they were just characters to him, and so he approached Ladybug the same way. Then they discuss licensing, and how it's hard to do "if you don't start in the beginning, in the creative process" (in Aton's words), or, like Zag put it, "you don't make the toys of your content, you have to think about it as a brand"; "once you have the DNA, you can tell different stories, Ladybug will remain the same".

And they move on to talking about the movie. Aton says that you might think it's easy to make a movie for a brand, but it's the opposite, because it has to be different from something you can watch for free on tv, but also not dissapoint the fans. "And somehow when you say it's a success on tv, people say okay, it's for the young audience. And we wanted to make a bigger audience, we wanted to make a family movie". That audience distinction surprised me a bit.

Zag couldn't bring the show team on the movie because they were constantly busy with the show. He says it was painful because they had "great beginning and great ending and great stories" but every time they'd be like "omg we cannot say this, in episode X she said the total opposite". So for example they had planned an intro (you can see the animatic here, if you haven't seen it), where Marinette moved into Paris from China but then they remembered that "wait, in the Shanghai special she said she's never been to China" and had to scrap it. And also Zag couldn't be aware of everything that was going in the story room because he was so focused on the movie. (I wonder how much of the movie was Zag knowingly diverging from the show and how much was him forgetting or not knowing what's canon)

Aton says "the idea came from the music". Zag was preparing songs for a musical, when someone said that the music was so emotional and had a cinematic feel, we should go for a movie. Aton said the idea was "crazy", but also that they had something unique 'cause no one ever did a movie with superheroes singing. And also to them, it was opportunity to bring new people, especially parents into the show. And according to them, it did work because parents were going "I can see why my kid is crazy about this show now" and the ratings did get higher.

The interviewer asked how many people are working on the show, Zag said they started at 3, then 4, then 10, now there are like 15 to manage the story, and to manage the brand around 200. 120 in France, and the rest in America, and some in Asia, Africa, etc. He also mentioned they brought in new writers, because the show needed "fresh blood" and some writers move onto other projects, but Thomas and Sebastian are still the "keepers of what the episode should look like".

He talks about Lady Tiger, and how she's from Japan and has cancer and is balding, and how his dad went through the same thing. "When someone is sick, it's their whole family that is sick". And adds: "we have like 10 characters in the next 11 years, and they're like, all written and all in production already" (which I already rambled about, but I cannot imagine them all being in production at the same time).

They talk about animation some more, but what I wanted to know is their answer to the last question about AI. Basically, Aton was like, AI is scary for live action folks but not for us, because "AI is animation, you go quicker" and "if we can go from 4 years to 2 years with AI, I'm only happy with it". And Zag's stance (based off this and another interview) is that genAI can't replace imagination and passion (I agree) but it's still a great tool (ehhh) and it's "just a computer", "nothing about it to be scared about".

And that's where it ends.

[mariacallous]

For years, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., U.S. President Donald Trump’s pick as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has spread conspiracy theories and factually incorrect information about vaccination, drug regulation, epidemiology, and biomedical science in general to advance his skepticism of evidence-based science and medicine.

The anti-vaccine organization Kennedy helped found, Children’s Health Defense, has conducted extensive disinformation campaigns, including funding propaganda films such as Plandemic, the Vaxxed trilogy, and Medical Racism: The New Apartheid, which specifically targeted Black Americans to discourage vaccination. The scale of the destruction Kennedy could wreak at the helm of HHS is immense.

HHS is tasked with overseeing government efforts to take care of the American people, and its 10 component agencies, from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), play different specialized roles to do so. Kennedy has already floated some of his ideas that would harm public health in the United States, including ending water fluoridation; rescheduling or withdrawing regulatory approval for numerous vaccines; reshaping the drug approval process and removing lifesaving drugs from the market; giving infectious disease research a “break”; and lifting food safety regulations on some products, such as unpasteurized “raw” milk, while imposing new regulations on others.

Even small changes to these essential functions of HHS would have catastrophic consequences without Kennedy needing to ban vaccines. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Kennedy used the tragic deaths of two infants from mis-formulated measles vaccines in Samoa to advance his theories. Kennedy flew to Samoa to support a campaign that falsely suggested that vaccination was unsafe and potentially deadly. Several months later, a massive measles outbreak sickened nearly 6,000 people and left 83 dead, most of them young children. Curtailing routine childhood immunizations would conservatively result in more than a million preventable deaths in the United States.

Highly pathogenic emerging viruses—such as the Ebola virus, avian influenza viruses, and coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic—often appear unexpectedly and, if not effectively contained, cause epidemics and pandemics. Imagining worst-case scenarios about outbreaks is essential for preparing for, responding to, and ideally preventing pandemics altogether.

As a virologist who specializes in such outbreaks, having Kennedy at the helm of HHS during an outbreak of a lethal virus is the worst pandemic scenario I can conceive—and it’s a worryingly real possibility. A massive outbreak of H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza has impacted nearly a thousand herds of dairy cattle across 16 states. The cattle outbreak began in late 2023 with a single spillover from an infected bird in Texas because of the global H5N1 panzootic (a pandemic in animals) that has been ongoing since 2021. Because H5N1-infected cows were not detected for several months, animal transport and milking operations allowed the virus to spread throughout the United States.

More than a year later, the full scope of the cattle outbreak remains unknown. Spillovers from wild birds into domestic poultry have continued and necessitated culling millions of birds. As the tally of infected dairy herds and poultry flocks has risen, human cases have also increased at an alarming rate. Currently, there are more than 70 confirmed or probable cases, including the first cases with severe disease and the first fatal case in the United States. Multiple studies show that a substantial number of H5N1 cases in dairy workers are likely going undetected.

More troublingly, three cases of H5N1 have occurred in children in California, one of which is linked to consumption of raw milk, and spillovers directly from birds also continue with increasing frequency. Although there is no evidence that human-to-human transmission has occurred, the biological reality is that with enough opportunities to adapt to a human host and potentially reassort with seasonal influenza viruses, H5N1 could gain this ability. If that happens, a rapid and effective response will be imperative for containment. If efforts to detect and contain a human outbreak fail, an influenza pandemic is a very real possibility.

Nobody can say with certainty when or if this will happen, but we can anticipate what might happen if it does under Kennedy’s leadership. Although the COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States was replete with mistakes, the first Trump administration did manage to execute some critical interventions that were largely attributable to HHS agencies’ actions.

The initial research on COVID-19 vaccines was conducted at the Vaccine Research Center at NIH in collaboration with NIH-funded academic investigators. The immediate action of these scientists that hastened the research into a development pipeline comprising pre-clinical studies and clinical trials was essential to producing mRNA vaccines at national scale within a year. Operation Warp Speed—which was a joint effort among multiple HHS agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), NIH, and FDA, the Department of Defense, and the private sector—allowed for nationwide distribution of the vaccines and saved millions of lives.

In the event of a bird flu pandemic, millions of lives will again depend on the urgent actions taken by HHS and its component agencies. However, unlike the COVID-19 pandemic, these responses would be orchestrated by someone who promotes conspiracy theories, questions established tenets of science and medicine, and has significant financial interest in pseudoscientific profiteering. Given that Aaron Siri, the lawyer reportedly vetting Kennedy’s picks to lead HHS agencies, has previously petitioned FDA to withdraw or suspend the licenses on the polio and hepatitis B vaccines, it is likely these putative leaders would be equally unsuited to effectively lead essential pandemic responses.

Trump’s putative CDC director, Dave Weldon, is celebrated by anti-vaxxers for his consistent vaccination opposition. He rejects basic facts about vaccines, has appeared in several anti-vaccine documentaries, and is willing to dismiss reliable population-level data in favor of anecdotes.

The nominated FDA commissioner, Marty Makary, has stated that he may rethink current policies for approving diagnostics and medications, including vaccines. Until recently, Makary, a gastrointestinal surgeon who has indicated willingness to loosen food safety regulation and block essential medicines, also sat on an advisory board for Biosafety Now, an organization that opposes research on pandemic viruses, called for the prosecution of virologists, and whose founders have allegedly conducted harassment campaigns against virologists (including myself). Makary’s track record of COVID-19 pronouncements includes his prediction in early 2021 that America would reach “herd immunity” by April.

The nominated NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, has been an outspoken opponent of critical research priorities. In early 2020, he co-authored a profoundly flawed study underestimating the severity of COVID-19 to bolster economic arguments for ending pandemic mitigation measures. Bhattacharya co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), an anti-lockdown policy proposal recommending mass infection as a path to herd immunity, which studies estimate would have significantly increased deaths in the United States beyond the estimated 1.2 million Americans who died from COVID-19.

The GBD gave rise to the Brownstone Institute, where Bhattacharya was a regular content contributor. He has also appeared in a Falun Gong-produced documentary promoting anti-vaccine ivermectin conspiracy theories. He is deeply antagonistic to virology, vaccinology, and public health research, and, like Makary, was also affiliated with Biosafety Now, serving on the board of directors.

Finally, the nominee for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mehmet Oz, is a cardiothoracic surgeon and failed U.S. Senate candidate who used his television show as a vehicle for promoting unproven supplements to promote weight loss and has a long history of distributing medical misinformation. During the pandemic, he opposed masking and vaccination in favor of hydroxychloroquine and supplements he sold through social media.

The damage these figures could do would be exponentially magnified during a pandemic. Early identification of human cases is essential to isolate and contain a growing outbreak. This depends on CDC and state public health officials identifying human cases using sensitive, specific molecular diagnostic tests in combination with standard epidemiological approaches such as contact tracing. This would trigger critical containment measures and medical countermeasures—such as antivirals and vaccines—rapidly.

For H5N1, we are already failing to detect human cases thanks in part to a sluggish response from the CDC, the CDC’s self-imposed monopoly on confirmatory testing, and continued incompetence at developing effective tests.

If the FDA delays or withholds authorization for diagnostic tests, we will be powerless to contain the spread, particularly for very mild or asymptomatic cases that are less likely to be identified clinically but may still be contagious. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC and FDA’s technical ineptitude, poor quality control, and bureaucratic paralysis resulted in a nearly two-month period of undetected virus spread. Containment failed, and the virus established itself in the American population.

In early 2024, the CDC and FDA under the Biden administration repeated many of these errors with H5N1 diagnostic tests, although fortunately no human-to-human transmission has occurred to date. Still, delayed implementation of diagnostic testing further hampered elimination from dairy cattle and delayed diagnosing some human cases. It’s hard to imagine improvement in the Kennedy HHS.

A failure to contain a human H5N1 outbreak will be disastrous over the long term if there is no biomedical research occurring to understand it. Some of the greatest successes of the COVID-19 response were led by NIH-funded investigators, both within NIH itself and by academic scientists supported by extramural NIH grants. Such research can drastically accelerate the timeline for developing and deploying effective countermeasures and inform us where the virus is spreading, who is at the greatest risk, and what treatments work best to save lives.

Kennedy and Bhattacharya have proposed radically reorganizing NIH and reducing funding for infectious diseases and vaccine research. Ultimately, this would create a situation in which we know little about the virus, how it spreads, how it causes disease, or how to treat it. Vaccines would be unavailable, we’d have no information on resistance to antiviral drugs or a pipeline for developing other therapies, and we won’t know where cases are primarily occurring until the hospitals are overwhelmed with H5N1 patients. Our options for intervention would be limited to supportive care and unproven remedies embraced by Kennedy: thoughts, prayers, raw milk, and roadkill.

The devastating impacts of such failures across HHS will not be limited to America, since pandemics transcend national borders. Any suppression of effective public health policy by Kennedy will exacerbate economic, agricultural, ecological, and medical ruin at home and abroad. Anywhere from thousands to millions could die as a direct result.

[centeris2]

New article about SSE

haven't seen anyone talk about it yet, but seems SSE has made yet another licensing deal...?

Whether anything comes from this of course is "ehh, who knows", because there have been several articles about SSE making licensing and branding deals with nothing to show for it. But apparently SSE is now at 26+ million players.

Article under the read more

Rights & Brands saddles up to rep Star Stable worldwide

The Scandinavian licensing agency with The Smurfs and Popeye in its portfolio is on the hunt for consumer products and publishing partners for the popular horse-centric brand for tween girls.

By Cole Watson

February 16, 2024

Hoping to shift from trot to gallop in the consumer products market, Star Stable Entertainment has signed Stockholm-based licensing agency Rights & Brands to represent the global merch and publishing rights of its flagship same-name tween franchise. 

The Star Stable brand currently features a 2D-animated series (Star Stable: Mistfall), mobile games, books, music and a role-playing game called Star Stable Online (pictured) that has attracted more than 26 million registered users since launching in 2011—more than half a million of which actively play it each month. This rich digital experience is built around riding, racing and caring for different breeds of horses on the enchanted island of Jorvik. 

Rights & Brands already represents the licensing interests of Scandinavian kids brands such as The Smurfs, Popeye and Rune Andréasson’s iconic ’60s teddy bear Bamse. And last month, the agency also inked a deal with Finnish children’s book publisher Etana Editions to manage more than 80 picture books, including The Magic Flower (Marika Maijala) and Oh Vivian! (Sari Airola).

[covid-safer-hotties]

In the U.S. Response to Avian Influenza, Echoes of Covid-19 - Published Sept 2, 2024

By Joshua Cohen

It’s been about five months since the Texas Department of State Health Services announced that a worker on a dairy farm had tested positive for avian influenza A (H5N1) virus after being exposed to apparently infected cattle. Since then, the U.S. public health response has been slow and disjointed, bringing back memories of how the federal government responded during the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Despite having a pandemic playbook in early 2020, the U.S. appeared flat-footed in its response to Covid-19, including inadequate testing and unavailable personal protective equipment. And throughout the pandemic, mixed messaging on masks and later vaccines set back public health efforts.

As H5N1 circulates, it seems that lessons from Covid-19 remain unlearned. It appears that missteps are being made regarding testing, surveillance, transparency, and failure of communication and coordination throughout the health care system, the same kinds of things that hurt the response to Covid-19.

“The World Health Organization,” according to NPR, “considers the virus a public health concern because of its potential to cause a pandemic.” What may be concerning is that the genetic sequence of the Spanish flu that killed between 50 and 100 million people from 1918 to 1919 was later found to be an H1N1 virus that originated in birds and then somehow adapted to humans. And based on confirmed cases, the case fatality rate could be as high as 50 percent, as over the past two decades roughly half of about 900 people around the globe known to have contracted bird flu died from it. (There are two caveats, however: Due to limited testing, there were likely more cases that were undetected which would lower the mortality rate. And in the last two years, the global case fatality rate seems to have decreased.)

As of Aug. 30, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 196 dairy cow herds in 14 U.S. states have confirmed cases of avian influenza.

There have been 14 reported cases in humans since 2022, all of whom were exposed to cattle or poultry, and reports suggest that there may be even more sick farm workers who haven’t been tested. There’s no evidence the virus has started to spread among people, but that could change as the situation evolves. The possibility of spillover is always of concern to experts. One of two main competing theories of coronavirus origins and how it evolved into a human-to-human transmissible infection is zoonotic transfer from mammals sold at a wet market in Wuhan, China, to humans.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack declared at a press conference in June that his department “is trying to corner the virus,” while releasing a report that human activity is a conduit to bird flu being transmitted between animals when workers, cows, vehicles and equipment move between farms.

But experts have voiced sharp criticism of the U.S. government’s response, especially around the lack of comprehensive surveillance efforts to ascertain the extent of the outbreak. When interviewed by KFF Health News, Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at the Brown University School of Public Health said, “We’re flying blind.” Without sufficient testing, it’s impossible to know how many animals and humans have been infected or whether the virus has begun to spread between people.

As could have been learned from the Covid-19 experience, integral to conventional approaches to curbing transmission of infectious diseases is a comprehensive set of track, isolate, and contact trace policies. These have not been systematically implemented.

"Without a collective effort across all states, there’s nothing to stop avian flu from spreading around the country."

Michigan stands out as a state with a robust policy to track human and animal infections and investigate which activities pose the most risk. First, the state’s chief medical executive told STAT, Michigan tested more individuals this spring than any other state. And then the Department of Health and Human Services in Michigan launched a pioneering effort to detect asymptomatic (silent) bird flu infections among farmworkers. Furthermore, a press release from the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development notes that under state rules dairy and commercial poultry producers must implement biosecurity practices, which include establishing cleaning and disinfection protocols at access points for individuals and vehicles.

Investigators believe the virus may have begun to spread in Michigan when workers operating multiple dairy and poultry operations came in close contact with infected cows and moved from one farm to another.

In April, the USDA issued a federal order requiring testing before lactating dairy cattle can be moved across state lines. Michigan, along with nearly two dozen other states, has also issued its own restrictions. But without a collective effort across all states, there’s nothing to stop avian flu from spreading around the country.

Furthermore, how effective can containment be when the USDA’s order only requires testing for bird flu in lactating cows prior to interstate movement, and no other types of animals?

One of the challenges in managing any major outbreak is the question of who’s in charge to coordinate across departments, such as Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Commerce. For the purpose of inter-department coordination, the Biden administration launched an Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy in 2023.

Among federal agencies, the CDC (housed within the Department of Health and Human Services) appears to be the most actively involved in coordinating state efforts. It has provided assistance for a seroprevalence study in Michigan, to assess whether asymptomatic infections are present in people, for example.

But despite these efforts, there’s lack of clarity around who has jurisdictional authority over what and where. Rick Bright, a virologist and immunologist and former head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, explained to CNN why he thinks that a more transparent and comprehensive approach to testing and genetic sequencing is needed. He’s concerned that viral adaptations can occur if there are enough opportunities through uncontrolled spread.

The CDC does now have a roadmap, which it announced for preventing and understanding human infection with bird flu and a plan to develop countermeasures. The roadmap’s main objectives include infection prevention by deploying PPE; examination of primary modes of transmission and estimates of incubation periods, duration of infection and severity; monitoring of genetic changes in the virus; and evaluating vaccines and antivirals. CDC Director Mandy Cohen said lessons from Covid-19 have been learned and that CDC is building upon them, for instance, through its wastewater surveillance efforts.

The CDC’s ability to implement these lofty goals may be hampered, however, by seemingly limited resources. The federal government has pledged only modest new funds this year of approximately $200 million to help track and contain H5N1. Separately, the government is allocating $176 million in Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine against H5N1.

And conspicuously absent are concrete plans, such as how to deploy the stockpile of 10 million doses of avian flu vaccines the federal government currently has as well as the inventory of the antiviral Tamiflu (oseltamivir). By contrast, Finland is now offering vaccines to farmworkers.

"The CDC’s ability to implement these lofty goals may be hampered, however, by seemingly limited resources."

Aside from inadequate funding and preparation, there’s a problem of overcoming public distrust. A survey published in Health Affairs suggests that about 42 percent of American adult respondents in early 2022 said they had confidence in the CDC to provide quality health information during the Covid-19 pandemic, while about a third said they trusted state and local health departments. This may partly explain why the CDC is now having trouble getting farmers to cooperate with even rudimentary tracking and mitigation efforts regarding H5N1.

Lessons from the history of how Covid-19 unfolded underscore the importance of not being complacent in the face of a potential future bird flu pandemic. It would seem imperative to take proactive measures such as systematic testing of animals and humans exposed to the virus, mitigate transmission risk in the dairy and poultry industries, and coordinate federal and state responses.

[redpenship]

as i'm sure you have heard by now, a recently leaked document from the eggman empire has finally confirmed the long standing rumor that dr. robotnik has been secretly developing a badnik system capable of prowling the oceans and locating submersible vehicles within just a few minutes of being launched. while he yet to deploy this system in an actual combat scenario, the leaked documents are already showing extremely worrying (or promising, if you're the dr) accuracy and speed in locating submarines in preliminary tests. seeing as he appears to be nearly done with the testing phase and mere months away from being able to use it in combat situations, i'd love to hear your opinions on the short term and long term effects of what can essentially be considered a death blow to the entire idea of second strike capabilities as it relates to SSBNs.

in the short term, obviously countries with already active fleets of SSBNs will continue to use them to defend from other nuclear powers without the badnik system. but in the case of countries currently building or with orders for SSBNs, do you think they will scrap their programs/cancel orders?

do you think dr. robotnik would be willing to share this technology with countries within his sphere of influence, or will he keep it close to home and within his empire's direct control?

for the long term, i was also interested in hearing your opinion on whether the U.F. and eggman empire are likely to regress back into a cold war, only this time without the comfort of SSBNs and deterrence hinging entirely on more precarious ideas such as launch on warning? do you think the current geopolitical climate is unstable enough to allow this or has the empire's growing reliance on global markets to source raw materials made dr. robotnik unlikely to risk the possibility of sanctions and blockades?

Once again, Dr. Robotnik has proven himself to be strategically incompetent. SSBN-seeking badniks has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever head. But then again, what else can you expect from someone who consistently loses to a bunch of stupid animal children?

On strategic grounds, Robotnik is committing two major errors: 1. Denying your opponent(s) the ability to launch a nuclear second strike only leads to increased instability. By creating these badniks, Robotnik has created a situation where his enemies have decreased confidence in their ability to retaliate. They are now increasingly incentivized to launch first strikes; in such a security environment, the decisions leading to these strikes will be based on minimally verified information as leaders rush to not lose their strategic advantage. It is simply more dangerous for him.

2. Contrary to the general belief that nuclear war will always end in global devastation, there is a prevailing belief among nuclear weapons states that nuclear war will only occur in a 'limited war' fashion. In a limited nuclear war, the bombs would almost exclusively strike counterforce targets--in other words, they would only attack each other's military assets/missile silos/etc. NWS have generally agreed that there will never be a conflict serious enough to require all-out nuclear war. With this in mind, many theorists believe that nuclear war will start at sea, away from land-based civilian targets. The U.F.'s doctrine of command and control permits submarine commanders to launch nuclear-armed torpedoes without authorization, and there have already been incidents in the past where nuclear war was nearly ignited by aggressive submarine officers. As Robotnik sends his badniks into enemy territory for surveillance, he runs the risk of being detected and then attacked by the submarines. It is likely that he may accidentally provoke war if he is not careful with his badniks (which we all know he will not be).

To answer your other questions, it's generally pretty stupid to share nuclear technology with states in your sphere of influence (unless you are using a dual-key system). Chun-nan certainly regrets sharing nuclear technology with (Sonic world??) North Korea.

I can only assume the plans for these badniks were leaked by Robotnik himself as a bargaining tool. He's made a pretty big deal about being asked for metal virus reparations, so this might be his way of trying to pressure everyone into dropping the case. I only hope revealing this kind of technology doesn't result in it proliferating among NWS navies.

[animal-care]

Exploring Trends Shaping the Animal Care Market

The Animal Care Market is undergoing significant transformations driven by evolving consumer preferences, technological advancements, and emerging trends. In this article, we delve into the latest trends shaping the landscape of the animal care industry and their implications for market players.

Humanization of Pets: Treating Pets like Family

One of the prominent trends in the animal care market is the increasing humanization of pets. Pet owners are treating their animals more like family members, seeking products and services that cater to their pets' health, comfort, and emotional well-being. This trend has led to a growing demand for premium pet food, grooming services, and accessories designed to enhance the quality of life for companion animals.

Natural and Organic Products: A Shift towards Healthier Options

Consumers are becoming more conscious about the ingredients and materials used in pet care products, leading to a surge in demand for natural and organic alternatives. Pet owners are seeking products free from artificial additives, preservatives, and chemicals, opting instead for wholesome and sustainable options that promote the health and vitality of their pets. This trend has propelled the growth of natural pet food, eco-friendly toys, and biodegradable pet accessories in the market.

Telemedicine and Remote Veterinary Care: Convenient Healthcare Solutions

Advancements in technology have revolutionized the way veterinary care is delivered, with the adoption of telemedicine and remote monitoring solutions gaining traction in the animal care industry. Pet owners are increasingly turning to virtual consultations, telehealth platforms, and mobile apps to seek medical advice, diagnosis, and treatment for their pets, especially amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This trend has expanded access to veterinary services, improved convenience for pet owners, and facilitated early detection and intervention for pet health issues.

Personalized Nutrition and Wellness: Tailoring Care for Individual Pets

Pet owners are embracing personalized approaches to pet nutrition and wellness, recognizing that each animal has unique dietary and health needs. The demand for customized pet food formulations, tailored supplementation, and genetic testing services is on the rise as pet owners seek to optimize their pets' health and longevity. This trend has spurred innovation in the development of personalized pet nutrition plans, DNA testing kits, and health monitoring tools that cater to individual pets' requirements.

Sustainable and Ethical Practices

Environmental sustainability and ethical sourcing have become key considerations for pet owners when choosing products and services for their animals. There is a growing emphasis on eco-friendly packaging, cruelty-free ingredients, and ethical manufacturing practices in the animal care market. Companies are increasingly adopting sustainable initiatives, such as carbon-neutral operations, recyclable packaging, and ethical sourcing of raw materials, to align with consumer values and reduce their environmental impact.

Conclusion

The animal care market is evolving rapidly, driven by shifting consumer preferences, technological innovations, and societal trends. By staying attuned to these emerging trends and embracing innovation, companies can capitalize on new opportunities, differentiate their offerings, and meet the evolving needs of pet owners and their beloved companions. As the bond between humans and animals continues to strengthen, the animal care industry is poised for continued growth and transformation in the years to come.

[mad-hare]

You could have just said you didn't care instead of a long winded excuse

Why message me if you don’t want to listen to me talk? Why ask me if you don’t care about my opinion? I’m not “tumblr famous” or anything and I don’t have a lot of weight or impact in this particular field (remember when this used to be an agriculture blog?)

AI is used constantly in video games and has been for a long time. If this is the same person you just messaged me some Twitter beef that said I’m not going to take a stance on that because it’s all accusation based as of now. Pokémon is the largest global game franchise, they can take care of themselves if needed, they’ve not stolen anything from a smaller artist that I’m aware of.

I care a lot about video games, in a historical/preservation sense, as a medium for originality and expression. I have a lot of grief personally with game franchises (harvest moon, pokemon, animal crossing, Spyro if you can count what happened to it) gaining mass popularity and losing originality/quality as time progresses.

But to me this is, like I said, a cheap shallow game that is generating a few laughs for me. I’m sure no one would care about this if it hasn’t blown up as much as it did, but they really just followed a formula to put as many popular elements as possible into one game (fighting monsters, catching monsters, build base, ability to dick around with your friends).

I’m not going to be spending hundreds of dollars on palworld plushies or cards like I do with the pokemon franchise. I gave them $30CAD (sale price) which in today’s market is a cheap game!!! It’s not going to generate a strong impression or feelings on me. I’m not going to push 1000 in game hours like I have with Ark Survival Evolved (bad game) or Rimworld (good game that’s also just a dwarf fortress rip off).

And if there is some sort of legal action and new information comes to light, I’ll change my opinion on the game because I accept new information as it is revealed. Personally seems like the Devs have got their hands full as it is:

[acti-veg]

I don't understand when people say going vegan helps individual animals. Surely for the demand /supply to be affected, a certain number of people need to go vegan first?

It helps individuals in that all individuals are part of a collective, and any action that affects the collective of course affects individuals. If you’re asking how you going vegan would save individual animals, that isn’t really how collective boycott works.

If you were buying your meat directly from a farmer, who slaughters that animal specifically to meet your demand, it would be different. That’s not how supply and demand operates anymore, not under capitalism at least. As a collective though, we aim to economically sabotage the animal agriculture industry through boycott, therefore withdrawing our demand from the market, which does result in a lower supply (fewer animals killed) with enough people doing it.

The trouble is that this is hard to measure, because global consumption is still increasing. More nations are eating closer to the way the US does, despite us not having enough land or resources to support that. We don’t have enough to support the number of meat eaters we have now. The rise of veganism still means that this increase is lower than it otherwise would have been, but what we need is more people to commit to boycott.

People often argue that going vegan ‘won’t make any difference’ to animals, but that is just demonstrably untrue. That ribcage on your plate belonged to someone, that fish is not some abstract number in a profit chart, it is a life. You are choosing to buy the corpse of that animal, and therefore funding more slaughter, more pollution, more deforestation. The old idiom is true, that no snowflake on an avalanche ever feels responsible. But you are responsible for your actions and you are making a difference, the only question is whether or not you care to make that difference a positive one.

[dailyanarchistposts]

The New World Order

This mode of late capitalism, the New World Order, is responsible for the most savage destruction of the environment and the ruthless exploitation of millions of human lives, all expendable in the pursuit of profit. Capitalism is not a system based around the satisfaction of human needs and desires or care and respect for the rest of the natural world, it is a system based around the production of profit, an abstraction called value and its monetary measure. It is based on the constant looting of nature (animal, vegetable, mineral or human) for ‘raw materials’ for transformation into commodities for sale on the market to those who have earned their keep by engaging in wage labour.

In the debt-ridden nations of the majority world, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank offer help in the form of structural adjustment programmes. These programmes force countries to open their markets to corporations and adopt export-based economies where self-sufficiency in food, housing, and education is sacrificed to the production of goods for export to bring in the hard currency to repay debts. Cash crops must be produced, requiring the use of imported and environmentally harmful chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Precious forests are cut down to produce timber products and land is cleared for cattle grazing to deliver burgers to every high street in the western world. This deforestation leads to further global warming, and the loss of plant and animal species.

The rich and militarised states respond to any perceived challenge to this order from “upstart” regimes through the use of sanctions, the support of “rebels” or direct military intervention. But this should not blind us to the fact that it is the corporations who call the shots. It is they who have the capacity, regardless of the needs of any individual state, to move a manufacturing base from one part of the world to another where production costs may be cheaper or environmental restrictions evaded.

The 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre has given the US Government a justification for policies that it had already planned (see the document ��Rebuilding Americas Defences’, written in September 2000). The US has now adopted the policy of pre-emptive defence, allowing it to attack countries before it is attacked (or even threatened). Afghanistan was subjected to the terrorism of mass bombing and invasion under the pretext of attacking the Muslim terror group AlQaeda. Under this logic, the British government should have bombed Catholic parts of Northern Ireland to defeat the IRA or the Irish Republic or America, where much of the funding for the IRAs arms came from. The overall US aim is to increase and consolidate its position as the world’s only superpower. The war against Afghanistan enabled a crucial gas pipeline to be built, the war against Iraq gave it control of major oil reserves, not forgetting the markets created for US capital in reconstructing all that the bombing has destroyed. Underlying all this is a message to the global working class and peasants – behave, don’t rebel, or we’ll come and bomb you. In the New World Order, the ruling class work to provide a global stomping ground for a capitalism that is not simply the enemy of ecology, but an enemy that is in the process of becoming more dangerous and deadly than ever before.

[whattheydonttellyouytc]

"What They Dont Want You To Know"Series

1. Corporate Influence on Legislation

Large corporations wield significant power in shaping laws and regulations through lobbying efforts. This influence often prioritizes profit over public interest, resulting in legislation that favors corporate agendas, such as tax breaks, deregulation, or loopholes that allow environmental harm. For example, the oil and gas industry has been known to lobby against stricter environmental protections, impacting climate policy and public health.

2. Food Industry Secrets

The food industry often obscures the truth about what goes into our food. Many products contain additives and preservatives that can affect health, yet these ingredients are not always clearly labeled. Additionally, practices such as factory farming raise concerns about animal welfare and antibiotic use, which can lead to antibiotic resistance. Understanding these secrets can empower consumers to make informed choices about their diets.

3. Environmental Degradation

While the impacts of climate change are widely discussed, the specific practices contributing to environmental degradation often receive less attention. Industries like mining and logging can devastate ecosystems, leading to biodiversity loss and habitat destruction. Moreover, the pollution from industrial activities can have dire consequences for local communities, particularly in marginalized areas, where regulations may be less stringent.

4. Data Privacy and Surveillance

As technology advances, the collection and use of personal data have become ubiquitous. Many people are unaware of how much information they share through social media, apps, and online transactions. This data can be sold or misused, leading to targeted advertising, identity theft, and breaches of privacy. Understanding these practices is crucial for protecting personal information in an increasingly digital world.

5. Mental Health Stigmas

Despite growing awareness of mental health issues, significant stigma remains, often fueled by societal norms and media portrayals. Many individuals suffer in silence due to fear of judgment or discrimination, which can prevent them from seeking help. Additionally, access to mental health services is often limited, particularly in low-income communities, highlighting the need for greater support and understanding.

6. Wealth Inequality

The gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen, fueled by systemic issues such as tax policies that favor the wealthy, inadequate wages for essential workers, and unequal access to education and healthcare. This growing inequality can lead to social unrest and economic instability. Understanding the underlying factors can motivate individuals to advocate for more equitable policies.

7. Pharmaceutical Industry Practices

The pharmaceutical industry is often criticized for its pricing strategies and marketing tactics, which can prioritize profit over patient care. Many essential medications are prohibitively expensive, leading to preventable health crises. Additionally, alternative treatments or generics may be overlooked in favor of branded drugs due to marketing influence, raising questions about healthcare accessibility.

8. Climate Change Denial

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, climate change denial persists, often driven by financial interests in fossil fuels. This denial can hinder global efforts to combat climate change, as policy changes are delayed or blocked. Understanding the motivations behind this denial can help individuals advocate for more proactive climate policies and support sustainable practices.

9. Cultural Appropriation

Cultural appropriation refers to the adoption of elements of one culture by another, often without understanding or respecting their significance. This practice can exploit marginalized cultures while commodifying their traditions. For example, fashion brands may use indigenous designs without crediting the original creators, highlighting the need for awareness and sensitivity in cultural exchanges.

10. Energy Solutions

While renewable energy sources like solar and wind power have the potential to transform our energy landscape, they are often overshadowed by the fossil fuel industry. Many innovative technologies, such as energy storage and smart grids, could disrupt traditional energy markets. Raising awareness of these alternatives is essential for promoting sustainable energy policies and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

[kaiser-s-bitch]

People don't comment on unrealistic hair and eyes because it's an anime-styled game. Of course they'll point out the skin tone when an overwhelming majority of the PLAYABLE cast is within the same, pale range. If you don't like the discourse, then you can mute it instead of dickriding for a company who only gives a shit about whales and shareholders. They're more than capable of ignoring the hate.

You did NOT say what you think you said, unless implying that Chinese companies are blissfully unaware of the global market and therefore exempt from any external criticism is genuinely what you meant. Plenty of other Chinese companies have darker skin tones in their games, the Hoyo executives just happen to be colorist.

And you might want to think twice before unironically saying "the Chinese" while defending questionable design choices. Just say "Chinese people" or "the Chinese market" for God's sake, you sound like a racist. Especially when you're being all high and mighty about people hating your pasty ass gacha game characters next to it.

TLDR: The skin tone discourse isn't that deep, you're just as annoying as the white people you're whining about. If you're so tired of it, then log off or get out of big fandom spaces because they're always arguing over something.

—A (non-Mainland) Chinese person

Thank you for sending this in, I understand and respect what you’re saying.

Like I said before, there’s probably a lot of pieces I’m missing because I didn’t dive THAT deep into it, I just got annoyed by the amount of people hating. The people complaining about it could also just log off instead, but of course I’m aware they won’t because ppl on the internet just love beef for some reason.

But I’m not trying to defend Hoyoverse or their "questionable design choices" here, I also clearly stated that I’d like it a lot more if the playable characters had darker skin tones as well. I only speculated that they might make more money this way because yes, as such a huge company, of course they care about "whales and shareholders". And if enough of the whales and shareholders would demand darker skin tones, we would get them.

I do apologize if me saying "the Chinese" sounded offensive in any way, English is not my native language and I am merely used to referring to people of any nationality that way because it’s quicker. I’ll make sure to correct my mistake, thank you for pointing it out. :)