#Pharmaceuticals women market

[agronayurveda01]

#galacto13 Capsules for women by #agronremedies #PCDPharmaFranchise #ThirdPartyManufacturing #tender #export

India's Most Promising and Trusted Healthcare Platform Agron Remedies Pvt. Ltd. (WHO-GMP, ISO 9001-2015 Certified Plant) A Pharmaceutical Manufacturer, Marketer & Supplier - Finished Goods

100M+ Visitors 20M+ Orders Delivered 36+ Years of Exp. 765+ Districts Covered

[confused-rat]

Btw, for those who don't know how fucked up using thalidomide babies as an insult actually is:

Thalidomide was an anxiety and morning sickness drug in the 1950s that was marketed as safe for pregnant women but actually caused severe deformities (and I mean it when I say severe) in fetuses that resulted in around 10.000 severely disabled children and countless miscarriages. The victims are still fighting to get adequate compensation.

So what lily is using as a haha gotcha insult here is a tragedy caused by severe criminal neglect by pharmaceutical companies, resulting in over ten thousand guilt ridden, traumatized mothers and women who miscarried, and ten thousand children born severely disabled if they were not already killed by a drug marketed as safe.

I'm sorry but if lily has any idea at all what that term means then she is a vile, disgusting person. She has no business using it.

What the fuck.

[allsadnshit]

What a lot of people don't understand about holistic and natural medicine is that it IS rooted in science. To say that ancestral knowledge passed down is not real because it doesn't have clinical studies run on it completes disregards the systems in which medicine is made. Modern medicine and the idea of something being "proven" to help or heal is based on what is studied and tested, which makes total sense, BUT what is overlooked is that what gets studied is completely dependent on what is funded. There are so many natural remedies passed down amongst all different cultures that utilize herbs and very accessible methods of medical intervention that are commonly seen us "myths" simply because people in power who choose what gets the proper clinical trials have their own agendas for what can be turned into financial gain and to say "there's no proof or study that this herb helps with this" is missing the bulk of information about how much capitalism and classism effects what is recognized given the necessary attention and resources in the scientific community.

I don't understand how so many people can consider themselves politically radicalized and anti capitalist but then flip flop when it comes to just this topic specifically as though knowledge on herbalism and techniques used for hundreds of years that aren't given medically funded backing are somehow just empty words and ignorant. Honestly, it's pretty transparently racist as well because so much of what is overlooked or shot down tends to be cultural knowledge and heritage passed down in oppressed groups and communities who's cultures in general get dehumanized in a lot of ways socially AND systemically!

They didn't even start doing clinical trials including studies on female bodies until extremely recently in the scope of how long modern medicine has been manufactured and yet people want to roll their eyes at the idea that natural medicine has existed for the people by the people for longer than any pharmaceutical can match up against.

So maybe instead of calling anyone who doesn't fully trust these large stock market companies with public health, people should consider the history of who gets an official say in what gets the money necessary for those clinical trials to take place that make that medicine "scientifically proven".

I did not understand the weight of this topic till I had my own diagnoses with a chronic condition that 99% of the time effects women and realized how drastically biased the medical systems care is and how directionless the care is for patients depending on who they are. And I really don't care if people with the privilege of not knowing that system intimately think it's not real till it's on Web MD.

[crossdreamers]

Donald Trump's horrific plan for transgender people

Warning: The content of this article may be traumatizing for trans people living in the US.

Now that Trump as won the US presidential election as well as the Senate, LGBTQ people around the country need to prepare for a long and painful battle.

During the campaign Trump made it perfectly clear what he wants to as far as transgender protections and health services are concerned.

The following summary is based on a presentation made by the Trump Vance campaign. We have rewritten the most offensive language.

The new Trump administration will:

Revoke current policies that support gender-affirming treatments for minors, including puberty blockers and surgeries.

Issue an executive order to end federal agency support for programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age.

Prohibit the use of federal funds to promote or cover the cost of gender-affirming procedures.

Introduce legislation to ban gender affirming procedures on children nationwide.

Penalize healthcare providers involved in these procedures by removing them from Medicaid and Medicare compliance.

Support legal avenues for individuals to sue medical professionals who have performed gender-affirming procedures on minors.

Mandate investigations into pharmaceutical companies and hospital networks for potentially concealing negative side effects and marketing unapproved drugs.

Direct the Department of Education to ensure school personnel do not encourage discussions about gender identity without repercussions, and punish those that do.

Promote education that emphasizes traditional gender roles and the nuclear family.

Request a law to formally recognize only male and female genders assigned at birth.

Ban transgender women from taking part in women's sport.

Uphold parental rights concerning their children's gender identity decisions.

Will they do all of this?

There is no reason to believe that Trump will not follow up on this. To what extent the new administration will be able to implement these policies, will depend on several factors, including:

The outcome of legal processes in courts.

Public outrage.

Whether the Republicans take the House of Representatives.

To change federal legislation in this area, the Republicans need to control both houses of Congress.

A war on transgender people

This list proves that the Republican Party has now declared war on transgender people. This is a policy aimed at erasing trans people from society.

It is true that some of the proposals are aimed at children only, but we will not be surprised if that approach is extended to adults as well later on. In any case the message that gender incongruence in children is "not real" carries the message that this applies to adult identities too.

Note that the Republicans want to scare and numb people and institutions from supporting trans people. Out of fear of legal action individuals, companies and institutions may avoid giving trans people any support, even if it is legal on paper.

The public policy of the Trump administration will also encourage transphobes to attack trans people both in public and in private spaces.

Trans people and their allies inside and outside the US will have to plan for the worst. We have to do everything we can to unmask the cruelty of Trump and his Fascists. We need to make sure that the Republicans are not able to normalize this kind of cruelty.

See our article "Trump and the transphobes won in the US. But there are still ways trans people can win" for more on what we can do.

Free hotlines for gender & sexual identity, LGBTQ+ in the United States.

Photo: Boogich

[gaslightgatekeepgirlbosscombat]

Group A, Round 1, Poll 4:

Propaganda under the cut

Azula

Personal gain and because she was gaslit herself.

100% pure girlboss. So good at lying and manipulating that the magic human lie detector can’t figure her out. Gatekeeps her father’s “love” from her brother

Azula was considered a prodigy in firebending at a young age. And she manipulates and plots to get what she wants.

They (gas)lit stuff on fire, gatekeeped the avatar from the Fire Nation, and girlbossed all the way into insanity

Akane Kurashiki

Zero Escape spoilers! Akane Kurashiki is dead. Died in an incinerator as a child. But she's right here, isn't she? She's talking about mummies and the Titanic and I'm holding her in my arms. But also she's Zero, mastermind who trapped us here and threatened our lives. That guy literally just exploded. But Akane couldn't have done that, she's so sweet and she's so scared. Also she's dead? But wait, she's right here, and she has a fever again.

lied to a group of ppl including her childhood bestie so they'd enter a death game she planned, she's so funny. also later planned another death game to save the earth etc

GASLIGHT: - Lies to everyone and pretends to just be an innocent quirky girl when in reality, she is the mastermind behind the situation everyone has been put in. - Pretends to be sad and concerned when the bastard who almost killed her pretends to do a heroic sacrifice to get everyone's sympathy. - Pretends she's put bombs inside everyone's stomachs. Really, she only put bombs inside the people she wants revenge on. - Pretends that she and her brother aren't related. - Erases her fiancé's memories and makes him forget he proposed to her so she can go to the moon and stop the outbreak of an apocalyptic virus without him getting in the way. - Puts herself into a schrodinger's cat situation where she's both living and dead until you decide what door to walk through. - Manipulates her way into a Mars mission program. - Makes a guy think he is 45 years younger than he actually is. - Pretends she is going to stab two people to force them back in time. - Manipulates a child into participating in his father's research so he can act as a spare if necessary. GATEKEEP: - A psychic who gains near omniscience in some circumstances, but refuses to explain snything unless it suits her plans. - Says ""Only God decides who lives and dies!"" But she kills several people. Perhaps only God and Akane Kurahiki decide who lives and dies. Or maybe they're the same person? - Manipulates a woman into breaking up with a man so she can kidnap him and bring him to the moon. - Refuses to let her boyfriend meet her when it doesn't suit her plans. - Kidnaps two women and puts them into a coma for 45 years. GIRLBOSS: - Very willing to kill to achieve her goals or get revenge. - Queen of random trivia. Will info dump about her interests whenever it suits her (including when she is trapped in a freezer with two people). - If anyone touches a hair on her boyfriend's head she will not hesitate to cut them down with a chainsaw. - Stages not one but two mass kidnappings and killing games (that we know of). - Great at multitasking, she manged to save her own life and dispose of the people who almost killed her at the same time. - Uses her knowledge of the future to manipulate the stock market and become super rich. If that doesn't scream girlboss I don't know what does. - Starts her own organisation to fight cult leaders and save the world. - Has two nemeses, the CEO of a pharmaceutical company, whose life she completely destroys and a >100 year old cult leader. - Co-runs a moonbase where she has command of AIs and robots.

[mythserene]

DRUGS COST MONEY (MARK LEWISOHN, DRUG BUDDY)

I'm late, but I'm here, and this is something I've thought about since I read Tune In the first time.

First of all, Lewisohn's definition and description of what Preludin was is wildly underplayed and misleading, so I have to just get out a few quick Preludin facts. They're helpful.

Lewisohn:

Preludin was an appetite suppressant, an anorectic drug introduced into West German society in 1954, when commercial pressures were making women become more image-conscious. Users maintained an appetite but quickly felt full when eating, and the reduced intake brought about weight loss. Preludin’s primary ingredient, phenmetrazine, was not an amphetamine but an upper, giving the user a euphoric buzz. It was soon sold internationally and used recreationally, and though available in Germany only with a doctor’s prescription...

- “Tune In” - Chapter 19; Piedels on Prellies

(Oh, those women and their obsession with weight.)

I know Lewisohn's not a chemist and I don't expect him to have done extensive study before writing “not an amphetamine but an upper”—which, first of all is just a weird, grade school sounding statement about any stimulant in general that no scientist would ever say or write—but also he makes it sound like it's a fizzy little pill that gives you the sillies.

But definitely not an amphetamine or anything bad like that.

Look, even Wikipedia says right at the top, “[i]ts structure incorporates the backbone of amphetamine,” and although I didn't spend more than a few seconds there, I saw it because it came up first in the search like Wikipedia always does. Just saying it's basically impossible to miss.

And whether he was trying to hide the ball or not, since he wrote so much about them I am going to quickly set the "not amphetamine" record straight before I go on.

“Methamphetamine hydrochloride (Desoxyn) and phenmetrazine hydrochloride (Preludin) are two variants of the amphetamine structure.”

- “Amphetamine Abuse”, Sidney Cohen, MD, JAMA

“The experience in Sweden seems to indicate that phenmetrazine (e.g. Preludin) has the highest potency, and the greatest risk of psycho-toxic, acute and chronic effects (Rylander 1966). Amphetamines and methylphenidate seem to show less dependence-producing and psycho-toxic effects than phenmetrazine.”

- (United Nations Bulletin; Vol XX, No. 2)

Basically, Preludin was synthesized by taking an amphetamine skeleton and boosting tf out of it by adding a very common sort of chemical scaffolding to it called a morpholine ring, allowing them to tweak it by sticking on a nitrogen group. But morpholine rings by themselves also increase potency and usually bioavailability.

So in the narrowest technical sense, Phenmetrazine (Preludin) is classified as a morpholine instead of an amphetamine, but in every way it is an amphetamine on speed. (And every description of it anywhere says so right up front.) It was Amphetamine Plus. The little added synthetic kicker the pharmaceutical company figured out how to attach to the amphetamine made it stronger—gave it the Preludin "kick"—made the high feel better in general (according to all this crap I spent way too much time reading) and also made it way more addictive. It increased dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake, and the compound itself displayed “some entactogen properties more similar to MDMA." It made Preludin far more psychoactive than straight amphetamines. Made smells stronger, sensations more intense, and made you horny and "increased performance." It was taken off the market in 1980 because it was so hyper-addictive and the “psycho-toxicity” was so extreme. People reported doing things they barely remembered, including to a kind of freakish degree, like a lot of users committing crimes for the very first time in their lives. And so the company tried to replace it with a similar drug called Prelu-2, which is apparently still available but also almost never prescribed because even that was excessively addictive compared to non-boosted amphetamines.

And also, it made you feel body odors?

"...perfumes and flowers get a stronger smell, and body odours are felt more strongly than under normal conditions."

- (United Nations Bulletin; Vol XX, No. 2)

What are normal conditions? Maybe my normal conditions are different from everyone else's because I don't normally feel body odors?? But tbh I would literally try this drug just to see if I could.

Okay.

So... John was feeling some serious body odors because my man took a lot of them. Usually with lots of booze.

And apparently they made him more awesome.

George spoke graphically of how they would be “frothing at the mouth … we used to be up there foaming, stomping away.” John, as always, dived straight in, wholeheartedly grabbing another new experience with an open mouth and no thought of tomorrow. The Beatles called them “pep pills”—the commonly used British term of the period—and also “Prellies.”

...Two pills a night were more than enough for most but John frequently took four or five, and in conjunction with hour after hour of booze he became wired, a high-speed gabbling blur of talent, torment and hilarity.

- “Tune In” - Chapter 19; Piedels on Prellies

Yeah, he sounds like a blast. Good thing you got a quote there, my guy. I'm sure the first description that would’ve come to his roommates’ minds would be “hilarity.” Or second, after “hero.” (Sorry, I don't want to be hard on John. I have a lot of bandwidth and patience for drug indulgences, especially in a situation like this, but Lewisohn is unbelievable.)

Ruth Lallemannd, a St. Pauli barmaid who knew the Beatles from 1960, recalls an occasion when “They crushed ten Prellies to powder, put them in a bottle of Cola and shared it between them. They were always wound up.”

Drugs cost money

Amazingly enough though, these prescription-only pills didn't just magically get from people with nice doctors to John’s hands. Someone sold them to someone else and they ended up with “the toilet lady,” Tante Rosa, who sold them.

They looked like little white sweets … but these were no mint drops.

- Chapter 19

So cute!

Preludin small-print advised against its being taken less than six hours before bedtime, in case of sleep disorders.

- Chapter 19

So if Lewisohn is reading the small print of a drug that was discontinued 44 years ago he did not miss the Wikipedia page and must know that “not an amphetamine but an upper” is wildly misleading. Technically true in the chemical classification sense, but not in the medical or pharmacological sense. And true in the same way that “fentanyl isn't morphine” is true.

But that's not my point.

My point is that these “little white sweets” were strong, had wild “psycho-toxic” effects, John took a lot of them, and they weren't free.

Because drugs cost money.

Paul slept fine on just the one pill, John and George didn’t. George would recall “lying in bed, sweating from Preludin, thinking, ‘Why aren’t I sleeping?’ ” John simply took more: “You could work almost endlessly until the pill wore off, then you’d have to have another … You’d have two hours’ sleep and wake up to take a pill and get on stage, and it would go on and on and on. When you didn’t even get a day off you’d begin to go out of your mind with tiredness.”

Or, put another way, John was “a high-speed gabbling blur of talent, torment and hilarity.” And Paul did uncool stuff like sleeping.

Also, what in the...

Tony, George, Paul, John and Pete, along with Rosi and perhaps some stray females, would stagger wearily and noisily up three long flights of wooden stairs...

“Stray females”??? Is he talking about cats? Don't call human beings “strays,” you self-important oddity.

THE GROWNUP

John was never much into paying for stuff. Like rent, for instance. But that's what friends are for.

John was blessed with a particular talent for frittering away his funds (the council grant designed to provide his working materials) and was rarely in a position to pay [rent]. As Rod remembers, “During the week I’d go and have a pint with him and he’d always have money for a beer, but when it came to the day to pay the rent he was always hard up. ‘Could I owe it to you?’ ‘Would you like this jacket?’ One time he paid me with a Mounties-type Canadian jacket he’d probably nicked from someone else.”

- “Tune In” - Chapter 13; “Hi-Yo, Hi-Yo, Silver–Away!”

He paid rent with a jacket? Landlords take those?

I'm not gonna lie, the only real issue I've ever had with Paul—the things I have the most confusion and hesitancy about—are when he seems inexplicably cheap. Like paying the Wings band so little for so long. There's only a few cases that come to mind, but they're my weak point with him.

Still, having done my share of experimenting—as well as dating a guy who became a high-functioning addict before becoming a non-functioning addict before becoming an ex who died of an overdose—I know very well how it feels to see money flow through your hands like water and into someone else's bloodstream. And what happens then is you either both starve or you are the only one eating. In the end, someone has to have money to live, and the more drugs my ex took the more I was forced into being a walking, talking, pissed off safety net.

Stu supposedly got in a fight with Paul because Stu owed Paul money. (Although that doesn't explain attacking Paul out of nowhere on stage half as well as a three-days-awake-Prellie-binge psycho-toxicity does.)

It does, however, mean that at least one guy in the band who was taking Preludin was running out of money between paychecks.

And there's no way that if Stu was running out of funds that John wasn't too. And faster. And according to Lewisohn, George was eating a lot of Preludin, too. Because he was also cool.

That leaves Paul.

John was notoriously bad with money even when he had a lot, and when everyone is living and working together it's almost impossible to be the only guy eating or the only guy smoking. But at the same time if you know you can't do anything to stop your friends from going hard and never thinking at all, it tends to make you more careful. Because you're all you've got and all they've got. You didn't ask for the job, but you drew the short straw. So you hide some cigarettes and share too many, and get increasingly sick of it and resentful, but there's no good answer.

John heaped a ton of spice into the mix by suddenly moving back into Mendips. He’s unlikely to have told Mimi of the Gambier Terrace eviction, but Rod Murray knew little of this hasty departure: John left most of his possessions in the flat and several weeks’ rent unpaid—to the tune of about £15. He just scarpered.

- “Tune In” - Chapter 15; Drive and Bash

“Spice.” Dude really said “spice.” That John, so spicy. And fwiw, that's £300 today.

Maybe John had another jacket to pitch in.

Paul says he's more cautious by nature and I'm sure that's true, but also you know they all relied on him because they knew he wouldn't be as stupid as they were. Who knows what he would've done—whether he would have lived a more libertine life in Hamburg—if he'd felt like that was an option and he didn't have to be the grownup. Who knows what he would have done if anyone else gave a shit whether they ate or smoked.

I'll end by repeating the freakishly weird way Lewisohn told a John psycho-toxicity story that the AKOM ladies pointed out in Ep 8: No Greater Buddy, since it's almost impossible not to talk about John and Prellies without it.

“PAUL AND GEORGE’S HERO-WORSHIP STAYED FULLY INTACT”

George was second only to John in the swallowing of Prellies and knew better than most the sum effect of taking too many for too long, how the combination of pills plus booze plus several sleepless days caused hallucinations and extreme conduct. He’d describe one occasion when he, Paul and Pete were lying in their bunk beds, trying to sleep, only for John to barge into the room in a wild state. “One night John came in and some chick was in bed with Paul and he cut all her clothes up with a pair of scissors, and was stabbing the wardrobe. Everybody was lying in bed thinking, ‘Oh fuck, I hope he doesn’t kill me.’ [He was] a frothing mad person—he knew how to have ‘fun.’ ”

Handling John was something his friends were well used to doing. If he didn’t murder them in their beds there was no greater buddy. They might fear for their lives but they loved him still. No way would they walk out and join another group. John was just John, and Paul and George’s hero-worship stayed fully intact.

- “Tune in” - Chapter 28; You Better Move On

Mark Lewisohn knows nothing about drugs or drug culture. Which is fine. Good. Great, even. But the thing is, it doesn't stop him from knowing everything about it. He has confidently and emphatically stated that John and Yoko weren't doing heroin in the daytime during the Get Back sessions. He even claims that they weren't on heroin during the Two Junkies interview. Even repeating this paraphrase makes me feel ridiculous, but he says that was a hangover from the night before, and that they were too lucid to be high. Which, first of all, is not how heroin fucking works. They were blasted. The aftereffects would be them being antsy and jumpy, not going in extra-slow motion and puking. Blows my mind, the hubris this guy has. To confidently state something he unquestionably pulled out of his ass without even a moment's hesitation. Not only is that not how heroin works, but it is the drug that people wake up to do. Not wake up and do. Wake up to do.

And you can tell from the way he talks about John on Prellies—“a high-speed gabbling blur of talent, torment and hilarity”—that he has never experienced anyone who's been up a few days. And I still have a more daring nature than most of my friends, and am in no way shocked by the drug use. Me and my friends in Houston used to take Fastin and go midnight bowling every Saturday. The memories are good and I regret nothing. But the naive way Lewisohn romanticizes John and low key mocks Paul—as if Lewisohn was the ultimate drug buddy and Paul a total prude—is so weird. It's freakishly, embarrassingly, weird. Like he wants to be the cool guy. Like he thinks he can be the cool guy, and is being the cool guy, but to me it's painfully embarrassing and nothing else makes him look more desperate and delusional.

[haggishlyhagging]

"I did it for me," reads the plaque held by the woman in a Botox ad. There's a sense that she's presenting the plaque to us, the audience, and it's kind of unnerving. The makers of the ad are conversant in the basic language of both body acceptance and choice feminism, and this ad is an attempt to make an end-run around any existing skepticism about cosmetic surgery, by appealing to free, market-savvy choice and its result, empowerment. This woman who paid a tidy sum of money for a smooth forehead and nonexistent nasolabial folds is not a dupe of the patriarchy, dammit! She's not doing it for a man; she's not doing it for a woman; she's doing it for herself, and those are the magic words. Variations on “I did it for me” appear and reappear in ads for Botox and breast implants; they're present when Vogue suggests—you know, just puts it out there—that you could shorten your toes in order to better fit them into Jimmy Choos; they exist whenever morning talk-radio hosts give away free breast implants to the woman with the best small-boobs sob story. "I did it for me," "I did it to feel better about myself," and, "I'm not doing it for anyone else" are defensive reflexes that acknowledge an imagined feminist disapproval and impatiently brush it away.

It's been twenty-five years since Naomi Wolf wrote, in her bestselling book The Beauty Myth, that "The ideology of beauty is the last one remaining of the old feminine ideologies that still has the power to control those women whom second-wave feminism would have otherwise made relatively uncontrollable." For all the gains that various women's movements have made possible, rigidly prescribed, predominantly white beauty standards are one site where time has not revolutionized our thinking. Concurrently, it's also where the expansion of consumer choice has made it possible to bow to such standards in countless new ways.

Choice has become the primary way to talk about looks, a phenomenon that journalist Alex Kuczynski called "an activism of aesthetics" in her 2006 book Beauty Junkies. In the book, the cosmetic surgery industry in particular is portrayed as a kind of Thunderdome where the waiting lists for a new injectable climb into the double digits, impeccably spray-tanned celebrity doctors jostle for prime soundbite space in women's magazines, and speakers at surgeons' conventions end their speeches with a call to "Push plastic surgery." With a rise in options—more doctors, more competing pharmaceutical brands, the rise of cosmetic-surgery tourism that promises cheap procedures in tropical locations—the landscape of sculpted noses and liposuctioned abs has been defined by choice. The "activism," too, is one of individual choice—it refers to being proactive about one's own appearance, vigilant enough to be able to head off wrinkles, droops, and sags at the pass. Framed within our neoliberal discourse, an activism of aesthetics doesn't dismantle the beauty standards that telegraph worth and status, but advocates for everyone's right to purchase whatever interventions are necessary to achieve those standards. The individual world shrinks to the size of a doctor's office; other people exist only as points of physical comparison.

Though we often think of beauty and body imperatives in their prefeminist form—the hobbling footbinding, the lead whitening powders, the tapeworm diet—the ostensibly consciousness-raised decades since the 1970s have brought a mind-boggling array of dictates, standards, and trends to all genders, but most forcefully to women. When capri pants were the move of the moment in the 1990s, Vogue was there to suggest quick surgical fixes for knobby knees and undefined calves. Less than ten years later, the clavicle was the body part du jour, balancing the trend of voluminous clothing with reassuring proof that, under all that material, the wearer was appropriately thin. (One clavicle-boasting woman stated to The New York Times that the clavicle was the "easiest and least controversial expression of a kind of sex appeal"—not as obviously sexy as breasts, but evidence of a physical discipline coveted among the fashion set.) A handful of years after that, the focus moved south again, to the "thigh gap" coveted by a largely young audience, some of whom blogged about their pursuit of the gap with diet journals and process photos.

Though certain types of bodies have historically come in and out of fashion—the flapper dresses of the 1920s required a boyish, hipless figure, while the tight angora sweaters of the '50s demanded breasts, or at least the padded semblance of them—the pace with which bodies are presented as the "right" ones to have has quickened. The beachy girls-next-door of the 1970s were elbowed out by the Amazonion supermodels of the 1980s, who gave way to the heroin-chic waifs of the '90s, who were knocked off the editorial pages of the early 2000s by the Brazilian bombshells, who were then edged out by the doll-eyed British blondes. Meanwhile, the fashion industry selectively co-opts whatever "ethnic" attributes can be appropriated in the service of a trend. Black and Latina women with junk in the trunk who have been erased by mainstream glossies, overlooked as runway models, and ill-served by pants designed for comparatively fat rears were rightly annoyed to hear from Vogue, in 2014, that "We're Officially in the Era of the Big Booty" thanks to stars like Iggy Azalea, Miley Cyrus, and Kim Kardashian. There is no wrong way to have a body" wrote author and size-positive sage Hanne Blank, but that sentiment will always be contradicted by a market, and a media, that depends on people not believing it.

-Andi Zeisler, We Were Feminists Once

[mariacallous]

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in a challenge to abortion pill access across the country, including in states where abortion is legal. The stakes for abortion rights are sky-high, and the case is the most consequential battle over reproductive health care access since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

At the center of this fight is mifepristone, a pill that blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy. The drug has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for more than two decades, and it’s used to treat some patients with Cushing’s syndrome, as well as endometriosis and uterine fibroids. But its primary use is the one contested now—mifepristone is the first of two pills taken in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy for a standard medication abortion, along with the drug misoprostol.

If the justices side with the antiabortion activists seeking to limit access to mifepristone, it could upend nationwide access to the most common form of abortion care. A ruling that invalidates mifepristone’s approval would open the door for any judge to reverse the FDA approval of any drug, especially ones sometimes seen as controversial, such as HIV drugs and hormonal birth control. It could also have a chilling effect on the development of new drugs, making companies wary of investing research into medicines that could later be pulled from the market.

Pills are now the leading abortion method in the US, and their popularity has spiked in recent years. More than six in 10 abortions in 2023 were carried out via medication, according to new data from the Guttmacher Institute. Since rules around telehealth were relaxed during the Covid-19 pandemic, many patients seeking medication abortions have relied on virtual clinics, which send abortion pills by mail. And it keeps getting more popular: Hey Jane, a prominent telemedicine provider, saw demand increase 73 percent from 2022 to 2023. It recorded another 28 percent spike comparing data from January 2023 to January 2024.

“Telemedicine abortion is too effective to not be in the targets of antiabortion folks,” says Julie F. Kay, a longtime reproductive rights lawyer and director of the advocacy group Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine.

Tomorrow’s argument comes after a long, tangled series of legal disputes in lower courts. The Supreme Court will be hearing two cases consolidated together, including FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, in which a coalition of antiabortion activists filed a suit challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, asking for it to be removed from the market. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a right-wing Christian law firm that often takes politically charged cases.

Despite decades of scientific consensus on the drug’s safety record, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine has alleged that mifepristone is dangerous to women and leads to emergency room visits. A 2021 study cited by the plaintiffs to back up their claims was retracted in February after an independent review found that its authors came to inaccurate conclusions.

In April 2023, the Trump-appointed judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary ruling on the FDA case invalidating the agency’s approval of mifepristone. The ruling sent shock waves far beyond the reproductive-rights world, as it had major implications for the entire pharmaceutical industry, as well as the FDA itself; the ruling suggested that the courts could revoke a drug’s approval even after decades on the market.

The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Kacsmaryk’s decision a week later, allowing the drug to remain on the market, but undid FDA decisions in recent years that made mifepristone easier to prescribe and obtain. That decision limited the time frame in which it can be taken to the first seven weeks of pregnancy and put telemedicine access, as well as access to the generic version of the drug in jeopardy.

Following the 5th Circuit ruling, the FDA and Danco Laboratories sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking the justices to preserve access until it could hear the case. In its legal filing, Danco aptly described the situation as “regulatory chaos.”

SCOTUS issued a temporary stay, maintaining the status quo; the court ultimately decided to take up the case in December 2023.

As all this was unfolding, pro-abortion-rights states across the country were passing what are known as shield laws, which protect medical practitioners who offer abortion care to pregnant patients in states where abortion is banned. This has allowed some providers, including the longtime medication-abortion-advocacy group Aid Access, to mail abortion pills to people who requested them in states like Louisiana and Arkansas.

Though the oral arguments before the Supreme Court begin on Tuesday, it will likely be months before a ruling. Court watchers suspect a decision may be handed down in June. With the US presidential election in the fall, the ruling may become a major campaign issue, especially as abortion access helped galvanize voters in the 2022 midterms.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the plaintiffs that mifepristone should be taken off the market, some in the pharmaceutical industry worry that it will undermine the authority of the FDA, the agency tasked with reviewing and approving drugs based on their safety and efficacy.

“This case isn't about mifepristone,” says Elizabeth Jeffords, CEO of Iolyx Therapeutics, a company developing drugs for immune and eye diseases. Jeffords is a signatory on an amicus brief filed in April 2023 that brought together 350 pharmaceutical companies, executives, and investors to challenge the Texas district court’s ruling.

“This case could have easily been about minoxidil for hair loss. It could have been about Mylotarg for cancer. It could have been about measles vaccines,” Jeffords says. “This is about whether or not the FDA is allowed to be the scientific arbiter of what is good and safe for patients.”

Greer Donley, an associate professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on abortion on the law, doesn’t think it’s likely that the court will revoke mifepristone’s approval entirely. Instead, she sees two possible outcomes. The Supreme Court could dismiss the case or could undo the FDA’s decision in 2023 to permanently remove the in-person dispensing requirement and allow abortion by telehealth. “This would be an even more narrow decision than what the 5th Circuit did, but it would still be pretty devastating to abortion access,” she says.

The Supreme Court could also decide that the plaintiffs lack a right to bring the case to court, says David Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel University whose expertise is in constitutional law and gender issues. “This case could get kicked out on standing, meaning that the plaintiffs aren't the right people to bring this case,” he says. “If most of the questions are about standing, that will give you a sense that that's what the justices are concerned about.”

As the current Supreme Court is considered virulently antiabortion, reproductive-health-care workers are already preparing for the worst. Some telehealth providers have already floated a backup plan: offering misoprostol-only medication abortions. This is less than ideal, as the combination of pills is the current standard of care and offers the best results; misoprostol on its own can cause additional cramping and nausea. For some providers who may have to choose between misoprostol-only or nothing, it’s better than nothing.

Abortion-rights activists have no plans to give up on telehealth abortions, regardless of the outcome of this particular case. “Let us be clear, Hey Jane will not stop delivering telemedicine abortion care, regardless of the outcome of this case,” says Hey Jane’s CEO and cofounder, Kiki Freedman.

“They’re not going to stuff the genie back in the bottle,” Kay says.

[lifewithchronicpain]

Over the years, gabapentin (Neurontin) has been prescribed for dozens of health conditions, from epilepsy and fibromyalgia to depression and post-operative pain. It’s even been used to treat bipolar disorder. Gabapentin has been marketed for so many different conditions – at times illegally -- that a pharmaceutical company executive infamously referred to the drug as “snake oil.”

Even though it’s been approved for medical use for over 30 years, the UK’s National Health Service admits it’s still “not clear exactly how gabapentin works.”

A new study may finally help explain why gabapentin is an effective pain medication for some patients and an addictive drug with unwelcome side effects for many others.

It could be all in the genes.

Researchers at the University of Edinburgh took another look at a previous study of women with chronic pelvic pain to see why gabapentin worked no better than a placebo for most, but was a moderately effective pain reliever for about 40% of them. (Read more at link)

[omegaphilosophia]

The Social Consequences of Marketing

Marketing, while essential for businesses and economies, has also been criticized for causing harm to society in various ways. Here are some significant ways in which marketing has negatively impacted society:

1. Promotion of Consumerism

Excessive consumption: Marketing often encourages the idea that happiness and success are linked to material goods, promoting a culture of consumerism. This has led to excessive consumption, debt, and environmental damage, as people are driven to buy more than they need.

Planned obsolescence: Companies sometimes design products with limited lifespans, encouraging consumers to buy new versions frequently. This practice contributes to waste, depletion of resources, and increased consumer spending.

2. Exploitation of Insecurities

Body image and self-esteem: Advertising in industries like fashion, beauty, and fitness often exploits people's insecurities by promoting unrealistic beauty standards. This can lead to mental health issues such as low self-esteem, anxiety, body dysmorphia, and even eating disorders.

Fear-based marketing: Some marketing strategies use fear to sell products, such as insurance, security systems, or health products, by making consumers feel unsafe or inadequate without them.

3. Targeting Vulnerable Populations

Children: Marketing often targets children, who are particularly susceptible to persuasive messages. This leads to the commercialization of childhood, with kids exposed to unhealthy food, consumerist values, and a materialistic mindset from an early age.

Low-income groups: Companies sometimes market harmful products, such as payday loans or unhealthy foods, more aggressively to low-income populations, exacerbating financial hardship or health problems.

4. Perpetuation of Stereotypes and Social Divides

Gender roles: Marketing often reinforces gender stereotypes, portraying women as caregivers or men as breadwinners, thereby perpetuating outdated norms that limit gender equality and diversity.

Cultural appropriation and tokenism: Some brands use cultural symbols or minority groups in marketing campaigns without understanding their significance, which can lead to cultural appropriation and tokenism, alienating and misrepresenting marginalized communities.

5. Environmental Damage

Overemphasis on fast fashion and disposable goods: Marketing has contributed to the rise of fast fashion and a throwaway culture, promoting short-term use of cheap, disposable products. This has serious environmental consequences, including pollution, resource depletion, and the generation of vast amounts of waste.

Greenwashing: Some companies falsely market products as "environmentally friendly" or "sustainable" in an attempt to capitalize on consumers' eco-consciousness, misleading the public and delaying genuine action on environmental issues.

6. Manipulation and Misinformation

False advertising: Companies sometimes make exaggerated or false claims about their products, misleading consumers and creating false expectations. This can be particularly harmful when it comes to health products, pharmaceuticals, or weight-loss treatments.

Addictive design: Marketing techniques are increasingly used to promote addictive behaviors, particularly in the context of social media, video games, or gambling. Companies manipulate users through behavioral nudges and psychological triggers that keep them hooked.

7. Invasion of Privacy

Data mining and surveillance: With the rise of digital marketing, companies have gained unprecedented access to consumers’ personal data. Many firms engage in data mining and targeted advertising based on individuals' online behavior, often without full transparency or consent, leading to concerns about privacy and data security.

Personalization and manipulation: Highly personalized marketing can lead to manipulation, as companies can target individuals with ads tailored to their specific vulnerabilities, making it harder for consumers to make objective decisions.

8. Promotion of Unhealthy Lifestyles

Junk food advertising: Aggressive marketing of unhealthy foods, particularly to children, has been linked to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related diseases.

Alcohol and tobacco marketing: Despite restrictions in some countries, marketing of alcohol, tobacco, and vaping products continues to glamorize these potentially harmful substances, leading to addiction and public health crises.

9. Contributing to Financial Instability

Credit and debt marketing: Marketing of credit cards, loans, and other financial products often promotes spending beyond one's means, contributing to personal debt and financial instability. Predatory lending practices, such as payday loans, are frequently marketed to those already in financial difficulty.

10. Reduction of Authenticity and Creativity

Commercialization of art and culture: Marketing can sometimes reduce art, culture, and creativity to mere products to be sold, stripping them of their authenticity. This can lead to the commodification of creative expression and a focus on profit over substance.

Trend exploitation: By constantly pushing new trends, marketing fosters a culture of superficiality and short-term thinking, where value is placed on what is fashionable or trending rather than what is meaningful or lasting.

While marketing plays a critical role in the economy by connecting consumers with products, it also has significant social, psychological, and environmental consequences. From promoting overconsumption and exploiting insecurities to targeting vulnerable groups and contributing to environmental degradation, marketing practices have often prioritized profit over societal well-being. Reforming marketing to be more ethical and socially responsible is essential for creating a healthier, more sustainable society.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Grace Hills at Kansas Reflector:

TOPEKA — Attorney General Kris Kobach filed a civil lawsuit Monday against pharmaceutical company Pfizer, alleging that “Pfizer misled the public that it had a ‘safe and effective’ COVID-19 vaccine,” violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.  The state seeks “civil monetary penalties, damages, and injunctive relief from misleading and deceptive statements made in marketing its COVID-19 vaccine,” Kobach said.  In the complaint, Kobach alleges that Pfizer willfully concealed, suppressed and omitted material facts relating to the COVID-19 vaccine, the “most egregious” ones regarding safety of the vaccine for pregnant people, in regard to heart conditions, its effectiveness against variants and its ability to stop transmission. 

“Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women,” Kobach said. “However, in February of 2021 (they) possessed reports of 458 pregnant women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. More than half of the pregnant women reported an adverse event, and more than 10% reported a miscarriage.”  The percentage of “adverse events” — which is a term that means any negative reaction — was higher in pregnant women than the general population by roughly 17 percent, according to a study published in the journal Medicine in February 2022.  An earlier study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2021 offered preliminary findings that did not show any significant safety concerns among pregnant individuals who received the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, indicating that observed miscarriages were not unusual and likely not a direct result of the vaccine. 

Kobach says that Pfizer marketed the vaccine as safe in terms of heart conditions such as myocarditis and pericarditis. He referenced a question Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO was asked in January 2023 of if the vaccine caused severe myocarditis, to which Bourla responded “we have not seen a single signal, although we have distributed billions of doses.”  “However, as Pfizer knew, the United States Government, the United States Military foreign governments and others have found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine caused myocarditis and pericarditis,” Kobach said. According to the CDC, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis caused by the COVID-19 vaccine are rare, and most patients experienced resolution of symptoms by hospital discharge. 

Kobach says Pfizer marketed its vaccine as effective against COVID-19 variants, “even though data available at the time showed Pfizer’s vaccine was effective less than half the time.” His final allegation in the complaint was that the company falsely marketed the vaccine as preventing transmission. 

Kansas AG Kris Kobach (R) files politically-motivated lawsuit against Pfizer and their COVID vaccine to score brownie points with anti-vaxxer extremists.

[onbearfeet]

Apparently there's some kind of big marketing push right now for flibanserin, the decade-old, remarkably shitty "female Viagra" sold under the brand name Addyi in the US. Every podcast I've listened to in the last two weeks has featured an Addyi commercial.

So, friendly reminder those who forgot: while there are definitely women and other humans with vaginas who experience sexual dysfunction and would love to take a pill about it, Addyi is almost certainly not that pill.

A few facts:

Flibanserin was officially approved to treat hypoactive sexual desire disorder, a diagnosis removed from the DSM before the drug hit the market. As far as I can determine, Addyi is not currently approved to treat HSDD's replacement diagnosis, female sexual arousal/interest disorder (FSAID).

One of the major differences between HSDD and FSAID is that HSDD could be diagnosed on the basis of a partner's report of insufficient sexual desire, while FSAID must be diagnosed based on patient reports. Basically, you can get diagnosed with HSDD if your boyfriend doesn't think you're putting out enough, whereas you can only get diagnosed with FSAID if YOU, the patient, think there's a problem. And Addyi claims to treat the boyfriend version.

Side effects of flibanserin include dizziness, nausea, tiredness, sleepiness, and (ironically) trouble sleeping. Those are not the kind of side effects anyone would put up with from Viagra, but hey, apparently they're fine in a "little pink pill".

When flibanserin was first released in 2015, it included a "Don't drink alcohol ever" warning on the bottle because mixing the two substances could torpedo blood pressure. Apparently that's been downgraded to "either sober up before you take your daily pill, or skip it for the day if you've had 3 or more drinks".

Daily pill? Daily pill. Unlike Viagra, which can be taken more or less at the moment of need, flibanserin is supposed to be taken daily if it's to be effective.

And how effective is it? Not very! The most recent published studies are vague (or at least their publicly accessible summaries are), but the studies released with the initial marketing push in 2015 were touting effects like one whole additional satisfying sexual event per month, and the more recent ones are vague about everything except "it's totally better now". That's not a lot for an expensive daily med with serious side effects.

So if this med doesn't really work, it has serious side effects, and it claims to treat a disorder that hasn't been on the books since two years before it was released, how the hell did it get FDA approval? The answer is a massive marketing campaign, including an astroturf group called Even The Score that was put together by the pharma company Sprout Pharmaceutical after the FDA initially denied approval.

But don't worry! Sprout was acquired by a bigger pharma company, Valeant, for $1 billion right after Addyi hit the market. So there's a happy ending after all. 🫠

I realize griping about the marketing of a decade-old drug is kind of off-brand for me, but I'm frankly creeped out that someone decided to follow up The Misogyny Election with a massive ad buy for a daily roofie that can be prescribed if a woman's partner wants more sex than he's getting. It's very "your body, my choice".

Oh, and it'll run you $400 a month.

Anyway, talk to your doctor about literally anything other than this shitty drug.

[partisan-by-default]

A new drug described as “the closest we have ever been to an HIV vaccine” could cost $40 (£31) a year for every patient, a thousand times less than its current price, new research suggests.

Lenacapavir , sold as Sunlenca by US pharmaceutical giant Gilead, currently costs $42,250 for the first year. The company is being urged to make it available at a thousand times less than that price worldwide.

UNAids said it could “herald a breakthrough for HIV prevention” if the drug was available “rapidly and affordably”.

Given by injection every six months, lenacapavir can prevent infection and suppress HIV in people who are already infected.

In a trial, the drug offered 100% protection to more than 5,000 women in South Africa and Uganda, according to results announced by Gilead last month.

Lenacapavir is currently licensed for treatment, not prevention.

[gaslightgatekeepgirlbosscombat]

Group A, Round 2, Poll 3:

Propaganda under the cut

GLaDOS

I mean, obviously.

Akane Kurashiki

Zero Escape spoilers! Akane Kurashiki is dead. Died in an incinerator as a child. But she's right here, isn't she? She's talking about mummies and the Titanic and I'm holding her in my arms. But also she's Zero, mastermind who trapped us here and threatened our lives. That guy literally just exploded. But Akane couldn't have done that, she's so sweet and she's so scared. Also she's dead? But wait, she's right here, and she has a fever again.

lied to a group of ppl including her childhood bestie so they'd enter a death game she planned, she's so funny. also later planned another death game to save the earth etc

GASLIGHT: Lies to everyone and pretends to just be an innocent quirky girl when in reality, she is the mastermind behind the situation everyone has been put in. Pretends to be sad and concerned when the bastard who almost killed her pretends to do a heroic sacrifice to get everyone's sympathy. Pretends she's put bombs inside everyone's stomachs. Really, she only put bombs inside the people she wants revenge on. Pretends that she and her brother aren't related. Erases her fiancé's memories and makes him forget he proposed to her so she can go to the moon and stop the outbreak of an apocalyptic virus without him getting in the way. Puts herself into a schrodinger's cat situation where she's both living and dead until you decide what door to walk through. Manipulates her way into a Mars mission program. Makes a guy think he is 45 years younger than he actually is. Pretends she is going to stab two people to force them back in time. Manipulates a child into participating in his father's research so he can act as a spare if necessary. GATEKEEP: A psychic who gains near omniscience in some circumstances, but refuses to explain snything unless it suits her plans. Says ""Only God decides who lives and dies!"" But she kills several people. Perhaps only God and Akane Kurahiki decide who lives and dies. Or maybe they're the same person? Manipulates a woman into breaking up with a man so she can kidnap him and bring him to the moon. Refuses to let her boyfriend meet her when it doesn't suit her plans. Kidnaps two women and puts them into a coma for 45 years. GIRLBOSS: Very willing to kill to achieve her goals or get revenge. Queen of random trivia. Will info dump about her interests whenever it suits her (including when she is trapped in a freezer with two people). If anyone touches a hair on her boyfriend's head she will not hesitate to cut them down with a chainsaw. Stages not one but two mass kidnappings and killing games (that we know of). Great at multitasking, she manged to save her own life and dispose of the people who almost killed her at the same time. Uses her knowledge of the future to manipulate the stock market and become super rich. If that doesn't scream girlboss I don't know what does. Starts her own organisation to fight cult leaders and save the world. Has two nemeses, the CEO of a pharmaceutical company, whose life she completely destroys and a >100 year old cult leader. Co-runs a moonbase where she has command of AIs and robots.

[sercezgazety]

He thought about writing a letter, it’s not like he didn’t. West was his roommate, after all, and well, maybe he fucked up a lot of times and in so many ways that words can’t even begin to describe it, maybe he got what was coming to him, and Dan’s only regret is that it happened so late. True. But he was still, well. At times, it’s hard to say what he was to Dan, exactly. An abuser, Dan’s lawyer used to claim, at least while the trial lasted. Any sympathy Dan might have felt for that monster was just Stockholm syndrome. Yet another proof that Dan was a good person, capable of so much compassion, and look how West went and twisted it.

He does that. He manipulates people, takes their kindness and uses it for personal gain, the prosecutor said, and everyone was nodding, so it was probably true, Dan assumed back then. Now, he knows that for a fact; yet another sign that he got better.

But it was even more difficult to say what Herbert was to him in these first months that followed the trial. Dan had more important shit to sort out, losing his medical license, having to move to another town because Arkham’s become unlivable, then another county, then a whole different state because everyone here has seen the footage. He had to cut his hair and grow a mustache so that people wouldn’t stare. The mustache sort of turned into a beard. It’s all just as hazy as the trial itself, and that’s probably because Dan spent really little time being sober. So yeah. Not his proudest moments, though come to think about it, there were very few proud ones. Maybe getting kissed by Meg for the first time. That one homerun that let his team win for the first time in a year back when he was fourteen. Graduating from high school perhaps, because graduating from the university sure as hell wasn’t it. There was West by his side by then, he’s even in the one and only picture from that day that Dan has, and he’s scowling at the camera, pale controlling hand clasped over Dan’s shoulder as if holding him in place. Fucking West tainting every little success of Dan’s and making every failure three times worse than it could have been without him; West dragging him, kicking and screaming, wherever West goddamn pleased, and Dan’s pretty sure there indeed was some creepy pleasure involved. Shoving a hand up a living human being’s ass and turning him into a puppet, managing to control him like that for years? Must have been a way to compensate for the absolute lack of control West had over those corpses of his. Maybe Dan looking a bit like one nowadays is just West’s parting gift. That, and losing the license, along the deposit on the house, not to mention all of his friends and self-respect. Everything. Dead fiancée, cat killed, car crashed, panic attacks and a huge scar across Dan’s abdomen. Asshole was pretty generous, wasn’t he.

But Dan manages on his own pretty well, it turns out. Finds a job at a pharmaceutical company, and it’s pretty concerning how little they care about him being a disgraced doctor and all. They say he knows the market. At least now, he’s not losing patients. It pays good money, and what if he can’t look in the mirror without cringing? That’s certainly not something new. When it comes to contributing to someone’s substance abuse, he has experience, and at least this time, the stuff’s not glowing. It’s been tested, and nobody would allow for it to be sold if it were really harmful. He’s amicable, funny, and when he smiles, he still has some of the sway he used to hold over women — the middle-aged ones, at least. With the guys, he can talk about the last game, cars, or barbecue techniques, who gives a crap. Anything. They like him, and he likes the normalcy. He’s not half bad at doing what the management tells him to do, even if at times they complain he lacks initiative. He rents a house, an entire house just to himself, and after a couple years, he probably could afford buying it, but nothing really feels that permanent. There might be something better somewhere else.

His sense of humor changes slightly. He cracks jokes by the water dispenser and everyone at the office laughs most of the time, except for those moments when they fall silent or just chuckle nervously and leave in a hurry. One time, in the men’s room, he says something about dropping the soap, and he can’t stop laughing until everything hurts and there are tears streaming down his cheeks. Everyone just stares, and he can’t catch his breath for so long he ends up choking and almost hurling. Bent over the sink, and yes, he appreciates the irony. It makes him wheeze even harder.

Besides, what would he write, exactly? Sorry it ended this way? He’s not. Why in hell would he be. He is sorry he let West in when he came knocking at his door that night, oh, that’s for sure. Sorry he didn’t listen to Meg and didn’t stop for a second to consider that perhaps West arriving at his porch, having already brought all of his things, was something odd. What the hell was he thinking when agreeing to this? West made the decision about moving in long before consulting Dan, and Dan didn’t find it alarming at all. So yeah, Dan’s sorry, really sorry for all the deaths he contributed to, for the larceny, animal cruelty and corpse desecration, those are things that really haunt him at night. And they should. The stuff West had him do was fucking horrifying.

So no, if he were to write a bloody letter, it wouldn’t be about oh, how sorry he is for how things ended. He’s glad, actually. He’s not going to apologize for the world becoming a slightly safer place without Herbert West in it.

[continue reading about Dan being in complete denial about so many things here]

[racefortheironthrone]

Hello. I was recently reading your "People's History of the Marvel Universe" series (an excellent read btw).

You made reference to critiques of Xavier and his political strategies, which got me thinking. Has anyone ever brought up the idea of a mutant advocacy group in the comics? Something akin to a NAACP, or an NGO? It feels like something that should exist, but I genuinely can't remember a writer ever attempting to create one.

This is an excellent question!

So I have certainly mentioned the issue in the past. If we think of the Marvel Universe as being roughly co-terminous in time with our own universe, as it was before the invention of the sliding timescale in the 90s, there should have been a mutant rights movement founded in the 70s during the "movement of movements" that saw the explosion of gay rights movements, women's liberation movements, environmental movements, etc. coming out of the 60s civil rights movement and New Left/anti-war movement. (I certainly would have been fascinated by how the All-New X-Men would have wrestled with the concept of "intersectionality" when it was brand-new coming out of the Combahee River Collective.)

In the comics, there have been sporadic mentions of mutant advocacy groups and NGOs - mostly in the context of campus organizations - but often very sporadically. Grant Morrison really changed the game completely by making X-Corp (a global mutant rights NGO) a significant element of his celebrated New X-Men run, and creators who followed their work have gone on to invent new groups with examples like Super Trans (a support group for trans mutants), Mutantes Sans Frontières (a mutant medical NGO), MUSE (a mutant rescue and shelter NGO), and Magnetic North (a pro-Magneto radical student group).

Whether the Krakoan Response Team (disaster relief) or the Marauders (refugee and black market pharmaceuticals) count as social movements or NGOs probably depends more on your theoretical perspective on social movements. Both organizations are state-sponsored, but aren't formal state institutions, but then again Krakoa doesn't have a well-developed political system. Most theorists insist that social movements have to be outside the political system, but I tend to agree with those who argue that social movements and political movements overlap, and that a lot of social movement work historically and today is done within the system of electoral politics.