#an unintended side effect that doesn’t affect their biology?

[joyfuladorable]

OKAY SOOO I just had a crying laughing fit during my drive home because a Thought has occurred to me:

Y’know the Ooze?

The Ooze that mutated the Turtles, Splinter, and Leatherhead??

Why did the Utroms make it???????

[fallintosanity]

Since it's pride month, can I ask you what your headcanons are for everyones orientation in Providence? It's not something I can really see coming up in-story, but I'm curious nonetheless. :3

Hoo boy, anon, my answer to this is probably a lot more complex and in-depth than you were expecting, so BUCKLE UP Y’ALL LET’S TALK ABOUT SEX AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN SOLDIER

(Note: I’m only going to talk about the original Compilation material for this, since that’s what TFA was written from and that’s what I’m writing Providence from.

Also all of my headcanons are colored by the fact that I am hella aro/ace myself so all flavors of allo are ??? to me)  

First off, major credit to @ageofzero​, who got me started down this headcanon path. The short version of their original headcanon is that SOLDIERs lose their sex drives due to the mako treatments, Jenova cells, and intense physical training regimen. After all, mako poisoning is a known Thing, and Jenova is a bizarre alien with no known gender (the original Japanese game never refers to her with any gender, and it’s strongly implied that her commonly-known feminine form is a shape she adopted to get close to the Cetra. Sephiroth only calls her “Mother” because Hojo lied to him that Jenova was his mother). 

I find this idea fascinating, and think it makes a lot of sense. Of the SOLDIERs we meet, only Zack seems to have any interest in forming romantic bonds with anyone, and even his relationship with Aerith is remarkably chaste. It’s impossible to know whether this is due to an actual intent to depict a chaste romantic relationship, needing to keep the games at a family-friendly rating, cultural differences between Japan and America in terms of how romantic and sexual affection are shown (especially in the 90s), the limitations of the game engine in terms of having the characters physically interact, or some combination of the above, but the result is that the canon we are shown does not include anything approaching a sexual relationship between two characters.*

Given all that, and given the unsettling implications you find if you so much as scratch the surface of ShinRa’s human experimentation**, I think it’s eminently reasonable to believe that however they might have started life, SOLDIERs no longer have sex drives or sexual desire. Which is all an incredibly long-winded way of saying, I headcanon all the SOLDIERs as some flavor of asexual: 

Sephiroth: Extremely aro/ace. I’ve talked before about how I think he sees people and relationships differently than humans do, and that extends to romance and sex. I’m not even sure “aro/ace” is the right label for him under those circumstances, but it’s close enough. 

Genesis: Ace, bi- or homoromantic. TFA and its non-canon side pieces suggest Genesis is romantically interested in Cloud (which I’ve been carrying into Providence), and we have no idea if he’s ever been romantically interested in anyone else. 

Angeal: Ace, probably either aro or heteroromantic. Like Genesis, we never see him express romantic interest in anyone, but it’s possible he does off-screen. 

Zack: Probably would have been bi or poly if he wasn’t in SOLDIER; as is, ace and bi- or poly-romantic. (but really only has eyes for Aerith) 

Kunsel: Ace, maybe demi-romantic? He’s eighteen in Providence and has been focused on rising through the SOLDIER ranks; I don’t think he himself knows for sure. 

Cloud: A bit of an outlier because I headcanon that he would have been aro/ace even if he hadn’t gotten the mako/Jenova treatments. At no point in any of the original game or greater Compilation does he express romantic or sexual interest in anyone. He cares deeply about Aerith and Tifa both, but at no point says or does anything to suggest that it’s romantic or sexual in nature. Tifa occasionally says things which imply she sees her relationship with Cloud that way, but he never responds in kind. At best, his childhood interest in her could be a bit of a puppy crush, but that doesn’t rule out aro/ace Cloud since so many aro/aces do experience puppy crushes or squishes that aren’t sexual/romantic in nature. Or it could be as simple as, Tifa was the popular kid and Cloud was the outcast kid, and he was interested in her because if she was friends with him, then maybe he wouldn’t be an outcast anymore. (I lied, I’m going to talk about the Remake for a second because I’m intrigued that it appears to have doubled down hard on ace!Cloud, to the point where a lot of people have said “I don’t normally have ace headcanons, but Remake!Cloud is ace”. He’s either completely oblivious to, or visibly uncomfortable with, half the cast wanting to get into his pants. Even when Aerith warns him not to fall in love with her, his objection is to her telling him what to do yet again rather than anything about his actual feelings.) 

Noctis: I realized as I was writing this post that I also headcanon Noctis as ace and probably aro- or demi-romantic. Like Cloud, we never see him express romantic or sexual interest toward anyone, which is notable given that he’s supposed to be marrying Lunafreya. He certainly seems to care deeply about her, but - like Cloud and Tifa/Aerith - his affection can be easily read as a close childhood friendship, and depending on which answers you give in the notebook choices, can canonically be brusque and uninterested. He’s also visibly uncomfortable with Gladio’s flirting (with other people) and Iris’s flirting (with Noct himself). Since we do see Gladio flirting, pretty brazenly sometimes, and we hear Prompto chatter about his crush on Cindy, Noct’s silence on the matter is telling. (He also throws an interesting wrench into the works around the SOLDIER castration headcanon, since he did get the treatments but they affected him very differently than everyone else. But I can’t say too much else there without venturing into spoiler territory.) 

So anyway hi, my name is Sanity and I have a lot of ace headcanons. ^_^;

* The closest we get is the scene near the end of the original game, with Cloud and Tifa under the Highwind before the final battle. The scene itself is, again, remarkably chaste. Depending on your Affection value with Tifa, it’s not even all that romantic; it reads mostly like two friends who have been through a lot together. The few lines that do shade toward romance all come from Tifa herself, not Cloud. Also, what Tifa says the next morning on the Highwind changes depending on whether or not your Affection value is high enough; if yes, she asks the others, “Were you watching?” and if no, she asks, “Were you listening?”. So it’s possible to get a canon path which suggests Tifa and Cloud did something she didn’t want the others watching, but 1) that still leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and 2) it’s equally possible to get a canon path which suggests nothing happened at all.

** I’m just going to quote @ageofzero​ here because they put it best: “It might've been an unintended side-effect, of course, but idk how anyone could've thought 'let's put Mako inside human beings' when everyone knows what a powerful burning energy source Mako is and what the hell that might do inside a human when people have likely already suffered Mako poisoning from building Midgar/the reactors. And also considering that Mako is a 'refining' of Lifestream that basically strips away all the benefits of Life within it, there's no way it's not some kind of reproduction dampening substance, among many other negative consequences. [...] ESPECIALLY since a lot of SOLDIERs probably start out in their teen years (Zack, and Cloud's attempt). They're still developing humans, and who knows what effects Mako has on someone who's still passing through adolescence???? Angeal, Genesis, and Sephiroth are all even worse off because they were babies when they were made prototype experiments for the SOLDIER method. [...] I can't imagine mako doing anything but turning the body into a weird toxic mess even if it is controlled and regulated so they don't suffer the loss of their mind. And what the hell does it do to SOLDIERs on a DNA level?? With how much mako (and Jenova cells) there is in their body, it could turn body fluids into burning/glowing/toxic substances. All body fluids. Or at the very least make it Not Good to be exposed to said fluids, if they're not directly toxic/mako-infused. It might very well be the brain turning off reproductive desires bc SOLDIERs are a biological dead end by the time they're strong enough to be considered SOLDIER. What a chilling concept (also hello I like thinking about weird biology).”

[thelightfluxtastic]

Mages, Magicians, and Kin Identity

Below the cut, a long (almost 2000 word) essay exploring the differences between the historical therian/otherkin communities and the “tumblrkin”/”kinnie” community and subculture, through an extended metaphor about magic. At full disclosure, I am personally very much an “old school” therian. Nevertheless, the essay, to the best of my efforts, is not an attack and does not take sides, instead hoping for honest discussion. I know there are other communities I might not know about or be active in, I welcome people to share this there (with proper credit).

Say you have a Mage (think Harry Potter, Dungeons and Dragons, and similar). In their experience, magic is an inextricable from their life: it affects how they perceive the world around them, how they interpret and understand things, and it can manifest effects (spells) through them, either voluntarily or reflexively. The visible, tangible acts of “magic” are a direct expression and consequence of the natural state “being a mage”. They don’t “do magic”, they “are a mage”, and magic happens as a result. A mage remains inherently a mage, even when they are asleep or having breakfast or otherwise not doing anything obviously magical.

Then, say you have a magician (Harry Houdini, David Copperfield, etc.). For them, “magic” is a thing you do. Some people may have more talent than others, and people may have different reasons for doing it (some make it a career, some put on performances, some just do it on their own out of personal interest or fun), but at the end of the day it’s an activity, a practice.

Then, say, these two completely different people meet, and start discussing “magic”. Here, a sudden conflict arises.

It would be very tempting for the mage, seeing the magician using scarves and cards and coins, to say “What I’m doing is real magic, what you’re doing is fake”. The mage might remember really struggling to understand and control their magic- early accidents and mishaps, unintended reflexive spells- and think “This is something I live with, good or bad. Something that, in certain situations, I have to work to manage, and it’s all just a game to you.” If the mage runs into someone who is only familiar with magicians, who, upon seeing them cast fireball, says “oh, neat trick with the flash paper!” the mage might get frustrated, angry, defensive. Insisting that no, they’re doing something very different. The mage might try to draw the line between identity an action, or even try to insist on differentiating terms (“I’m doing magic because that’s what magic means, you’re doing legerdemain”).

But the magician might argue back that the magic he does is what magic means to him, what it has meant for as long as he’s known it, and what it means to his community. There’s no deception, trickery, or malicious intent involved. When he meets with other magicians, they’re all discussing magic as a practice, their tools and skills, not pretending or claiming to be supernatural. And even the audience to magic performances ultimately understands and expects that it’s all illusion and a demonstration of clever talent. It’s just as ‘real’ in that sense. Furthermore, the magician might argue that, just because magic is an activity, that doesn’t mean it’s shallow or meaningless. There are magicians that take their craft very seriously, and for whom it’s a really significant part of their life. Furthermore, it’s not so easy to distinguish action from identity: nobody is born a “writer” or an “artist”, but these can be as much core identities for a person as their inborn traits. Some magicians might accept ‘legerdemain’ as a term, but it would be very difficult to convince all magicians to suddenly stop using the term “magic”, especially if that is coming as an external pressure and not a natural linguistic shift within their own community.

If the magician assumes that the mage is using stage magic whenever they make grass grow or call down a lightning bolt, then the mage will seem to be too authoritarian- why are they so angry? Why are they so insistent on using different terminology? Why do they pop up with “No, that’s not how it works” every time someone mentions doing magic for fun? How rude! The magician would see that mages see magic as an identity- which, yes, some magicians do- but might think “why can’t they accept that that’s not how everyone does magic?”.

What the magician fails to see, in this case, is that this is not a shared identity with different perspectives, but a fundamentally different experience. The magician sees their difference in the use of the term “Magic” as a difference in connotation and interpretation. Really, what’s happening is more like a homograph: two words with different meanings and origins that look or sound the same (e.g. “dove” the bird vs. “dove”, past tense of “dive”). And in discussion, mixing up “lead” as in the metal and “lead” as in “leader”, or using them interchangeably, isn’t an alternate definition or linguistic drift, it’s misinformation and misunderstanding.

The above extended metaphor is the closest I have come to explaining the difference between the “old school” therian/otherkin community, and the subculture commonly referred to as “tumblrkin” (which I use as a point of reference here, not derogatorily). For the sake of clarity, I will be referring to these as “mage kin” and “magician kin” from this point forward. My observations and direct experience in this come from Therian Guide, Werelist, Youtube, Therian Wilderness, a few therian Telegram groups, and, yes, Tumblr. As you can see there will still be gaps in my knowledge (especially as I am far less familiar with non-therian, otherkin communities).

Mage kin see therianthropy/otherkinity as an inherent identity. Language reflects that- one has a kintype or is __kin/a ___ therian, and might be discouraged from saying “my wolf” or “my dragon”. A lot of emphasis is placed on distinguishing kintypes from ‘external’ forces, whether personality traits, likes/dislikes or distinct spiritual entities. A kintype in this community is (almost) always discovered, not created and definitely not chosen. It is found the same way a new continent is found- it was always there, and simply needed to be mapped. Mage kin communities are, broadly speaking, older and more interconnected. The various forums tend to share some members, and this is usually where you will find the community elders that have been around since the Elf Queen’s Daughters and alt.horror.werewolves. While terminology has shifted slightly with time (from elvenkind and weres to otherkin and therians), and broadened to include things like fictionkin, this has been natural drift, and mage kin have a shared definition/understanding of kin identity, whether on Tumblr or TG: an inherent, internal, nonhuman identity. A mage kin is always kin, whatever their shifts or self-expression.

In magician kin communities, “kinning” is a verb. It is a thing someone does. “X kins Y” or “I’m kinning ___” are common statements. This is how it was expressed by someone who identified as kin, and was earnest as far as I could tell (not trolling)- that people can “kin” for various reasons, including mental health or for fun. Because of this action aspect in the general understanding, the magician kin community is much more open to the idea of choosing a kintype- both in picking what to “kin”, and in being able to say things like “don’t kin outside of your race/culture”. It also broadens the umbrella of what a kintype can be, with people further subdividing into things like “ID’s”. The magician community is more insular- as far as I can tell it is fairly localized to tumblr (and personal discords/aminos) but has little to no overlap with other therian/otherkin websites and forums. This leads to a lack of exposure to terminology and history (I’ve had someone ask me, in earnest, that wasn’t fictionkin different from otherkin?). And much like on islands in biology/ecology, being insulated in that way leads to very sharp, extreme differentiation. Magicians rarely meet mages (and when they do, often assume them to just be belligerent magicians) and have branched off to the point of being nigh-unrecognizable from the mage perspective.

Hence, conflict. Notice how often discourse boils down to whether kin is a noun or a verb. Mages see magicians as disconnected from the community history and terminology, and thus misinformed- and put time, effort and energy into ‘educating’ and ‘correcting’ (whether politely or angrily). They blame magicians for muddying the water of what ‘magic’ means, causing confusion, and for making a mockery (in their perspective) of magic- making a game of what was often serious and sometimes even painful for them. Magicians have their fellow magicians and are perfectly happy with their magic, and don’t see why some other ‘magicians’ feel they have any authority to barge in and tell them they aren’t doing real magic and should start using words like “legerdemain”. From a complete outsider’s perspective, it’s all chaos. Because the two groups aren’t using neatly distinct terms like mage and magician, they are all just using “magic” and arguing with each other (and of course, the worst extremes will always be the most visible). And, as tempting as it is to think so, magicians aren’t responsible for trolls and aggressors attacking the ‘magic’ community as a whole; and strictly enforcing only mage terms wouldn’t stop willful misunderstanding and attacks. People that want to be jerks and bullies would be jerks and bullies, even to the most respectable.

So…what do we do? I’m solidly in the mage kin camp. I found the tumblr kin community first, and felt alienated and out of place in it. Finding fellow mages is where I have found community and shared understanding that matches my experiences. And, like many of my peers, I’ve spent time and energy being angry at tumblrkin, and aggressively defensive of terminology. But here’s the thing- that’s wasted effort. However the linguistic divergence came about, it happened. There’s no point closing the barn door after the cows get out. Contranyms (words that are their own opposite) are a known linguistic fact. In some cases, it’s a matter of a specific word broadening until it contains its own opposite. In other cases (which I think are closest to what’s happening with “otherkin”), a word with a broad meaning splits into more specific sub-definitions, which relate to the original meaning but develop separately in parallel until they ultimately contradict one another. And, well, as to how that will end in the long term: how well is the fight to get people to stop using “literally” figuratively going? Does “sanction” mean to permit or penalize?

I don’t know what the answer is. As someone who likes labels, terminology, and clarity, I’m tempted to hope that labels (maybe even ‘magician’ and ‘mage’) can help clean up the overlap between these two very different camps. But I’m doubtful adding more words into the mix will really help this terminological clusterfuck. From the perspective of mental and emotional health, I’m tempted to let the island be an island, and just stick with the community that I’ve found, that fits my needs and experiences, and clarify on an individual level if someone asks me about my identity and what it means to me. It matters for people just starting to question their identity- there is a lot of contradictory information they would be blasted with. And I know there is a fear among mage kin that fellow ‘true mages’ would get lost in the weeds. But I found my way, and I’m going to continue presenting as the kind of therian I am, so I can act as that example to others. I don’t know what else can be done.

So I guess my final thoughts would be: To any magicians reading this- please try to understand and respect that there really is a fundamental difference in experience here, not just a parallel perspective. To my fellow mages- is it really worthwhile to mount a crusade, or more important to lead by example and be a beacon?

---

Requested edit: Reminder that all of the above is an extended metaphor. I am talking about otherkin/therians using the idea of “magic” to illustrate my perspective. Which, again, is my own and based on my own experiences, with the intent of being fair, but is neither universal nor perfect.

[foodreceipe]

How Cheese, Wheat and Alcohol Shaped Human Evolution

Over time, diet causes dramatic changes to our anatomy, immune systems, and maybe even skin color.

Smithsonian Magazine - Brian Handwerk

Human evolution is ongoing, and what we eat is a crucial part of the puzzle.

You aren’t what you eat, exactly. But over many generations, what we eat does shape our evolutionary path. “Diet,” says anthropologist John Hawks, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, “has been a fundamental story throughout our evolutionary history. Over the last million years there have been changes in human anatomy, teeth and the skull, that we think are probably related to changes in diet.”

As our evolution continues, the crucial role of diet hasn’t gone away. Genetic studies show that humans are still evolving, with evidence of natural selection pressures on genes impacting everything from Alzheimer's disease to skin color to menstruation age. And what we eat today will influence the direction we will take tomorrow.

Got Milk?

When mammals are young, they produce an enzyme called lactase to help digest the sugary lactose found in their mothers’ milk. But once most mammals come of age, milk disappears from the menu. That means enzymes to digest it are no longer needed, so adult mammals typically stop producing them.

Thanks to recent evolution, however, some humans defy this trend. 

Around two-thirds of adult humans are lactose intolerant or have reduced lactose tolerance after infancy. But tolerance varies dramatically depending on geography. Among some East Asian communities, intolerance can reach 90 percent; people of West African, Arab, Greek, Jewish and Italian descent are also especially prone to lactose intolerance.  

Northern Europeans, on the other hand, seem to love their lactose—95 percent of them are tolerant, meaning they continue to produce lactase as adults. And those numbers are increasing. “In at least different five cases, populations have tweaked the gene responsible for digesting that sugar so that it remains active in adults,” Hawks says, noting it is most common among peoples in Europe, the Middle East and East Africa.     

Ancient DNA shows how recent this adult lactose toleranceis, in evolutionary terms. Twenty-thousand years ago, it was non-existent. As of 2018, about one-third of all adults have tolerance.

That lightning-fast evolutionary change suggests that direct milk consumption must have provided a serious survival advantage over peoples who had to ferment dairy into yogurt or cheese. During fermentation, bacteria break down milk sugars including lactase, turning them into acids and easing digestion for those with lactose intolerance. Gone with those sugars, however, is a good chunk of the food's caloric content.

Hawks explains why being able to digest milk would have been such a boon in the past: “You're in a nutrition limited environment, except you have cattle, or sheep, or goats, or camels, and that gives you access to a high energy food that infants can digest but adults can't,” he says. “What it does is allow people to get 30 percent more calories out of milk, and you don't have the digestive issues that come from milk consumption.”  

A recent genetic study found that adult lactose tolerance was less common in Roman Britain than today, meaning its evolution has continued throughout Europe's recorded history. 

 These days, many humans have access to plentiful alternative foods as well as lactose-free milk or lactase pills that help them digest regular dairy. In other words, we can circumvent some impacts of natural selection. That means traits like lactose tolerance might not have the same direct impacts on survival or reproduction that they once did—at least in some parts of the world.

“As far as we know, it makes no difference to your survival and reproduction in Sweden if you can digest milk or not. If you're eating out of a supermarket (your dairy tolerance doesn’t affect your survival). But it still makes a difference in East Africa,” Hawks says.

Wheat, Starch and Alcohol

These days, it isn’t uncommon to find an entire grocery store aisle devoted to gluten-free cookies, bread and crackers. Yet trouble digesting gluten—the main protein found in wheat—is another relatively recent snag in human evolution. Humans didn't start storing and eating grains regularly until around 20,000 years ago, and wheat domestication didn't begin in earnest until about 10,000 years ago.Since wheat and rye became a staple of human diets, however, we've have had a relatively high frequency of celiac disease. “You look at this and say how did it happen?” asks Hawks. “That's something that natural selection shouldn't have done.”

The answer lies in our immune response. A system of genes known as the human leukocyte antigens take part in the fight against disease, and frequently produce new variations to battle ever-changing infections. Unfortunately, for individuals with celiac disease, this system mistakes the human digestive system for a disease and attacks the lining of the gut.  Yet despite the obvious drawbacks of celiac disease, ongoing evolution doesn't seem to be making it less frequent. The genetic variants behind celiac disease seem to be just as common now as they've been since humans began eating wheat. 

“This is a case where a selection that is probably about disease and parasites has a side effect that produces celiac disease in a small fraction of people. That's a trade-off that recent evolution has left us and it wasn't an adaptation to diet—it was an adaptation in spite of diet,” Hawks says. Unintended trade-offs are common in evolution. For example, the genetic mutation to red blood cells that helps humans survive malaria can also produce the deadly sickle cell disease.  

Other examples of our continuing evolution through diet are intriguing but uncertain. For instance, Amylase is an enzyme that helps saliva digest starch. Historically, agricultural peoples from West Eurasia and Mesoamerica have more copies of the associated gene. Were they selected to digest starches better? “That makes a compelling story and it may be true. But biology is complicated and it's not totally clear what's at work or how important it is,” Hawks says.  

More than one-third of East Asians—Japanese, Chinese and Koreans—have a flushing reaction when they metabolize alcohol, because the process creates an excess of toxic acetaldehyde enzymes. There's strong genetic evidence that this was selected recently, during the last 20,000 years, Hawks notes.

Because its appearance in the genome may roughly coincide with rice domestication 10,000 years ago, some researchers suggest that it stopped people from over indulging in rice wine. The timelines aren't precisely determined, however, for either the mutation or rice domestication. It has also been suggested that acetaldehyde offered protection from parasites that were unable to stomach the toxin. 

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-cheese-wheat-and-alcohol-shaped-human-evolution

[unkorkd]

MFM (MaryJane, Female, Male)

(The article below was published 12/4/2018 on Theverge.com. Click the link found under 'source' to be taken to the full article.)

As marijuana legalization spreads and stigmarecedes, older narratives claiming that copulation and cannabis don’t mix are falling by the wayside. Today, marijuana lube products fill internet storefronts, and there’s no end to claims that weed enhances sex, despite research that draws far more nuanced conclusions. Though it’s unclear whether cannabis goods really make sex better, bigger-picture studies suggest that the combination of sex and marijuana will have major implications for demographics and public policy.

The advice that marijuana will help with sexual issues is the opposite of what people once believed, says Michael Eisenberg, a urologist at Stanford University. The common hypothesis was that marijuana would lead to poorer sexual function, and some studies do suggest that marijuana can disrupt the menstrual cycle, lower sperm quality, or make it harder to reach orgasm.

PASSING MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS LED TO HIGHER BIRTHRATES

But there are plenty of testimonials from people who swear that cannabis lubricant prolongs orgasm and cannabis tampons will relieve period pain. “For many of the lubes, is it more hype or more true response?” asks gynecologist Melanie Bone. “The only way to know is to study it.” However, we have very few studies because it’s notoriously difficult to do research using marijuana. (For what it’s worth, weed lube creator Foria Pleasure is currently recruiting and paying for a study examining whether its suppository reduces period cramps.)

We don’t know who or under what circumstances these products might help, and even if they do work, it might be unclear why. For example, many weed lubes contain coconut oil, so how do we know that it’s cannabis and not the coconut oil that’s effective? Does using marijuana as lubricant really make it more effective than consuming it directly? The potential negative side effects are also unclear.

Bone, who frequently prescribes medical marijuana to women who have low libidos, anxiety, or difficulty orgasming, says that the sexual effect of marijuana can vary greatly. “It’s not like the more, the better,” she says. “Maybe some amount will relax you and make you more open to sensations and less inhibited with your body, but if you get super stoned, you’re not going to be able to concentrate.” Some of her patients have said that suppositories or weed lubricants are great; others say that they’re far too intense.

Though no hard evidence supports the sex-enhancing claims of these products, other research does suggest that marijuana, in general, can lead to more time in the sack. Eisenberg became interested in the link between marijuana and sex after male patients started asking whether cannabis would “affect function down there.” For a study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine last year, he analyzed data from the National Survey of Family Growth, covering nearly 60,000 people, and found that people who consumed marijuana tended to have more sex. For example, women who consumed marijuana weekly had 34 percent more sex than those who didn’t; the number was 22 percent more for men.

Eisenberg acknowledges that the data is self-reported, which makes it less reliable. It’s also possible that the people who smoke marijuana are also the people who simply have more sex to begin with. “Still, the interesting thing about the study is that we also were able to look at all different demographic groups, based on race and ethnicity, marital status, and education level,” Eisenberg says. “And across all groups, you saw the same relationship, so it’s not like this association is being driven by one particular group.”

New research from Michele Baggio, an economist at the University of Connecticut, finds an even more striking pattern. For a working paper, recently posted to the National Bureau of Economic Research, Baggio, along with co-authors Alberto Chong and David Simon, analyzed three different datasets. They concluded that passing medical marijuana laws led to higher birthrates. Specifically, it increased the birthrate by approximately four births per quarter for every 10,000 women of childbearing age.

First, they found that when medical marijuana laws pass, it leads to more people smoking marijuana, including recreationally. Next, it turns out that consuming marijuana encourages riskier sexual practices, like buying and using fewer condoms, which leads to more births. This doesn’t mean that the medical hypothesis — that marijuana can cause sexual issues — is false. More likely, this is a case when behavior trumps biology. “While medical literature points to a possible negative effect of marijuana, this does not take into account how people behave and how that could shape the actual behavior of people,” Baggio says.

So even though marijuana probably makes it harder to ejaculate and makes it harder for sperm to reach the egg, those birthrate-lowering effects are negated by fewer people using protection while they’re high. (Other studies have found the same link between consuming marijuana and not using contraception.) It’s important to do this research so we know the potential unintended consequences as marijuana legalization spreads, Baggio says.

We need more research on the product claims of marijuana. But, even more importantly, we need studies like the ones that focus on birthrates or the one from last year that suggests that marijuana might lead to more aggression with romantic partners, at least in young couples. While scientists already have a head start at tracking down the side effects of marijuana products in people, side effects in populations remain more of a mystery.

“We need to start thinking about unintended consequences,” says Baggio.

[hellofastestnewsfan]

The story goes that Viagra began as a drug for chest pains. It didn’t work very well. But men in those clinical trials noticed a curious side effect of erections—and lo, a blockbuster drug was born.

Since then, the uses of Viagra, or its non-brand counterpart sildenafil, have continued to morph. Clinicaltrials.gov currently lists 60 planned and ongoing sildenafil trials, and it’s already a common treatment for high blood pressure in the lungs. Until this week, one of the many trials in progress was for pregnant women in the Netherlands whose babies grew too slowly in the womb. But after 11 of those babies died from lung problems after birth, the trial was swiftly terminated, as was a similar one in Canada.

Why was a drug best known for treating erectile dysfunction being tested in pregnant woman at all? There is one answer rooted in biology and another rooted in economics.

On the basic biology: Sildenafil works by relaxing blood vessels and increasing blood flow—hence its effectiveness against erectile dysfunction and high blood pressure in the lungs. In the 2000s, as Viagra was working miracles for men, scientists became interested in how it might help fetuses. In a condition called intrauterine growth restriction, the fetus doesn’t get enough blood and fails to grow. Fetuses that don’t grow can die. The only real treatment hardly seems like a treatment at all: inducing a premature delivery before the fetus dies. If sildenafil could increase blood flow to the fetus, doctors thought, perhaps the drug could help it grow inside the womb.

In 2004, promising animal data led doctors in Canada to pilot a tiny sildenafil study of 10 women. The drug seemed to slightly increase fetal growth, so they drew up plans for a larger, international trial spanning Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the U.K. and the Netherlands. “It was buzzing at conferences,” Wessel Ganzevoort, principle investigator of the Dutch trial told the Dutch newspaper De Volksrant. “Foreign colleagues let slip that they sometimes prescribed [sildenafil], with good results.” (The Dutch trial used a generic version of sildenafil that was not manufactured by Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company that makes Viagra.)

The New Zealand, Australia, and U.K. arms of the trial have already ended, and the U.K. investigators actually published their results in The Lancet in December. The results were not promising. The drug did not prolong pregnancy or improve outcomes. But the trial showed no serious adverse outcomes linked to sildenafil either, so the Dutch and Canadian trials continued until the news of the 11 deaths this week. In a statement, Kenneth Lim, principal investigator of the Canadian trial, said he was unaware of adverse outcomes in Canada but has suspended the trial.

It’s too early to tell exactly what happened, but one specific detail stands out. Amsterdam University Medical Center, which led the Dutch trial, noted in a press release that 93 pregnant women had taken sildenafil in the trial, and that 19 babies had died, 11 possibly of “a form of high blood pressure in the lung”—notable because sildenafil is actually approved to treat high blood pressure in the lungs in adults.

But sildenafil can have the perverse effect of causing the exact problem it’s supposed to solve if patients quit the drug suddenly, says Robert Tulloh, who studies the condition (pulmonary hypertension) at University Hospitals Bristol. The body can acclimate to the drug over time—in the same way that taking steroids can lead to the body producing fewer natural steroids. Now imagine fetuses growing inside women on sildenafil. When they are born, their lungs have to suddenly start working and they are cut off from sildenafil. In addition, says Tulloh, sildenafil affects a very basic cellular pathway in the human body involving nitric oxide. “Even amoebas have nitric oxide capability,” he says. Using the drug during fetal development may have other unintended side effects. (Amsterdam UMC did not immediately respond to questions about the cause of the infant deaths.)

Sildenafil is approved for pulmonary hypertension in adults, but its use in newborns and children is controversial. In 2012, the FDA actually issued a warning about using sildenafil for pulmonary hypertension in children ages 1 to 17. The warning was the result of a long-term trial, where children on high doses of the drug died at markedly higher rates than those on lower doses. But it’s still being used—frequently enough that the FDA had to issue a clarification in 2014 that its warning was not meant to discourage sildenafil in children in all cases. Its use in newborns, particularly premature babies, is also off-label.

Viagra is now sold as a generic, and its popularity as an erectile dysfunction drug means a ready supply is available. “Because it’s so cheap people are using it all sorts of situations,” Tulloh says.

The high cost of drug development has led scientists to repurpose previously approved drugs across diseases. Current trials for sildenafil include everything from cancer, to concussions, to urinary incontinence. The biology and economics of sildenafil are connected.

When a drug can potentially have so many different effects, it also has a lot of side effects—some of them, unfortunately, even deadly.

from The Atlantic https://ift.tt/2uWHYoA

[researcherblr-blog]

Next Generation of GMOs Escapes Regulation

Twenty years ago, proponents of genetic engineering promised that GMO foods would increase yields, reduce pesticides, produce nutritious foods and help feed the world. Today, those promises have fallen far short as the majority of GMO crops are engineered to withstand sprays of Roundup herbicide, which is increasingly documented as a risk to human health.

Now, new genetic engineering technologies such as synthetic biology and gene editing are being hailed with the same promises of revolutionizing food production, medicine, fuels, textiles and other areas.

But a closer look at this next generation or "GMOs 2.0" technologies reveals possibly even greater risks than existing GMO technology with possible human health risks and negative impacts on farming communities worldwide, among other unintended consequences. And while products developed using current genetic engineering methods are regulated by the U.S. government, GMOs 2.0 products are entering the market with few or no regulations.

Synthetic Biology: Extreme Genetic Engineering

While traditional genetic engineering involves inserting genes from one species into another, GMOs 2.0 technologies like synthetic biology aim to create life from scratch with computer-synthesized DNA.

"Genetic engineering has moved on from the first generation GMO crops," said Jim Thomas, program director at the ETC Group, a non-profit advocacy group that tracks the new GMO technologies. "There are different ways to genetically engineer an organism by creating synthetic DNA or editing DNA."

The ETC Group describes synthetic biology or "extreme genetic engineering" as "the design and construction of new biological parts, devices and systems that do not exist in the natural world and also the redesigning of existing biological systems to perform specific tasks."

"Synthetic biology is about synthesizing genetic sequences, designing them increasingly from scratch as if they were parts to put together in a particular way to get a predicted outcome," Thomas said.

The synthetic biology process involves altering the DNA of microorganisms such as algae, bacteria and yeast so they produce compounds like flavors and fragrances that previously have been extracted from plants. Scientists and software engineers are altering the DNA of existing microorganisms and designing new ones.

Synthetic biology companies are producing a wide range of compounds for food, pharmaceutical, fuel and industrial use. Evolva has created a synthetic biology form of vanillin, an alternative to natural vanilla extract. Perfect Day has engineered yeast cells to produce proteins similar to those found in cow's milk with the aim of producing vegan milk. Impossible Foods engineered heme, a molecule that makes meat sizzle and look pink for the company's meatless Impossible Burger. According to the ETC Group, there are some 350 synthetic biology products on the market or in development.

The claimed benefits of synthetic biology products such as flavors and fragrances are that they can be produced in greater and more consistent quantities and at lower prices than crop-based plant materials that are subject to climate conditions, crop failures and transportation logistics.

CRISPR Gene Editing

Another GMOs 2.0 technology is a gene editing method called CRISPR. This enables scientists to edit parts of the genome by removing, adding or altering sections of the DNA. The aim is to activate or deactivate genes to produce a desired effect. Proponents say CRISPR has the potential to treat illnesses that have a genetic basis such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, hepatitis B or high cholesterol.

GMO seed companies are using CRISPR to develop new plant varieties. Cibus used the technique to develop an herbicide tolerant canola. Pioneer Hi-Bred is developing waxy corn hybrids with high starch content for food and non-food uses.Monsanto recently announced it was licensing the CRISPR technology to develop new seed varieties.

Proponents say CRISPR is "the simplest, most versatile and precise method of genetic manipulation."

"It's a lot more precise in that it targets a specific gene in the genome where it exists while genetic engineering involves inserting a gene at random in the genome, which could disrupt the functioning of other genes," said Jim Orf, professor emeritus, plant breeding and genetics at the University of Minnesota.

But Thomas said scientists are seeing unintended effects using CRISPR. In fact he said "some scientists are intentionally not using CRISPR because of off-target effects." Orf also admitted that the technology is not "100 percent foolproof." Dr. J. Keith Joung of Massachusetts General Hospital said there is growing evidence that CRISPR might alter regions of the genome other than the intended ones.

Technology Risks

Causing unintended consequences is one of the problems with current genetic engineering methods, and these could be even worse with GMOs 2.0 technologies, particularly synthetic biology.

"You're not just adding one gene with all the implications of that. Here you are dealing with stretches of DNA that are invented on a computer. The level of novelty and the depth of intervention are much more significant."

Synthetic biology techniques could create secondary metabolites or molecules or different levels of compounds that could have negative impacts.

An underlying problem with the techniques is that they are based on an outdated premise of how biology and nature function.

"One of the dangers with synthetic biology is that it pretends that life is a linear, predictable system that you can engineer as if you can re-engineer a car or computer and that DNA is just a code," Thomas said, "But all those metaphors are falling apart in the biological sciences."

There are also social concerns. Companies like Evolva that make synthetic biology flavors like vanillin are hurting the market for natural vanilla produced by farming communities in Madagascar.

"These companies are trying to disrupt those markets and take that value," Thomas said. "If you can produce vanillin, then you will start affecting the supply chains and livelihoods of vanilla farmers."

Natural and Non-GMO Claims

Another problem is that some synthetic biology and gene editing companies are claiming that their products are natural or even non-GMO. Cibus calls its gene-edited canola "non-transgenic." Synthetic biology companies say that even though the production organism they create is a GMO, they claim the final ingredient is non-GMO.

"They'll argue that the (GMO) production organism is a just a processing aid," Thomas said. "That's a bit like saying a cow is a processing aid for making milk."

The Non-GMO Project also disagrees.

"There is a growing attempt on the part of biotechnology companies to claim that new types of genetic engineering, such as gene editing and synthetic biology, are not actually genetic engineering," said Megan Westgate, executive director of The Non-GMO Project. "To bring clarity in the face of this misleading trend, the Non-GMO Project has explicitly included these technologies in our Standard and cannot be used in a Non-GMO Project Verified product."

On the organic side, the National Organic Standards Board has proposed redefining genetic engineering in the National Organic Program to include GMOs 2.0 technologies, but the new definition hasn't yet been formally adopted.

No Regulation

There is virtually no regulation of GMOs 2.0 techniques in the U.S. The U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn't consider gene-edited crops such as Cibus's canola and Pioneer's waxy corn as falling under the agency's regulations for genetically engineered crops.

But Orf said the U.S. Department of Agriculture is deciding how GMOs 2.0 crops should be regulated. "They're reviewing their process to see if these crops should be regulated on a case-by-case basis or in a general way. These are different technologies doing things in a different way than transgenics."

Synthetic biology manufacturers are claiming their products such as vanillin are the same as the natural compounds and consider them to be "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS.

"Some companies are going to the Food and Drug Administration and saying 'we would like this to be GRAS' and the FDA is doing that," Thomas said.

Can GMOs 2.0 products be tested to detect their presence as current GMOs are?

"At this point, they are not developed, but they are developable," Thomas said.

"The companies will say their products can't be tested because they are the same as natural compounds. But if you talk with testing labs, they say they could develop a test. It is inevitable that tests will be developed because you have certifiers like the Non-GMO Project saying you can't use synthetic biology products."