#it would only encourage others to spread misinformation and make all of these issues worse

[steaming-system-takes]

Well here's your first actually hot take:

The creation of this blog and the original call out post are symptoms of the holier-art-thou call-out mentality the system community is plagued with. Everyone jumps down your skin if you accidentally say even one thing a bit wrong.

I'm not defending those takes from pipinghot, the quality control was obviously shit. But the aggressive "agree with all my points or delete your blog" mentality kills discussion and has done nothing to actually correct the misinformation spread.

The call out post (like they all are) was just a bunch of angry ranting and ALSO DIDN'T CITE ANY SOURCES to correct the misinformation.

If you actually intend to do better than pipinghot, you should respond to misinformation with proper citations (no, "I've read the DSM" is not a citation) and let actual controveral community topics be discussed. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before someone's calling you out next.

I'm not counting this as one of our tagged takes, because I don't think you understand what we made this blog for.

This blog is not meant to debunk misinformation, there are plenty of blogs out there made for that exact purpose. This blog is to spark discussion, yes, but we've already pointed out that this blog is NOT being used for us to dictate what's right and wrong as we ARE NOT a professional or expert on system topics (nor will we claim to be). The reason we don't post misinformation is because there is genuinely enough misinformation being posted on this site already. We refuse to spread misinformation in any way shape or form. Like I said, there are plenty of other blogs out there dedicated to collecting misinformation and debunking them if that's what you're looking for. We're here to offer people a place to discuss nuanced system topics, which misinformation has no place in. That is why we refuse to post anything containing misinformation.

As for the call out post regarding pipinghot, every point made in it was valid. The point of that post was to bring light to how pipinghot neglected to properly make sure they weren't posting things that harmed the system community. They posted genuinely harmful things, and refused to change anything to ensure it wouldn't happen again. That is a valid reason for people to be upset and angry, especially for those who were triggered by some of their posts. Pipinghot was not a blog for debunking misinformation either. Pipinghot posted blatant misinformation as if it should be considered within nuanced topics. That is harmful. Pipinghot did not combat misinformation with sources. They participated in spreading misinformation. As I've said, the call out post was made to hold them accountable for their actions. Not because they "disagreed with someone's point" or made a simple mistake. These mistakes were not small or mundane. They caused genuine harm, and that needs to be talked about. Making a genuine mistake and posting MULTIPLE "hot takes" that have triggered and upset people are two drastically different things.

We are not wasting our time bringing any attention to misinformation. That is not what we made this blog for. It is not our responsibility to educate others. That is their responsibility. What is our responsibility is making sure our blog's content doesn't contain misinformation and is not harmful to the community. That is all we're concerned about. We will offer explanations on things if we feel we have the ability to do so, and if not we will allow someone else to do so. Knowing what we do and don't want on our platform and being responsible with it is not comparable to posting racist and triggering things on a blog that is meant to be void of misinformation and harmful content.

Yours truly, Mod Green

[namedafterflowerstournament]

based off your recent post about anti-propoganda (which i agree, totally sucks btw. if your choice is so good, why do you have to crap on the other one?) i was wondering, why don't you like the hunger games? i personally haven't read the other book that was on the poll, but i just looked at the summary and it looks super cool!! i'll have to add it to my list

if this is a bad question/makes you uncomfortable feel free to delete it! i'm just curious, i'm not trying to be mean or anything. have a good day!! :)

Hi ! Thank you for the question ! As long as they're respectful, I don't think there are bad questions, at worst it would be a question I'd rather not answer and it wouldn't make it a bad question at all.

There are several reasons making me against anti-propaganda : people don't know the media they criticize and assume inaccurate things and manage to spread misinformation that way, it can hurt people's feelings when it's quite virulent, it's always easier to criticize than to praise, it encourages harrassment and can create a negative atmosphere and tensions around the polls while people declare which media in a poll is the shittiest.

About The Hunger Games, it's mostly personal but not only.

Just so we're clear, I don't hate the books.

Spoilers ahead.

Bear in mind, I was about 12 when I read the first book. I think I was 13 when I read the last one, since I'm pretty sure it was a while before the first movie came out

I loved the first two books when I read them. I was reading them at the same time as a friend and it was a lot of fun to compare our impressions and screaming at each other through texts as we get emotional about the parts the other had already reached.

It was one of those books I read at night while I should have been asleep, keeping an ear out for my parents so my book didn't get kidnapped by the authorities

[spoilers]

One of the complaint I have -which I didn't really have then because I was a white kid and not as sensibilised to the big issue of POC rep in mainstream media- is this :

There are two characters who are explicitely dark skinned in the books (it's been a long time so I may be wrong about one but I believe he was)

Both die in the first book. I know many characters die in Hunger Games, that's kinda the point, but I still don't think it was necessary.

The movies casted a Black actor for another character (I don't think the character's race was mentioned in the books, my bad if I'm wrong).

Well, I'm sure you'd find it conforting to find out he survived the 1st part of the trilogy.

He dies in the 2nd part, actually.

That's my biggest non personal issue with THG. I haven't actively looked into it, but I've never seen it mentioned in popular posts

The rest is more about personal taste.

I was romance-repulsed when I was in my early teens, to the point I avoided mushy covers and saccharine titles but I would also put a book back if there was the slightest hint of romance, knowing that if it appeared in the summary, it'd be very much likely to be splatered all over the pages. "girl meets a mysterious boy" had me running for the hills every damn time, no matter how much I liked the rest of the summary.

There wasn't the slightest hint of a mysterious boy in the summary so I was convinced it'd be safe and there'd be at worse a very secondary romance subplot.

Que nenni, cher ami. I really didn't expect the romance to be so centerfront and it annoyed the hell out of me because it was predictable af (you didn't even get the element of surprise, which would have made their relationship at least slightly more interesting and redeemable for little me) and I found Peeta very, very boring from the start. Even Arya and Eragon's relationship felt more interesting to me, and while I liked both characters, I was very much not into their romance

(Looks like it's unpopular opinions day. I can't say if I hated Peeta's guts on the spot because I knew a romance with the heroine was coming or because I really thought he was that boring, which is a book character's greatest crime. This isn't really antipropaganda. Peeta's not in the polls. As far as I can tell his name is a corruption of Peter)

I don't blame Suzanne Collins or the books. She didn't do the marketing and her only fault here was to have written a series too compelling for me to put it down despite my grudge against amatonormativity being thrown in my face all the time.

I ignored the budding romance the best I could and kept reading. I enjoyed reading the books. My friend did too. She was #teamgale. I was #teamidon'twantanyromanceinthesebookspleasejustmakethemallfriendsorsomething We had great times criticizing Peeta's every move. The good old days. (Yes I'll stop talking about the poor guy, I think you got the message. Look I'm sorry if you love Peeta like 90% of the fandom, I just don't)

So yes, I managed to mostly not feel too concerned about the most boring romance I've ever read by then (if it's any consolation, I didn't read romances so that's a rather bland statement) and rolling my eyes at the "real or not real" stuff. I'm sorry but I found the inevitability of their relationship quite irritating (which means it probably was great forshadowing for anyone without aro tendencies)

Nevertheless, I was young and had hope.

More seriously, the 1st two books were nice enough. The third...

It felt messier to me. I couldn't decide if it was something the author wanted us to feel as we got closer to the end and signifiant losses impacted Katniss' judgement or if I've grown out of love with the writing style.

Some of Katniss' decisions in her grief were quite questionable but we were meant to question them (well I hope so) so I was mostly fine with it. Mostly. I also felt like she made unnecessary 360° shifts on some occasions

Full disclaimer : I'm not a fan of third books of mainstream dystopia trilogies aimed at teens (i didn't think the Maze Runner and Divergent had satisfying endings -okay I do think the latter was not as good as the others too but that's a personal opinion- for example). I struggled with Endgame's 2nd book and I can say the same with the Lorien Legacies and found Partials' 2nd book disappointing. So, I'm more of a first book type of girl when it's about sf for teens

Well I think I've turned around the bush for a sufficient time so let's get to the part that made me slam the book shut and go to bed instead of rereading passages I liked.

The controversial ending.

Yes, we knew it was coming from the start.

It was gutting nevertheless.

Now I'm a bit older, I get that Peeta didn't bully Katniss into having kids but the formulation made me feel sick at the time.

That wasn't my issue, really.

My issue was I read the epilogue and felt like it was a trap, with Katniss having to resume her life surrounded by mementos of the Games, instead of being allowed to run away and start anew somewhere nobody would have ever known her or looked for her, so she could heal in peace. I thought she deserved that. It felt for me like she'd been robbed of a second chance at life.

That's one thing. The other is a lot more personal and gave me even more grief.

I've fooled myself into thinking that maybe for once a book was aimed at me. As someone not interested into romance at all, I'd hope the heroine might be like me.

Despite all the clues to Peeta being written as her love interest, I've hoped that in the end she wouldn't pick any of the boys. That she'd be tired of them and decide she was better alone romantically speaking. That the heroine would get her happy ending and it'd have nothing to do with a -bland, may I add- love interest (especially a male one, when all 9th graders know that boys have cooties, duh)

That was a very bittersweet ending to me, because I saw too much of myself into Katniss and that I was at an age I was trying to figure out what my life would look like and the answer seemed to be "get a boyfriend like everyone else" and it felt like a betrayal. I was so, so angry about the ending.

So yes I have a quite complicated relationship with the books, but while I think the POC rep could definitely have been better dealt with, the rest is on kid me for not having her expectations met. I can't really blame Collins for not having written the "amatonormativity doesn't have to be the only/right ending/answer ; there are other ways etc." rep I so desperately needed as a questioning teen.

Ah and I didn't like the first movie (and have decided to not watch the others), which is why I don't necessarily used pics in the polls but I probably will for the main bracket. I wasn't a fan of the casting or decors or of the adaptation work to be honest but to each their own and I've seen much worse.

THG isn't a bad series in itself. I have issues with it that probably have roots into systemic racism and also just me getting my heart broken

As for the Wayfarers series (The Long Way To a Small Angry Planet is the first book), it is lovely ! A great soft sci-fi feel good space opera series with queer, disability and POC rep

I hope I've satisfied your curiosity here because that was quite a rant, op

[archer-world]

vague

didn’t want to rb the post that started this, no offense but it’s not smth I want on this blog orz ;;

first off, lemme just say that all headcanons of characters that promote diversity are valid and encouraged. they can be the AU versions where maybe Yes, that character has [thing], but the official franchise may not be like that.

some official characters may be misrepresenting and spreading misinformation of the traits theyre trying to put in media, which just makes the situation worse.

that being said, my only thing is (CANON) kuku wouldn’t have DID bc as a person who knows systems of all types (endo, traumagenic, quoi, median, etc), at the most she would have is BPD, and even that’s a stretch. by trying to make her into DID rep it’s enforcing the stereotype that all alters are malicious when in fact they’re more likely an attempt to cope. (the y/ndere trope is also offensive towards practically every personality disorder anyway) also trauma doesn’t happen from rejection, which is the main issue besides the “oohh gacha world fucked her up in mysterious ways”. 

considering alter-creating disorders already have stigma from every neurotypical-dominant piece of media, this is why I’m suspicious of everything that uses DID as an explanation (sometimes an excuse, which is worse) for immoral behaviour. this is exactly why new systems are so scared of realizing the truth, because they think that it’ll end up hurting someone or themselves, when in reality that’s not often the case if they have some sort of support.

there could be some evidence towards having psych/sis or BPD symptoms because those can cause impulsive decisions, delusions, RSD, and emotional volatility, but these mostly threaten/harm the self and not others (another reason why stereotypes and the y/ndere trope fuckin sucks), as with most dissociative disorders. if there’s actual hurt from being rejected that’s RSD (rejection sensitivity syndrome) and not a symptom/result of trauma and wouldn’t lead to DID. there’s a route in the GW canon that is taking with her and I Really Really don’t appreciate it and what it means for systems. 

tl;dr: she doesn’t have DID, OSDD-1a/b, etc. and it’d be offensive to attribute her behaviour to people who have these disorders. we’re all about representation and diversity, but I’d rather have none than negative stereotype. headcanon characters as what you want, but do it in an informed manner.

feel free to discuss this in the notes or DM me, but trying to find representation for systems/alters in a y/ndere character is misinformed at best. literally one of the first steps to telling the world ur company is ableist is by having a y/ndere character lmao

[perfectirishgifts]

Prepare For A Post-Pandemic World: But, First, Feed The Children

New Post has been published on https://perfectirishgifts.com/prepare-for-a-post-pandemic-world-but-first-feed-the-children/

Prepare For A Post-Pandemic World: But, First, Feed The Children

Children may ultimately be the pandemic’s biggest victims

We are now nearly a year into the outbreak of the Covid-19 virus that became a global pandemic and upended life as we knew it.

More than 60 million people have fallen ill worldwide and almost 1.5 million have died. Even so, an increasing number of public intellectuals and social sector leaders are looking to a post-pandemic world. Renowned New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently predicted “When we emerge from this corona crisis, we’re going to be greeted with one of the most profound eras of Schumpeterian creative destruction ever.” J-PAL’s Radhika Bhula and John Floretta, writing in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, posited that “Perhaps one positive outcome of the pandemic is that it will push us to overcome the many remaining global educational challenges sooner than any of us expect.” (I also explored implications of the pandemic on education in two previous articles)

As CEO of a foundation that seeks to make a meaningful difference in the lives of the world’s poorest people by multiplying the impact of high-performing leaders and organizations, I also look forward to the opportunities a post-Covid world will present—and encourage social sector leaders to prepare for these. But, even as we anticipate the future, we still have a crisis to get through–the true costs of which are under the radar of a fatigued public.

Top among these is the little-known fact that children may ultimately be the pandemic’s biggest victims. As UNICEF recently explained, while the direct impact of Covid-19 on child and adolescent mortality appears limited, “the indirect effects on child survival stemming from strained health systems, household income loss, and disruptions to care-seeking and preventative interventions like vaccination may be substantial and widespread.”

Undernutrition is the number one killer of children each year

Consider these dismal facts, offered by UNICEF and other UN organizations (writing in The Lancet) including the World Health Organization:

Children are dying—an additional 10,000 each month in the first year of the pandemic, as Covid-related restrictions undermine nutrition services and disrupt food and health systems worldwide.

Wasting, meaning low-weight-for height (and essentially the technical term for life-threatening undernutrition), could strike an additional six to seven million children this year—on top of the estimated 47 million children under five affected by wasting pre-pandemic.

The pandemic’s socioeconomic impact may increase other forms of child malnutrition, including stunting (low height-for-age) and deficiencies in vitamins and other micronutrients that are essential for physical growth and brain development.

Covid-related disruption of immunization programs puts eighty million children under the age of one at risk of diseases like measles and polio.

To put this in context—and learn how the world can address this unacceptable situation—I spoke to two outstanding experts who devote their lives to helping children avoid, or survive, malnutrition: Dr. Víctor Aguayo, Global Chief of the UNICEF Nutrition Program, and William Moore, CEO of the Eleanor Crook Foundation, which is dedicated to fighting global malnutrition.

To start, both told me, it is essential to understand the pre-pandemic situation. “Many people may not realize that in the first two decades of this century we have seen amazing progress on malnutrition,” said Aguayo. “We have reduced by one third the number of undernourished children, which means that today the number of undernourished children is 55 million lower than in 2000, and that is without taking into account population growth.” Moore agreed, saying, “Over a 30-year time horizon since 1990, the world has cut hunger and malnutrition in half, even in spite of major population growth. That’s an amazing accomplishment.”

L-R: Dr. Víctor Aguayo, Global Chief of the UNICEF Nutrition Program; William Moore, CEO of the … [] Eleanor Crook Foundation

But, there is still much work to be done. Indeed, in 2019, one in three children did not get the nutrition they needed, according to UNICEF’s The State of the World’s Children. They suffered, Aguayo wrote, from a triple burden: undernutrition, which is still the number one killer of children each year, and led to conditions like stunting and wasting, reflecting a profound nutritional failure in the first 1000 days of life; hidden hunger, which included deficiencies of vitamins and micronutrients like vitamin A and iron; and overweight and obesity, a problem increasingly impacting children even in poor households and countries.

The pandemic’s onslaught threatened both progress that had occurred and that which was still needed, but the rich world, blindsided by its own problems, has hardly seemed to notice. “There just really hasn’t been much media coverage at all,” said Moore. He continued:

“For folks in the sector, we are watching as everything we’ve accomplished in the developing world over decades just falls apart at a really alarming clip. I think it’s safe to say that it is probably the worst time in decades to be a mother or a young child in the developing world. I mean, it’s never a good time, but things have gotten better for moms and kids in developing countries over the last three decades. And, suddenly, for the first time in modern history everything is really sliding backwards very quickly.”

Severe Secondary Impacts

In developing countries, said Moore, the secondary impacts of Covid-19 are often more dangerous than the virus itself. “The food system disruptions and the health system shutdowns—that’s what’s probably going to have a much greater toll at the end of the day.” 

Indeed, lockdowns and other measures meant to mitigate viral spread also disrupted planting, harvest, and trade, which led to price spikes on staple foods. This, explained Aguayo, “put large numbers of children and families at risk of malnutrition and many have had to resort to poorer diets and nutrition practices that are negative to children.” While adults and children alike could suffer from malnutrition, it was children under five—and especially under two—who were most at risk. “That’s when people die from malnutrition,” explained Moore, “and that’s also the period of growth and brain development that’s most critical from a nutritional standpoint.” In addition to mitigation measures, general socioeconomic disruption could send millions of families into poverty and prevent them from feeding their children enough food to be healthy.

Health systems disruptions due to shutdowns, social distancing requirements, and fear also had devastating consequences. “We’ve watched community health systems around the world just go dark,” said Moore. “Community health workers who move from house to house are the lifeline for the world’s bottom billion and all of a sudden most of those routine services are no longer operational.” This included immunization against childhood diseases and distribution of vitamin A to the 250 million young children worldwide who were deficient in it and thus at risk of preventable blindness, severe illness, and even death.

Covid-19 poses devastating secondary impacts on the health of young children

To make matters worse, the universal impact of the pandemic has meant that donor countries are also affected and many are unwilling or unable to increase contributions that would help stave off malnutrition in other countries. “We’re seeing donor dollars more at risk on issues like malnutrition than we’ve seen in recent years,” said Moore, “and we already have a $7 billion annual funding gap for what’s needed to end malnutrition.” 

Solutions

Fortunately, solutions are readily at hand—if only the world would muster the will to act.

For starters, said Aguayo, it is essential to see that families have access to minimum diets and to reestablish nutrition services. He elaborated:

“Bring essential nutrition services for children back to normal: protect breastfeeding, promote and support nutritious foods for young children and mothers; and provide therapeutic foods for children who are undernourished; make children go back to school safely so schools can become a delivery intervention for healthy meals, vouchers, micronutrient supplements, and fortified foods.”

This has already started to happen, he added, as a number of countries in Africa and Asia worked to strike a better balance between “protecting everyone against the virus and protecting children against threats that might be deadlier than the virus itself.”

It is also essential to counter fear and misinformation that is rampant the world over. Fear keeps parents from accessing primary healthcare systems and the preventive care their children need. Fake news spreads harmful lies—like the falsehood that the virus could be transmitted from mother to child through breastmilk.

Finally, it is necessary for governments, foundations, and even individuals to contribute to the achievable goal of ending global malnutrition. Said Aguayo:

“Support UNICEF… We build national systems and work with national and international NGOs delivering services to children with the highest risk, often in fragile countries and humanitarian settings; so if you are a philanthropist or even an everyday donor who feels outraged by these figures, and you’re wondering, what can we do—well, support our vision, which is help us deliver a package of essential nutrition interventions to children in the first two make-or-break years of life. These are the children that we need to protect because this is when mortality is happening… most child malnutrition deaths happen to children in the first two years of life.”

The average cost of these essential interventions, added Aguayo, is strikingly low. For an average of $4.70 per child—less than it costs to buy a Starbucks latte—UNICEF and its partners can support the delivery of these essential interventions to millions of children in sub-Saharan Africa for a year.

In July, four UN agencies issued an urgent call to action—“Child malnutrition and COVID-19: the time to act is now”—in which they estimated that at minimum US$2.4 billion is needed to protect at-risk children, prevent and treat malnutrition, and avoid human loss; they also called for four life-saving interventions and five urgent nutrition actions. Moore responded with his own plea, “It’s Time for the Global Nutrition Sector to Finally Act,” in which he praised the call to action but urged that a specific plan be created to back it. Wrote Moore:

“A $2.4 billion funding appeal will not fundraise itself—we need a pledging moment and designated leadership to ensure resources materialize… All nutrition stakeholders must now push for swift development of a roadmap and fundraising framework that builds on this Call to Action. Millions of people without lifesaving services today cannot afford to wait another eight months—or worse, have these actions never materialize at all.”

Congressman Andy Levin visits a UNICEF-supported malnutrition treatment center in Cox’s Bazaar

In our interview, Moore noted that he was optimistic that donors would soon come to the table with meaningful commitments. ECF planned to make a $50 million pledge for wasting treatment and he hoped that other private donors would step up, too; in the long run, persuading more multibillionaires to help combat malnutrition—as the Gates Foundation has done for many years—would be critical.

Philanthropists and even small or medium-sized donors can increase their impact by joining the Coalition of Philanthropies for Global Nutrition, a collective of philanthropies advancing investments to combat malnutrition around the world. The Coalition grew out of the 2017 Nutrition for Growth Summit in Milan when several philanthropies made major commitments to nutrition and demonstrated an interest in convening with peers to take collective action on malnutrition. It serves as a vehicle through which emerging philanthropists can find ways to invest within the global nutrition landscape, find synergies between investments, and opportunities for co-investment.  It also provides a venue where emerging and in-country voices can be highlighted and receive the attention and investment they need. And, finally, the Coalition offers a forum for global philanthropies and philanthropists to enhance the efficacy of their own work, as well as drive collective impact and expand the network of funders for ending malnutrition.

Post-Pandemic Possibilities

As they look to the future, both Moore and Aguayo are cautiously hopeful.

“All of a sudden, health ministries, for example, are willing to take risks to strengthen nutrition policies, scale up prevention programs, and simplify treatment protocols,” said Aguayo. “So we see opportunities to accelerate innovation and results.” Moore agreed, adding that innovations undertaken were often based on research and pilot projects in which ECF and other funders had been investing for years. “Countries are a lot more willing to take a risk on those right now in order to still be able to deliver care,” he said.

One example of this is a new-found willingness to equip caregivers with MUAC (mid-upper arm circumference) measures that are a reliable, fast, and cost-effective way to identify children at risk of malnutrition rather than requiring them to go to a clinic or wait for a community healthcare provider. “We were imagining a 5 to 10-year time horizon before we really saw something like family MUACs scaled up,” said Moore. But, it is happening now—and ECF is funding UNICEF to scale its use in certain contexts.

Optimism and determination, insisted Aguayo, provide the only path forward “I would like the world to know that it is our obligation to remain optimistic and determined and to always believe there is a way out,” he said. “The Covid-19 pandemic can be a catalyst for change, and we will not lower our ambition for children.”

From Leadership Strategy in Perfectirishgifts

[comradecrusty]

i get where you're coming from but the protests aren't a direct result of his presidency. this isn't a defense on him its an attack on the cops who are dangerous under every administration and have shown disregard for life far before that man was elected. he's a horrible person obviously

I was gonna write a whole essay insulting you for being uneducated and not paying attention, but I've calmed down and reread this ask a couple times. Apologies for any formatting issues, I'm on mobile as always.

To say that tr*mp is not directly responsible for these protests is ignorant when every tweet and every statement regarding these protests that that fat orange fuck has made has called the protesters thugs and the cops and "civilian forces" (read: white supremacists) good people, valuable assets, etc. along with blatantly encouraging the police and these white supremacists, that he KNOWS support him, to stop the protests with violence. (remember, "when the looting starts the shooting starts"?) These statements were, and still are, followed by videos of police all over the country initiating violence, being excited to "defend themselves" against nonviolent protesters, and committing violent crimes against said peaceful protesters, especially black and brown protesters, under the defense of calling them "looters". If you cannot see that his words have DIRECTLY ENCOURAGED the continuous violent actions of police and military occupying this country, then I truly cannot help you. If you refuse to hold our absolute fucking disgrace of a president responsible for his own words and actions, and the actions of the people he commands, accountable for those actions, I cannot help you. If you are choosing to refuse to make the connection between his words and the actions of the terrorists calling themselves police, then I cannot help you.

All I can say is PLEASE keep educating yourself and exposing yourself to as many independent sources of information as you can because these events CANNOT go unpunished. Social media and Twitter especially are great sources of information when televised or mainstream news sources are blatantly covering up and censoring videos that display obvious and gross police misconduct; Elijah Daniel started a trend under the BLUEFALL hashtag on Twitter where nearly 300 (or more now, as I have not personally counted them and have not checked for a count recently) videos of police brutality have been publically documented by protesters, but please be warned that these videos are exactly what I say they are: BRUTAL. Please do not go through the hashtag if you cannot stomach graphic violence because that's what you will find.

It's great that you know that both the police and tr*mp are evil forces, but you NEED to realize that they are directly connected and get more dangerous the longer they stay connected. The entire police system was corrupt before tr*mp ever got elected, I fully agree. Ob*ma wasn't a good president either regarding protests when they happened under his terms, but that doesn't mean that tr*mp and ob*ma both didn't make things worse, does it? Just because a system is already corrupt doesn't mean it can't be made worse, encouraged, or "justified" by whatever nightmare president is currently in office. Sure, the protests were started with the murder of George Floyd by police, but you cannot tell me that the officer, DAVID CHAUVIN, was not empowered to commit not only George Floyd's murder but several other violent offenses because of tr*mp's repeated defending of white supremacists and pigs like him. I cannot say whether George Floyd would be alive today if tr*mp never got elected, but i CAN say that he would have had a better chance of getting out of that situation alive if our president wasn't a white supremacist, racist, and all around scumfuck of a man who represented everything that d*vid ch*uvin stands for.

I hope this have been helpful or just given you a new opinion to take into your personal account of these events, I hope you have a good day and that you and your family are safe and healthy, and that you continue learning about and fighting oppression as everyone has a responsibility to. Feel free to dm me if you have questions (that goes for anyone, not just the asker.)

I'm no expert and I will never claim to be, nor is it my intent to spread misinformation or hurt the BLM movement in any way, and I highly encourage anyone who notices misinformation in posts I make myself or reblog to let me know immediately, so the post can be altered to state corrected information or be removed altogether.

Last but not least, FUCK COPS AND FUCK TRUMP.

[jgarc176-blog]

The Anti-Vaxx Movement v.s. it’s Creator: Technology

“Tension rises as cases of supposedly long-gone diseases resume to attack”

link to image

The availability of information today has both contributed greatly to society as well as become a detriment. Information is readily available to nearly everyone, and anyone is able to publish their own thoughts, ideologies and information. Although this comes with positives, many negatives such as the publication, monetization, and promotion of misinformation are currently taking over the internet. Regulation of misinformation is necessary as lives could be at risk due to these issues.

What is the anti-vaxx movement?

The Anti-Vaxx movement is a movement which promotes vaccine rejection and hesitancy. This group of individuals is dedicated to spreading false information about vaccines in an attempt to get people to keep their kids unvaccinated. Although some people in this group are malicious, others truly believe they are protecting their children from dangerous medical procedures and diseases. This does not change the fact that promoting misinformation is wrong and could hurt many people. Regardless, the spread of this movement has only been made easier because of technology.

More and more people are being diagnosed with Autism. This does not mean more cases have arisen, just that more are being documented, otherwise an environmental factor could be seen as the cause. Autism is a developmental disorder with varying severity which tends to be identified by one finding difficulty in social interaction and communication, or by being restricted or having repetitive patterns of thought and behavior. No one knows what causes Autism.

Who are the people supporting this movement?

Many of the people supporting this movement are simply people who are fearful and believe they are doing the best for their families and the general population. The Science of Anti-vaxxers shows that when people do not have answers to stressful problems, they may search for them themselves or try to create them with whatever information they have. This is how the idea that vaccines are the cause for autism was born. Although this has become a popular theory, adopted by families, politicians, and even certain doctors, there are many papers and studies showing that vaccines are not the cause of autism and that there is no link between them.

Link to image

The Truth about Vaccines:

People have always been skeptical of vaccines. Even politicians are denying how vaccines work. However, these are the statistics and facts about vaccines and the outbreaks which have occurred due to the rise of the anti-vaxx movement.

80% of people who haven't been vaccinated report that this is  because of philosophical or religious reasons.

In the US, 2014, 644 cases of measles were reported, while only in 2012, less than 100 cases were reported.

It is important to stay vaccinated because there truly are people who cannot receive vaccinations due to a weak immune system- mainly children, elders and those with auto-immune diseases. These people rely on Herd immunity, which is when a large portion of the population is immune to a disease and this itself protect others, as they do not spread it.

Link to image

How has technology facilitated the spread of this misinformation/ Impacted those in this situation?

Although skepticism towards vaccines has always existed, it has only grown stronger as new technology has allowed people to access a wealth of information online. However, people are not simply googling credible sources about what vaccines can do, they are also browsing anti-vaxx blogs, social media pages and YouTube channels. Hashtags have even been created on Instagram promoting the anti-vaxx movement such as  #VaccinesCauseAutism and #VaccinesArePoison.  One case which made headlines was that of a child who got vaccinated in secret because his mother would not allow it. He stated his mother got a lot of her anti-vaxx information from Facebook.

Because of this spread of misinformation and a rise in cases of measles as well other thought to be long gone diseases, Facebook, Pinterest, and YouTube are all taking action to crack down on anti-vaccine information.  YouTube has decided to demonetize anti-vaxx content, while both Facebook and Pinterest have placed pop-ups on anti-vaxx posts which lead to credible sources about vaccines. This is not a perfect solution, but it may help for the time being.There are still individual websites which promote the anti-vaxx movement as well as books and movies.

What can we as a society learn from this Issue?

Due to the negative effects that the anti-vaxx movement has created against society, we know action must take  place. Misinformation should be better regulated, especially online. More about the internet should also be taught so people do not continue to fall for scams or misinformation. Because it is so easy to access this information, it may also be easy to spread as well as believe it. Currently, policy makers and government officials  in certain states are being called on to create change in the form of making unnecessary exemptions from vaccines less likely to happen or even illegal. Immunizations will now be regarded as an essential service, similar to police officers or firefighters. All in all, the easiest path too actually create change is for the CDC to encourage states to create more strict vaccination requirements.

Although this may seem easy, there are still many problems one can encounter. Some in the anti-vaxx movement have argued that these types of regulations break their freedoms to express religion, or personal beliefs.  Because of this, in about 20 states, bills have been passed which make it easier for one to avoid vaccinations for their kids, and actually require doctors to explain the risks of vaccines to patients. Although its important to address people’s beliefs and allow them to practice religion as well as other freedoms, vaccines are still vital to the population and safety of everyone. Furthermore, people have protested bills that regulate exemption of immunization rates in schools. These bills were created due to the fact that less and less children are being immunized, and posing threats to vulnerable people.

Misinformation regulation may not be at the forefront of everyone’s minds but it is still important to take into account on the internet or social media. Misinformation can leave devastating effects on people and be far worse than expected.

[psycho-alchemist]

p-a, can you please explain what's going on with Gabbie and Ricegum?

I will GLADLY do so. Keep in mind that I am biased in Gabbie’s favor and have been for a while, so I have nothing but bad things to say about Ricegum. Also, this is going to be a really long story.

The following is backstory. Scroll down further to find out what happened two days ago.

I’d say the beginning of this issue was 10-ish months ago, when Gabbie tweeted the following: “if your entire channel is built on the name of other popular users for click bait and search engine results, i don't respect your channel.” Ricegum got really offended and assumed the tweet was specifically talking about him--let’s be honest, it does describe what he does even if it wasn’t specifically about him--and he DM’ed her, saying, “hey man, just @ me next time, I'm pretty sure that tweet was about me, just @ me next time.” 

She responded, “Then honestly that's your own insecurity about it. Never assume what someone means. My tweets have never been and never will be directed at a single person, except when I quote their tweet. It also includes people who put faces in their thumbnails or names in their titles (like freelee or most news pages). You may very well fall into the category but that tweet wasn't with you in particular in mind.”

There are a lot of Youtubers who do that, using other people’s names in their titles for views. Freelee does that, the Psychic Twins have done that, and Ricegum definitely does that. The point is, Gabbie was not specifically referring to him. I hadn’t even heard of him before, but Ricegum got really fucking upset because he was guilty of what her tweet said.

Just a glance at Ricegum’s channel shows you that he makes a living off of dissing other people. And sure, there are other channels that do that too, but he mainly goes for people’s appearances or spreads misinformation. So when he thought Gabbie was dissing him, he did the same thing to her. He made a video trashing her weight, her nose, and her voice. He also accused her of stealing jokes. However, he clearly didn’t do much research and quoted evidence that had already been used and debunked. Obviously his intention wasn’t really to get to the bottom of the joke stealing, but rather to bring down her reputation in a malicious way.

Gabbie has been accused of stealing jokes before. In December 2015, someone made a video exposing Gabbie for stealing jokes, and it had very concrete evidence against her. She addressed the joke stealing in a vlog (link) after Ricegum’s video. Long story short, Gabbie admitted that she did steal jokes, but it was not intentional. She listens to stand-up comedy in the morning, and it’s easy to internalize jokes and statements you hear very often. I’m defending Gabbie on that because I’ve done that sometimes too, where I’ve watched a video so many times that I start to think that the things in the video are my own original thoughts.

In that video, Gabbie said that she didn’t even realize she had accidentally stolen jokes until that December video exposed her for it. When she watched that video, she realized that she had stolen jokes, but it wasn’t a conscious decision. She took down the videos that contained stolen jokes because she didn’t want to make a profit off of them and she didn’t want unoriginal jokes on her channel. Some people saw her decision to take those videos down as hiding her mistakes, but I think it was a respectable decision since she didn’t want to be represented by jokes that weren’t hers.

Anyway, that’s all old news. All of that happened around May of last year. 

Now for what happened two days ago.

Gabbie went to a party a couple nights ago, and she saw Ricegum there. She was joking with a couple of her friends that she should rap battle him since they haven’t interacted with each other since the roast videos. Her friends encouraged her to do it, so she went over to him and posted some Snapchat videos asking her to rap battle. She then posted a video where she jokingly said the could still rap battle even if Ricegum’s ghostwriter wasn’t there. (Apparently Ricegum’s big scandal is possibly having a ghostwriter.)

In Gabbie’s next Snap story video, she was somewhere else and was clearly crying, and she said that Ricegum didn’t think her joke about the ghostwriter was funny. She said he twisted her arm and held her down, grabbed her phone, forced it out of her hand, and smashed it. Gabbie also explicitly said that Ricegum did not punch her or beat her up, but he did attack her, break her property, and really scare her.

Gabbie is being accused of lying about being attacked. Of course she is, right? Women are often accused of being hysterical and making shit up. And even beyond just being a woman, assault victims in general are often accused of lying, regardless of their gender. Ricegum even texted one of his friends saying, “Tell her to publicly apologize or shits gonna get worse just saying”. That doesn’t sound like something an innocent person would say. That sounds like a fucking threat.

Obviously I don’t think Gabbie is lying. I’m not saying she’s perfect, but in the past she has been very willing to admit when she’s wrong about something. She admitted to stealing jokes and she apologized recently when she offended viewers with a video she made. She understands that lying about a scandal only makes things worse, and I just don’t see her lying about this incident, especially considering assault victims are treated very badly for speaking up.

But here’s the thing: even if Gabbie were exaggerating the assault--which, to be clear again, I do not think is the case--the fact remains that Ricegum smashed her phone over a simple diss he received. Not only is that assault in legal terms, it’s also a very dangerous way to react over a diss. Even more so considering his entire career is based on insulting other people. It’s not surprising to hear that he’s so hyper-sensitive over insults even though he dishes them out constantly, but it is very hypocritical.

It also really bothers me that one of Gabbie and Ricegum’s mutual friends tried to justify Ricegum’s behavior by saying that he’s a good person but was just frustrated. He apparently asked a few times for Gabbie not to post the video. I don’t know if that’s true, but even if it is, and even if Gabbie was in the wrong for posting those Snapchat videos, it doesn’t change the fact that smashing someone’s phone in anger over a small diss is not normal behavior. And Ricegum knows that, which is why he’s trying so hard to intimidate Gabbie into silence.

That’s the story, for the most part. Their Twitter accounts also tell a lot. If you check out Ricegum’s Twitter, he says that Gabbie initially said he beat her up and is now changing her story. However, Gabbie emphasized from the very beginning that Ricegum didn’t punch her or beat her up. in addition, Ricegum posts a memo explanation that refers to Gabbie as “big nose,” and I think that itself speaks for what kind of person Ricegum is. He’s obviously not someone with good intentions.

If you check out Gabbie’s Twitter, you’ll find a video Ricegum deleted, in which he mocked Gabbie for the pictures she posted of the marks on her skin. He basically suggested that she had just scratched herself to make those marks. Gabbie accused him of mocking abuse, and he responded, “im not mocking abuse im mocking people who lie about being abused.” Because that definitely happens a lot, right? It’s just typical abusive asshole behavior to accuse Gabbie of lying, when there’s at least enough evidence to prove that he grabbed her and smashed her phone.

I think I’m going in circles at this point, but that’s the basic story. In the past he made a pretty nasty video about Gabbie for no reason and mostly insulted her appearance, things like her weight and her nose. And then two days ago he assaulted Gabbie and smashed her phone after she dissed him in person. Now he’s accusing her of lying, while still insulting her appearance the whole time.

[flauntpage]

Kareem Hunt and a Sports World that Ignores Domestic Violence Victims

I’m tired, folks.

Another day, another parade of domestic violence allegations against professional athletes. Another week, another flood of teams failing to respond appropriately to the allegations. It feels like we’re living in some screwed up version of Groundhog Day in which the sports world keeps getting opportunities to meet allegations of violence against women by their athletes with an appropriate response, and it keeps failing.

That failure has high stakes—it comes at the expense of the emotional and physical safety of women all over the country—and an obvious root cause: sports culture doesn’t see the female victims of these star male athletes as valuable. Put simply, the athlete matters more than his victim because the athlete provides on-the-field value for the teams. The women are just headaches who are causing PR crises; they are an inconvenience, their pain is hypothetical.

The newest allegations feel all the more exasperating because of how many times it seems we’ve been here before. Last week, TMZ Sports released a video of Kansas City Chiefs running back Kareem Hunt shoving and kicking a woman. The Chiefs released Hunt over the weekend once the video was published, which would seem like a positive step, but the details are more damning. Kansas City was aware of the incident, but took Hunt at his word when he told them he never left his hotel room and that he “didn’t do a thing.”

The NFL launched its own investigation, but never talked to Hunt or the woman he assaulted. It was only the release of the video, which shows he lied to the organization, that prompted the Chiefs to cut Hunt. In the statement announcing his release, Kansas City made clear that this was not a situation where an athlete lost his job because of an act of violence against a woman, this was an athlete losing his job because he was dishonest.

The Chiefs publicly addressed the incident in August with a concerning statement. “The team’s made up of a bunch of young men,” Chiefs CEO Clark Hunt told the Kansas City Star. “They’re not always going to make the best decisions, but we have a strong support system, both with the coaching staff and also with our player development department that works with young guys and talks to them about the situations that they want to be in.” This statement is testament to the redemption narrative that athletes are so often given. They are men who have simply made mistakes, who deserve second chances, who have learned from those mistakes (mistakes which came at the expense of women’s well-being).

Washington demonstrated this troubling narrative last week when they acquired Reuben Foster, who had been released by the San Francisco 49ers following a domestic violence arrest. Senior Vice President of Player Personnel Doug Williams was forced to issue an apology for his incredibly insensitive radio interview about their decision to claim Foster off waivers. Williams acknowledged that he knew people would criticize the move before calling what Foster had been accused of as “small potatoes” and justified it by saying that there were people in “high, high, high places” who had done worse and still had their jobs.

These are just the most recent examples. Earlier this year, Ohio State University coach Urban Meyer and Chicago Cubs manager Joe Maddon similarly failed to consider the victims when reacting to domestic violence allegations against members of their organizations. Meyer compared former assistant coach Zack Smith’s ex-wife Courtney’s allegations of domestic violence to “marriage problems,” while Maddon flat out refused to even consider Melisa Reidy-Russell’s written description of the abuse she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband Addison Russell, dismissing it out of hand: “I’m not gonna be swayed one way or the other by reading [her blog post]. Anyone can write what they want with social media these days.” was

Reading the allegations against your player, in his victim’s words, seems like incredibly important information and context for a manager to have. Maddon’s refusal to even consider Reidy-Russell’s perspective, then, is the perfect crystallization of how the sports world simply ignores victims as anything other than the reason an athlete finds himself in trouble.

In all of the rationalizations and justifications to explain away the behavior of these men, to avoid saying what they really mean—that winning at sports is more important than the safety and well-being and humanity of women—the one thing that is always missing is any discussion of the victim in these cases. Does the woman Foster is accused of assaulting consider what happened to her “small potatoes?” I’d have to guess not. What about the woman Hunt shoved and kicked, who stands up in the video after being pushed to the ground and appears to struggle to regain her balance, stumbling around dizzily? Reidy-Russell’s blog post makes clear the profound and traumatic effect that Russell’s abuse had on her. “The way I was treated and the way he made me feel about myself, tore me down to nothing,” she wrote. “It took months for the night terrors to stop, to not have panic attacks 3 times a week, to look in the mirror and not feel worthless.”

According to the National Coalition on Domestic Violence, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men will experience intimate partner violence. Millions of survivors are watching coaches downplay abuse, make excuses for abusers, and spread misinformation, which conveys the message that domestic violence isn’t a serious issue and that abusive men will still be supported by the very people tasked with issuing consequences for their behavior. When coaches overlook or make excuses for violent behavior, it creates an environment where athletes know they can rebuild their careers after the dust of the allegations settles (see Jameis Winston, Aroldis Chapman, Joe Mixon, Steven Wright, Jeurys Familia, and even Roberto Osuna). It keeps women from coming forward because they worry they won’t be believed or they’ll be dragged through the mud.

No one is expecting men who have been raised in a patriarchal sports culture to offer feminist analysis of domestic violence, but reporters will still ask them for on-the-spot reactions to their teammates’ and players’ alleged abuse. They’ll still be expected to account for their decision to stick with a player accused of violence, or to respond to damning allegations against a member of their organization. Coaches are responsible for creating the culture of their locker rooms, and if they are incapable of empathizing with victims on their own, then teams, at the very least, should use their considerable resources to offer training so they can to answer these questions in a nuanced and effective way that doesn’t malign accusers.

In fact, media training and domestic violence education should be required for every member of every sports organization. Because these are easily avoidable missteps: domestic violence follows a consistent pattern and has easily recognizable hallmarks. The behavior is very rarely a “one time mistake,” but rather a pattern of behavior designed to establish power and control over a victim. Physical violence is usually the last kind of abuse exhibited by perpetrators; victims have usually been abused emotionally and psychologically for some time before their partner ever lays a hand on them. And there are countless real and valid reasons why victims both choose to drop charges against their abuser and choose to stay with their abuser (consider that victims are in greatest danger of being killed by their abuser after they’ve left the relationship). Ensuring that members of sports leagues understand these dynamics—especially the members who speak to the press—is an important step in preventing the PR crises that erupt after an athlete or coach puts their foot in their mouth.

In a time when there’s more awareness about these issues and statements will be looked at under a microscope, it’s worth asking why we’re seeing such repeated failures on such a large scale. One obvious answer is that sports still cares more about winning than it does about women; that men are still more able to empathize with men who have committed violence than they are with the women who have experienced it.

How hard is it to say, “I condemn domestic violence of any kind, and I’ll let the league handle their investigation of the issue?” Why is it so controversial to suggest that credible domestic violence allegations be met with a release of the player (like the 49ers did with Foster)? What if, in response to domestic-violence allegations against a teammate, a player simply held up a sign with the number to the local domestic violence agency while saying he condemned abuse and encouraged anyone who needed support to call the number? Now that I’d like to see. Maybe then I wouldn’t have to keep writing variations of this story every time a male athlete brutalizes a woman.

Maybe.

Kareem Hunt and a Sports World that Ignores Domestic Violence Victims published first on https://footballhighlightseurope.tumblr.com/

[djgblogger-blog]

A tax increase that's proven to save lives

http://bit.ly/2j39YRD

Lung cancer remains the world’s largest cancer killer, but the world is not doing all it can to curb it.

Tobacco use is the largest risk factor for lung cancer. It is also a risk factor for at least 11 other cancers, and the reason that a mind-numbing 1.5 million tobacco-related cancer deaths occur every year worldwide.

This is much more than a health crisis. The global estimate of health costs and lost productivity from smoking-related illnesses was enormous in 2016, estimated at 1.8 percent of the world’s annual gross domestic product.

Without urgent action, scholars predict there will be a billion tobacco-related deaths this century. The costs of treating smoking-related diseases will become an increasingly significant economic burden in many low- and middle-income countries over the next 20 years.

Currently, these countries account for about 40 percent of the overall global costs of tobacco and a growing share of global smoking prevalence. Economic growth in these countries coupled with aggressive marketing by tobacco companies is making things worse. These dynamics represent a clear threat to health and development.

We spend our lives studying, teaching about and promoting cancer control, and we can report there are proven tools at our disposal that can help the world avoid this catastrophe. Arguably, the single most effective tool, both in terms of cost and population-level effects, is tobacco taxation.

Tax – one of public health’s best tools

A large body of evidence demonstrates that applying excise taxes on tobacco products on a sustained basis so that people cannot afford them is currently the most effective policy instrument to discourage smoking. Effective taxes deter people and especially youth from starting to use tobacco and encourage current tobacco users to cut down or quit.

In fact, raising cigarette excise tax in each country by one international dollar – an international dollar in a particular country has the same purchasing power as a U.S. dollar in the U.S. – per 20-cigarette pack would lead to a decrease in daily smoking prevalence from 14.1 percent to 12.9 percent and 66 million fewer smokers in one year. This also translates into 15 million fewer smoking-related deaths among adults over time.

Most of the world’s governments have signed the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the world’s first public health treaty under the WHO’s auspices. Most use the WHO’s associated MPOWER framework to help them translate this commitment into effective, actionable public health policies. Both recommend that raising the price of tobacco through higher taxes is an essential tool to reduce tobacco use.

But the 2017 WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic revealed that tobacco taxation is the least well-implemented major tobacco control measure. Only 10 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where tobacco taxes are sufficiently high to have a preventive impact on tobacco use.

In many countries, the tobacco industry and its surrogates have been spreading inaccurate data and specious arguments to discourage governments from increasing tobacco taxes. The companies have, for example, overinflated the threat of illicit trade in tobacco products.

In reality, many of the countries with the highest tobacco taxes also have the lowest levels of illicit trade. Experience across many countries demonstrates that straightforward steps, such as programs that track and trace tobacco products and even modest law enforcement efforts to find and punish those trafficking in illicit trade, greatly mitigate any such challenges.

Success depends on support

As with many interventions, success depends upon visible and vocal support from a wide variety of actors, including health and political stakeholders. While some in the tobacco control community have advocated for tobacco taxation, many natural allies have remained relatively quiet.

Momentum is now growing and new coalitions are forming to promote tobacco taxation. For example, Prevent20 is a community of cancer organizations from around the world that supports and promotes the use of tobacco taxes as a key cancer prevention strategy. The coalition’s name reflects the grim statistic that 20 percent of all cancer deaths globally are caused by tobacco use.

In September, the Prevent20 Coalition signed an open letter to Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the new WHO director general, acknowledging and supporting his existing commitment to fighting the tobacco epidemic and encouraging him to redouble WHO efforts on global health and, specifically, on raising tobacco taxes.

It was particularly important for the health community to raise the issue of tobacco taxes while Dr. Tedros was attending the United Nations General Assembly meeting, where delegates debated and passed resolutions on issues including development, financing for development and health.

Under the Sustainable Development Goals, governments have committed to fully implement and enforce the WHO FCTC. They have also committed (in Target 3.4) to reduce premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases by one-third by 2030.

It is impossible to meet this target without serious reductions in tobacco use, a major risk factor for the four main noncommunicable diseases: cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease and diabetes, as well as cancer.

WHO itself has called for a 30 percent relative reduction in adult smoking prevalence by 2025. If taxes were implemented adequately around the world to meet the target, governments could generate up to US$800 billion annually.

From a health and political perspective, there could be significant co-benefits – governments could reinvest revenue in priorities such as improving health systems as well as disease prevention and treatment. This would thereby deliver significant savings in future health care costs. Some countries already have turned tobacco taxes toward improving care, such as Costa Rica and the Philippines, where tobacco excise taxes are paying to extend health care to millions more people.

In global meetings, this potential for revenue generation has led governments to conclude that tobacco taxes should be leveraged as a domestic source of development financing – a strategy explicitly set out in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. But politicians need to demonstrate the will to translate intent into action.

Cancer organizations are beginning to raise their voices to share accurate information about tobacco taxes and health, to debunk tobacco industry misinformation, encourage governments and their constituents to support higher tobacco taxes, and make it easier for governments to adopt and implement them.

Progress is not possible if we let the tobacco industry shape health policy, so the wider health and development community must join the cancer community in being visible and vocal advocates for high tobacco taxes.

Jeffrey Drope currently receives funding from the US National Institutes of Health, the Institute for Global Tobacco Control at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the World Health Organization. He is Vice President, Economic and Health Policy Research at the American Cancer Society.

Otis W. Brawley reports no external funding. He is the Chief Medical Officer, American Cancer Society.

[straight-hate-blog1]

Herpes

From day one my own personal life-long herpes infection has presented me with several ethical challenges. It has challenged me on the question of who to tell and when. It has challenged me on the issue of what to say and how to others with herpes. It has challenged me on the question of "Do I have any responsibilities towards trying to prevent the people in the community who do not herpes from getting it, and if so what are they"?

On how to tell and when:

When I was diagnosed with herpes the doctors told me that it was safe to have sex with others as long as I avoided having sex during outbreaks and that I would get warning signs of when an outbreak would be coming. Luckily, we are working with much better information these days. A person with herpes is potentially contagious every-single day of the year and safer sex including using a combination of a condom or dental dam and an anti-viral gel is the best way of ensuring that one isn't inadvertently spreading the virus.

I was an irresponsible coward when I first got herpes. Because thedoctors told me that I wasn't contagious without outbreaks and because I was in the habit of using condoms, I decided that I only had to tell someone that I had herpes if and when it seemed like the relationship was turning serious and there would be regular sexual contact. I had justified my cowardice by thinking that the risk to others was too small to stick my neck out and get the rejection due to a herpes leper. Please don't be like me. Not telling someone before you have sex that you have herpes is absolutely the wrong thing to do. There's no real way to justify it. I now tell potential lovers I have herpes even before the first date. It gets the weight of this guilt most herpes people have off my chest and to me it feels like the right thing to do.

Many people tell me that it's okay if you're not going to have sex with someone to wait and see if the relationship becomes serious before telling them about herpes. Sure this is much better than waiting until after sex, but to me it still isn't good enough. If you care about someone, if you respect them , why not tell them as early as possible so they can decide if they want to invest the energy and time in getting to know you better? Isn't it a bit manipulative to allow someone to develop feelings for you without warning them that they risk a life-long viral infection if they get involved with you? Think about it. If you wait until they are already emotionally attached to you, they may feel compelled to continue with the relationship when they may not have if you had told them up-front. It takes more courage and integrity to tell early but it feels better to have the weight off your chest and the person you tell will usually respect you for giving them the choice.

I am especially appealing to men since I believe that men are not as protective of their sex partners when it comes to telling about herpes as women are. Guys, please don't have sex with anyone without telling them about your herpes. And if they don't know the facts don't understate the risks- herpes is a more physically and emotionally devastating disease for women than it is for men and it is much easier for a man to give a woman herpes than it is for a woman to give it to a man.

On how and what to say to others with herpes:

I am a holistic healer- a herbalist and homeopath. My family have been healers for many generations in my native country of Trinidad and Tobago and as far back as Africa. I had little to no interest in treating herpes as a healer until I got herpes myself. Wanting to change a negative to a positive, I decided to make the holistic treatment of herpes the cornerstone of my practice. The bible says "the stone that the builder refused, I will make my cornerstone. Bob Marley and the wailers sing about it too.

It didn't take me long once I decided to become a holistic viral specialist to realize that I was confronted with a daunting challenge. Most professionals including all the herbalists and homeopaths I know rely heavily on referrals to build their client-base. Here I was now working with a client-base that I was never going to get a lot of referrals from. My patients with herpes don't go around telling the world that I helped them with their outbreaks. Some of my patients have yet to tell their significant others that they have herpes, many have not told their closest friends and their family. I am not a company. I don't have an advertising budget. The only way for me to reach out to others with herpes and encourage them to come for me for treatment was to speak out in public about my herpes work and about herpes in general. This forced me to be far more out of the closet than would have been my personal choice.

I seem to always create challenging situations for myself. Speaking to others with herpes is not a task for the faint of heart. Some people like to shoot the messenger- I have the bullet-wounds to prove it. But I can say that speaking to others with herpes has been and continues to be one of the most gratifying experiences in my life. I feel a deep bond with many of the people with herpes who interact with me. I felt this kind of bond when I played team sports. I've felt this kind of bond all my life with other black people. There's something about "us against the world" that can make people tight with other. I love my herpes friends. I love my herpes patients- even the ones who misbehave. I am not grateful for getting herpes, but I don't regret it either. Nevertheless, the truth hurts, and I have some bitter truth to tell others with herpes:

Having a lover who also has herpes isn't a free ticket for unprotected sex. Even if you both have the same strain Even if one gave it to the other. Having unprotected sex with each other can and often will make one or both partner's cases of herpes worse. It's called re-inoculation and it's a message many with herpes don't want to hear.

If you have herpes or cold sores you are potentially contagious everyday and there is no sure way to tell if you are shedding virus. So do consider using a condom/dental dam combined with an anti-viral gel when having sex and do be careful about sharing wet towels or wash cloths with others.

No two people get herpes the same way so you are going to have your own individual experience with the virus and will have to find your own way of dealing with it on all the different levels you will have to deal with it.

A cure for herpes in our lifetime is unlikely and there are no quick-fix solutions for managing herpes. Herpes cannot be managed with a topical agent alone- whether it be creams, lotions, or essential oils. Managing herpes takes changing your diet, managing stress and other triggers, and may also require either taking herbal medicine or drug therapy.

You may not get fewer outbreaks as you get older. While this is often the case, since no two people get herpes the same way, other diseases, menopause, self-abuse, re-inoculation by unprotected sex and other factors can change the pattern of frequency and severity of outbreaks at any point during your life-long journey with herpes.

Cold-sores are just as contagious if not more contagious than genital herpes and you can infect others when there are no signs of sores present.

Having herpes does make you more vulnerable to other sexually transmitted infections including HIV, cervical dysplasia and genital warts.

Daily use of l-lysine is an ineffective strategy for treating herpes and can do more harm than good. There are more effective natural remedies such as garlic for treating herpes without side-effects.

On talking to those who don't have herpes:

The reality check for me is that the mainstream and alternative media do not want talk about herpes. They would prefer to keep us in a ghetto. There is a lot of misinformation floating around and people without herpes have few places to turn to hear the facts about herpes. They don't hear the facts in their churches, young people are not being educated enough about herpes in school. Most parents aren't teaching their children about herpes, older siblings are not passing information down to the younger ones.

It's really up to us who have herpes to try harder to dialogue with those who don't. HIV won't be the last word in human population control from the world of viruses. If we don't learn how to better protect the population from getting herpes and other sexually transmitted infections we are going to be in a lot of trouble. Herpes is a gateway disease it provided easy access through your mucus membranes for any sexually transmitted virus.

[garyhudsonposts]

New Post has been published on Diet Wok - Fat Loss, Nutrition and Diet Advice

New Post has been published on https://www.dietwok.com/protein-deficiency/

Protein Deficiency - Are You Protein Deficient? Find Out...

Hospitalized patients who are being fed nothing but glucose (sugar) intravenously for a long tim.

Babies who are being fed some bizarre substitute for breast milk Alcoholics who are getting too many of their calories from liquor.

In contrast, we never see protein deficiency among people who are eating enough food from any practical plant-based diet to get enough calories.

Theoretically, you could get a protein deficiency from eating nothing but apples, but nobody would eat a diet like that for any length of time.

No wonder vegetarians and vegans get annoyed when someone asks, “But where do you get your protein?”

After all, where do gorillas get their protein?

From the nutrition textbooks I edited, I learned something even more disturbing about calcium.

As a woman in the United States, I have been bombarded with advice to eat huge amounts of calcium. The only practical way to get that much calcium is to eat dairy products or take calcium supplements.

Yet according to the books I edited, the bone-thinning disease osteoporosis is most common where people consume the most dairy products.

A high-protein, high-calcium diet increases your risk of getting osteoporosis. In contrast, low calcium intakes, per se, did not seem to be a problem.

Female gorillas manage to get enough calcium from their plant-based diet to grow a big, strong skeleton. Also, female rhesus monkeys go through menopause, but they do not get osteoporosis after menopause.

The lessons that I learned from nutrition textbooks were wildly different from the lessons that I was taught in school and from the messages that were being spread by the commercial media.

Naïvely, I figured that the scientific truth would eventually trickle down to consumers or at least to medical doctors.

But over the following 25 years, the state of nutritional knowledge among the general public and even the medical profession seemed to be getting worse, not better.

People seemed to be learning a larger number of “facts” that were actually false. The Internet seemed to be a mixed blessing. It gave me access to an enormous amount of scientific information, often for free. Unfortunately, it was also being used to spread total nonsense.

Many Americans have been led to believe that the common forms of heart disease and diabetes are genetic. But if that were true, heart disease would be just as uncommon among Japanese immigrants in the United States as it is among Japanese in Japan. I

n reality, people of Japanese ancestry start getting heart disease like Americans when they start eating like Americans.

If type 2 diabetes were really genetic, then type 2 diabetes would be no more common today than it was 50 years ago.

The fact that the incidence of type 2 diabetes has been rising sharply tells you that type 2 diabetes should not be considered a genetic disease. (As I explain in my book Thin Diabetes, Fat Diabetes, there are some truly genetic forms of diabetes, but they are rare.)

If you look at old family photograph albums or at crowd scenes from historical documentaries, you will probably be stunned by how thin most people were 50 years ago.

Since then, Americans have become fatter and fatter. This epidemic of obesity is even spreading to Asia and Africa, as Asians and Africans start to eat more like Americans.

Because of the low-carb diet craze, most Americans believe that obesity is due to diets that are high in carbohydrates (starches and sugars). However, the Asians and Africans who are continuing to eat a traditional high-carbohydrate diet remain slim.

The promoters of low-carbohydrate diets have been spreading the idea that heart disease and type 2 diabetes result from eating starchy foods.

In reality, heart disease and type 2 diabetes are rare in societies that eat a heavily starch-based diet. They can even be reversed by eating a heavily starch-based diet.

Nowadays, many of the people I meet are convinced that they need to avoid carbohydrates (starches and sugars).

They are convinced that they would be less likely to get heart disease if they ate more fish or added some sort of magical fat supplement to their diet. Most of the middle-aged and elderly women I know take calcium supplements, and some of the vegetarians still worry about protein deficiency.

In other words, most of the people I talk to are not just uninformed about nutrition—they have been wildly misinformed. My goal in writing this book is to help people find the truth amid all that nonsense.

It is hardly surprising that so many people are misinformed about diet. The problem is serious even in the medical profession.

Every few years, some expert panel delivers a disturbing report, warning us that medical students are not learning enough about nutrition and dietetics in medical school.1-5 Unfortunately, the problem never seems to get solved. Years go by, and eventually another alarming report gets issued.

Over the years, I have met a few people who studied nutrition or epidemiology in college or graduate school. Nearly everyone else gets their information about diet and nutrition from magazines, radio programs, books, and Web sites.

Unfortunately, the dietary advice that you get from the commercial media is usually just an attempt to get you to buy something, not an attempt to help you improve your health.

The people who get airtime on the radio and the people who write books and produce videos and Web sites for a consumer audience seldom have any formal training in nutrition and dietetics.

As a result, they tend to spread dangerous nonsense, rather than helping people learn the truth.

A shockingly high percentage of the bestselling books on nutrition are full of total nonsense. The companies that publish these bestsellers are not scientific or educational institutions. Nor are they public health agencies.

Instead, they are businesses that make money by publishing books that are likely to sell, even if those books are not good for public health.

The books that show up on the bestseller lists have not gone through the kind of scientific review (“peer review”) that is routine in scientific publishing. In contrast, I send everything I write to scientific experts for review.

All of the populations of slim, healthy people throughout history have obtained the bulk of their calories from starchy staples, such as rice, wheat, corn, or potatoes.

The populations that eat a starchy diet have low rates of obesity and other chronic degenerative diseases. Unrefined starchy foods, along with vegetables and fruit, truly are health foods.

Many people are shocked to hear that they would be better off eating conventionally grown grains and produce, including plenty of “carbs,” than eating organic grassfed beef and dairy products. Of course, the ideal would be to eat organic grains and produce.

Like most people in the United States, I was taught that children need to eat foods from the meat group (meat, eggs, and fish) and the dairy group (milk, cheese, yogurt, and butter) in order to grow up big and strong.

I was encouraged to believe that human adults need to continue eating meat and dairy foods to maintain good health and athletic performance.

So when I started reading nutrition textbooks, I was relieved to discover that vegetarians (people who don’t eat meat) and even vegans (people who refuse to consume any animal-source products) are not at risk for a deficiency of protein, calcium, or iron.

Rather, the scientific studies showed that eating even small amounts of foods that come from animals poses an unnecessary risk to human health.

Many people decide to become vegetarian or vegan because of how they feel about animals. For them, the question about whether to eat meat or wear fur or leather is a moral question.

However, I did not write this book to talk about moral questions. In this book, I deal with the scientific questions about how your food choices are likely to affect your health. If a plant-based diet posed health risks to human beings, I would explain those risks in detail and would describe how to minimize that risk.

Fortunately, the plantbased diet that many people have been promoting because of concerns about animal welfare or the environment also happens to be the diet that is best for human health.

My point is that you do not need to sacrifice your health in order to protect animals and save the environment.

On the other hand, if you switch to a plant-based diet to improve your own health, you will also spare the lives of animals and cause less damage to the environment.

Although the health-optimizing diet for a human being consists of plant-based foods, I try to avoid calling it a vegetarian or vegan diet. Many people who call themselves vegetarian eat a lot of dairy foods and eggs, or even a lot of fish. (A fish is an animal, not a vegetable!)

Also, many vegetarians and even many vegans are eating far too much fat (especially too much omega-6 fat in the form of seeds and vegetable oils) and drinking too much alcohol. Bourbon and potato chips are vegan, but they aren’t health food!

The rules of thumb that I listed above (e.g., eat plants, not animals) are general rules that apply to the average person.

However, there are a few people who need custom-tailored advice from a trained professional. For example, people with some hereditary metabolic diseases, such as phenylketonuria, need special diets.

People with fructose malabsorption may get diarrhea if they eat too many apples or pears. People with celiac disease need to avoid wheat, rye, and barley. If you need a special diet for health reasons, you should talk to a registered dietitian.

Note that even a sudden change to a healthy diet can cause problems. If you have any serious health problem or are taking prescription medications, you need to talk to your doctor, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant before you make a major change in diet.

A sudden switch to a healthy diet can cause rapid improvements in circulation and insulin sensitivity. As a result, people may need to stop taking some of their blood pressure medication. Diabetics may also need adjustments in their diabetes medications.

If you correct your diet without allowing your doctor to adjust your prescription medications, you could pass out from low blood pressure. You could even end up in the hospital or dead from low blood sugar!