#pre-publication peer review

[floral-ashes]

With the Alberta government announcing a ban on gender-affirming care until 16 years old, let’s take a minute to correct some misinformation using peer-reviewed publications. A thread.🧵

“High quality evidence doesn’t support gender-affirming care.”

‘High quality evidence’ is a technical term that essentially just means ’no randomized controlled trials.’ RCTs are not scientifically feasible for trans youth care and would be unethical (link).

The evidence-base for gender-affirming care is quite robust and is at least as good at the evidence base for comparable interventions like abortion and birth control. For an overview of available studies, albeit already few years outdated, see page 144 onwards (link).

“Over 80% of kids grow out of being trans.”

That’s just not true. The claim is based on old, poor-quality studies that included tons of kids who never claimed to be trans (link).

But even if we took the percentage at face value, it would be irrelevant since it’s based on pre-pubertal data and virtually all the so-called ‘desistance’ occurred before puberty, when gender-affirming care becomes available (link).

More recent, better studies suggest that only around 2.5% have ‘grown out of it’ after 5 years (link).

“Kids falsely believe that they are trans because of social contagion.”

There is no evidence for that claim. It’s based on the reports of transphobic parents who were surprised that their kid came out ‘out of the blue’ and happened to have trans friends, as trans kids tend to do. For a careful explanation of why the claim is completely unsupported by evidence, see this (link).

Studies of trans youth that used clinical data to look into the claim have also failed to find any evidence of epidemic or large-scale social contagion (link).

“We need a years-long diagnostic process to make sure kids are ‘truly’ trans before they transition.”

There is no evidence that gender assessments fare any better than self-report at predicting future outcomes, as we explain in our recent review (link).

“Gender-exploratory therapy can help identify the trauma that made these kids gender dysphoric.”

Gender-exploratory therapy is extremely difficult to distinguish from classic conversion therapy, which also starts from the premise that ‘trauma’ makes people LGBTQ2S+ (link).

Since conversion therapy is known to be harmful, we have reasons to believe that gender-exploratory therapy would be as well.

Self-directed exploration is good. Forced exploration rooted in suspicion towards trans identities isn’t. If you’re starting from the belief that trans identities are inherently suspicious, you’re not doing therapy, you’re doing transphobia.

Any more myths about gender-affirming care you’d like me to bust, Tumblr?

[sophieinwonderland]

The trusted medical articles about DID are confidential and aren’t on google, only doctors have access to them. You shouldn’t trust in the info you’re actually believing such as tulpas and some DID symptoms.

"You can't trust anything you see on Google because all the real information is super top secret and confidential."

How do sysmeds keep coming up with these increasingly absurd takes?

So yes, some trustworthy peer reviewed works are locked tightly behind paywalls. And this makes finding a lot of information a pain sometimes. But there are workarounds to this. I downloaded a PDF copy of Transgender Mental Health, the book published by the American Psychiatric Association that references how you can be plural without trauma or a disorder, from a dropbox link.

Other paywalled papers can be access through Sci-Hub, although various governments are trying to get that shutdown.

But a lot of trustworthy peer reviewed information from professionals is also available on the internet for free, such as Varieties of Tulpa Experiences, which was peer reviewed and published in a book by Oxford University Press. (Which yes, is a very reputable source.)

And its author is a psychiatry professor at McGill University. The idea that this isn't a valid source because you can find it on Google is stupid.

Moreover, if this was true that all the information on DID and plurality was confidential and only available to doctors, it would create a situation in science akin to the Christian Church pre-reformation, where knowledge of the Bible was essentially restricted to priests, and lay people could only learn through the priests.

Thank the gods that a lot of science doesn't work that way, and even if some is locked behind paywalls, there is a lot that is free and open to the public!

I've been researching and learning more about plurality for three years, and Google Scholar has been an incredible resource on this journey, as has Sci-Hub for when I have ran across an article I just couldn't otherwise access.

There is plenty of trustworthy research out here on the internet that you can access for free if you know how!

[theside-b]

Spoilers for the novel (and my review for the Live Action) ahead :

The boys do get together, but that act ends with their break up when people find out that Tian and Wang are romantically involved, unlike in Unknown where everyone was ok with Qian and Yuan getting together in A Certain Someone the fact that they are 'brothers' plays a huge role at that stage of their relationship and the eventual demise of their first attempt at a romance. Their break up lasts 6/7 years, don't remember exactly, but its a long time...

A lot more happens, but the show made some fundamental changes to both characters. It takes A LONG time for Tian to come to terms with his own feelings, that scene where he sees his father with another man in bed tints his whole worldview from a very young age — he develops quite the internalized homophobia; he is fine with other's queerness but it's his own that he cannot accept since he sees his father sexual orientation as the reason for the destruction of his family.

There is a tense moment between Tian and his father, where his dad says "we are more alike than you care to admit" hinting that he knows of what its happening between the boys and mind you Tian is still trying to sort out what he feels for Wang. The show sugarcoats quite a lot, novel's Tian would never initiate a kiss with Wang or even play along like he did in the show, at least not at that stage of their relationship.

Speaking of which, Wang is also different in the books. In the show he reads as pretty open minded, curious about anything and everything. In the novel he's pretty straight (at first), the journey really begins as a bromance until the feelings start to change. There is a lot of push and shove between the two of them, and is veeery slow.

The show pretty much burns bright the part where Wang tears Tian's emotional walls. Which I don't mind, otherwise it would take 50 episodes to wrap the first act. I honestly thought they were going to draw an original route for the show, but they are slowly adapting elements they left behind so they can follow the book.

Now for the review:

All in all, I think the show did a good job all things considered: production began in mainland China where Liu Dong was cast, but censorship hinders lgbtqia+ productions there so pre-production moved to Taiwan and there the rest of the casting was done. It's hard to tell how much of that interfered in the script but I assume Tian's father core plot was removed in the first draft and got re-integrated once production moved to Taiwan (Chris Lee's casting was one of the last to be announced which probably means he was also one of the last to join filming). Considering that productions like The Spirealm got pulled for much less is understandable that they would avoid the more thorny subjects under China's homophobic gaze.

(Educated guess here: considering all the publicity push, I imagine either Andy Cheng or Stan Huang were the choices for Wang, but since Liu's casting was an order from one of the financial backers they got smaller roles — it's a common move in taiwanese productions — by the way, there is a 'love triangle' later, is a sad thing since there is no-way you can split the main couple, but the show made me wonder who is going to be playing the third party in the live action).

As I always say about taiwanese shows: you have to watch the live play. The On1y One is much like it's local peers, it works wonders in small doses, but as soon as you see the whole picture you start to see the cracks. It reminded me a lot of Kiseki: Dear to Me in the sense that the main couple story is the emotional backbone, with a somber approach with brief moments of humor but everything surrounding it is slightly unhinged.

Everything that happened at that school was insane. The amount of crimes committed in the school grounds was ridiculous, the fact that Qi Jia Hao didn't ended up behind bars after ordering thugs to attack Wang and assault the english teacher is crazy. The whole side-plot involving the teachers was head-scraching by the way, much like everyone else I assumed that Zhao Xi and Benny were married when they were introduced.

Imagine my surprise finding out that not only they were not married but at one point Zhao Xi thought Benny could be interested in the english teacher (speaking of her, why the hell did she sounded dubbed? Is that not her real voice?). This whole story felt so disjointed from everything else, and it came at the tail end of the season(?), so not only it took some much suspension of disbelief for me to buy that these 40-year old gays were that emotionally impaired but also demanded patience since they spent very valuable screen time which could've benefited the main couple.

That is all to say that while I was having a blast while watching, the more I stop and think about it critically the more problems I see in this show. And again, that usually happens with taiwanese productions, experienced the same with Kiseki and Unknown, two shows that I adore, flaws and all, and now the same happens with The On1y One.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive

By Jim Wappes

A new survey study reveals that people who had two COVID-19 infections were more than twice as likely—and those who had three or more COVID-19 infections were almost four times more likely—to report long COVID as those with one infection.

The study involved 3,382 global survey respondents and was conducted by researchers with the Patient-Led Research Collaborative on long COVID. It was published this week on Research Square, which is the preprint service of the Nature Portfolio. It has not yet undergone peer review.

Among the survey respondents, who were polled from March 30 to September 1, 2023, 22% had never had COVID-19, 42% had it once, 25% twice, and 10% three times or more. They said their acute SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred from February 2020 through August 2023, with 24% of first infections and 27% of re-infections in 2020. They reported that 52% of first infections and 43% reinfections were in 2022, while 7% of first infections and 15% of reinfections were in 2023.

Reinfection raised risk of severe fatigue, functional limitations The researchers found that, compared with people who had COVID only once, those who had two COVID infections were 2.14 times more likely to report long COVID, and those who had three or more COVID infections were 3.75 times more likely to have the long-term condition. They also noted that the odds of both severe fatigue and post-exertional malaise, both of which can be quite debilitating, increased with reinfections.

Fatigue severity also increased with re-infections. As did the odds of functional limitations, such as bathing and dressing difficulty and limits on moderate activity.

The researchers also noted that the number of pre-infection vaccines and boosters cut the risk of long COVID, but their efficacy was diminished by reinfections.

The authors conclude, "These findings underscore the need for robust public health measures for COVID-19 infection prevention and the importance of considering reinfections in Long COVID research and clinical practice." The team summarized its findings on X.

Study Link: www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-4909082/v1

[librawritesstuff]

For those mathematically and/or scientifically inclined amongst us:

the Endeavour Peak Messy Hair Index (Hypothesis: inversely proportional to his internal emotional state) has been subjected to a) intense analytical scrutiny, b) peer-reviewed professional interpretation and c) multi-level metadata extraction techniques.

Pre-publication results available in The Journal of I Really Need to Get a Life and Get the Fuck Off the Internet.

Final determination: s3e1 “Ride”

[didanawisgi]

Here are the studies that you simply never hear about:

Paul Thomas (2020) had 0 autism cases in 561 unvaxxed patients total. For patients who followed the CDC vaccination schedule, there were 15 autism cases in 894 patients. The Fisher exact test p-value is 0.0008 which is stunning. The OR was infinity, with a 95% lower confidence limit of 2.3. See also this excellent article about the study which points out that “unvaccinated children are healthier in several metrics and enjoy 25 times fewer pediatric visits.” The bad guys were able to get the paper retracted by claiming the higher rates of autism among the vaccinated were due to more office visits. The problem with that criticism is that the reason for retraction was later disproven in a subsequent paper!

Hooker (2021): 5.03 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

Mawson (2017): 4.2 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (666 in this study)

Geier (2013): 2.1 to 3.4 odds ratio in the VSD database depending on age at injection. Higher odds ratio when older. That study, published in the peer-reviewed literature, was done using a two-phase methodology used by the CDC. It showed that the HepB vaccine was strongly associated with autism. They looked at each of the 3 injection times and in all cases the OR was high and the p-value was low! The study has never been retracted. After Brian Hooker found this signal in VSD, his access was immediately revoked by the CDC with no explanation. Nothing like being open to data transparency is there?

Garner / Control group (2022): 82 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. “For those with zero exposures to post-birth vaccines, pre-birth vaccines, or the K shot, the total rate of autism in the entire CGS is 0% (0 of 1,024)” Doing an OR calculation relative to my survey of 10,000 children: OR=82 CI:5.1197 to 1315 z statistic: 3.114 Significance level. P = 0.0018. See also the Control Group website.

Lyons-Weiler (2022): The study was too small to assess autism risk, but showed better health outcomes among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated in other conditions. See this article which notes that the unvaccinated had better compliance to their wellness checks than the vaccinated which eliminates a common argument that anti-anti-vaxxers use. It says, “the unvaccinated families made their well-child visits with greater frequency than the vaccinated families.”

Liz Mumper study: She reduced the incidence of autism in her practice by 6X limiting the vaccines given to kids. How does the medical community explain this? A 6X reduction is huge. She also replicated Paul Thomas’s work.

A new study of 50,000 kids (submitted by Tony Mawson for publication but not yet published) shows the same odds ratios for chronic diseases as the Hooker and Mawson studies. The dataset is very large.

The Generation Rescue (GR) study that was done on June 26, 2007 showed that vaccinated kids were significantly worse off in every category they looked at. “For less than $200,000, we were able to complete a study that the CDC, with an $8 billion a year budget, has been unable or unwilling to do.” Where is the CDC survey? Nowhere to be found! They simply don’t want to do it. Read the survey and see this article for more information. GR couldn’t tamper with the study or manipulate the results because it was done by a third party survey firm with no conflicts of interest. If the drug companies didn’t like the result, they could have easily commissioned a different polling company. But they didn’t!!! Or maybe they did and simply chose not to publish the results because they were so bad. In any event, the lack of a poll showing the opposite of the GR poll is very very problematic for the “safe and effective” narrative.

There is a failure on behalf of the other side to cite a single study that shows the opposite of what these studies show, e.g., that the fully vaccinated are either as healthy or healthier than the fully unvaccinated.

[thegodthief]

What do you find most exhausting about your practice? Conversely, what is the most fulfilling to you?

Earlier, I had quipped that the short answer to both questions was the same: "Solitude." If you will grant me the indulgence of explaining why I answered thus.

It is exhausting working alone for damn near everything. The pandemic made matters worse, but this has been a problem for me from the moment I began stubbing my toe on the rocks along this path. Trial and Error™ is the hallmark of the practitioner, but when you don't have the ability to have your work peer reviewed, then the errors stick around longer and the trials have a heavier cost. I'm always hiding a part of me from other magic users while I wait to see which one of their DNI categories I'm going to fall into, this time.

What I noticed pre-pandemic is that eclectic magic users were very welcome, as long as you were eclectic in the right (read: popular and/or mainstream) way. There is a reason one of my first posts here so long ago was a rejection of sisterhood with other witches who were trying to claim some sort of connection for no other reason that I was considering if I was even a witch in the first place.

Here and now, in the long tail of the pandemic, I haven't tried to attend any in-person events or ceremonies. They all seem to fall on a weekday and are prohibitively far from me such that I'll lose more than just the earnings of the day. Not to mention, that I don't know the people putting these things together, nor the people presenting at the shindig, nor the area that the event is happening in.

Online, it is not much better. The groups I see in the few servers I lurk in are well established and have mutual chains linking within and without the online spaces. It feels like watching a group of kids playing double-jump and they have been playing so long together that they have their own rhythm for jumping in and out of the rope because everything about the game has been shaped into a pattern that suits them best. And here I am, clunky, uncoordinated, not presenting as expected, and the group leader is telling me to jump in anytime but the moment I do, I snag the rope and the game (read: conversation) just stops.

I don't question if that online space was meant for me. If it was, I wouldn't be fucking up the game. I question if I'm meant for online spaces, and have quietly taken my leave from most servers. (waves hand) I am not the content creator you are looking for.

This leaves me with very few people that I can be weird with. That I can ask a "deep question" to. That I have been trying very hard not to abuse with my single-minded focus, because one of the hardest things I have had to realize lately is that I am considerably Not Normal™ when it comes to wooish shit, because I don't think that even the Big Name Practitioners™ think about or try wooish shit as much as I do. Very often, their social media feeds (public and/or quasi-public) are 90% Everyday Life™ that you see for anyone else in that general area or demographic and an occasional Now This Is What I Call Magic!™.

There isn't anyone else like me, which is probably very good for everyone else, but is really fucking shit for me.

But, that same solitude is also very fulfilling for me. Because I do try the Weird Shit, and I do poke at the thing that most folks on my dash are concerned about poking at, and I get to work the ritual that takes advantage of my single-minded focus, and on occasion, I get shit done. It means that I don't have someone annoyed that I'm staying up late to do the thing for the tenth night in a row, or that when I put a jar in the fridge labeled "Not For Human Consumption" that it will remain where I put it no matter how many months days I go back to finish the rite I started.

It means I don't have to ask permission (or forgiveness) for deviating from the plan, because the plan was always going to be uncovered as I went anyway. It means that when I plan the purchases for the rite, that I don't have to add a "pinch" tax for when someone else decided to help themselves to the ingredients before the rite and takes just a "pinch" for themselves.

It means that I progress according to the work I'm putting in, and if something takes me a few years months to understand, then that's okay, and if someone takes me a few hours days to master, then that's also okay, and I'm not trying to force myself to work through my shit on someone else's timing, and that's hella okay.

But then, like the ouroboros, I wind up back where I started. I have this neat trick, this personal understanding, this alternative way of working this jar I picked up, and I want to talk about it with someone because that's one of the better ways for me to truly understand what I'm doing and what I've learned, but because this little thing I have doesn't have an accepted lineage, source, book reference, BNP recommendation, then I'm no different from amulet-chasers.

You'd think that having a personal blog of my own would make this easier. After all, having a space independent of advertisers and/or corporate interference means I can say what I want. But who is reading? Who was reading? With all that has happened (and continues to happen), my posts have dwindled to nigh nothing, and Tumblr remains the only space where I am active.

I don't know how to break the cycle.

This was very likely not the answer you were expecting. But it is the only one I have to give. My apologies.

[himluv]

DA Review Series: Magekiller

<<< Previous review: The Masked Empire

Title: Magekiller Author/Illustrator: Greg Rucka/Carmen Carnero Publication Year: 2016 In-World Year: 9:40-9:42 Dragon Verdict: Fun, but doesn’t feel quite as vital as the pre-Inquisition novels. We see some new and familiar faces, get to peer into the more tertiary actions of the Inquisition and its agents, but it really does feel “extra”. 

Magekiller introduces us to Marius, a former Tevinter slave trained to assassinate mages, and his traveling companion Tessa Forsythia. For all his stern demeanor, Marius can’t turn down a job that supposedly would save endangered children – even though both he and Tessa suspect a trap. And their instincts were right. There are no threatened children, only Archon Radonis, the leader of the Tevinter Imperium. And he has a job for them. 

Which is how Marius and Tessa find themselves in the business of killing Venatori mages (before the Inquisitor made it cool). And while they are a darn good team, they both know that if the Venatori don’t kill them, the Archon will once he’s done with them. So, they hatch a plan with help from Calpernia (yes, THAT Calpernia – turns out she and Marius had a bit of a thing) and escape the Imperium. That doesn’t stop Radonis from hunting them, however. 

It’s after one such attack from the Archon’s forces that a giant tear in the sky changes everything. It doesn’t take long for word of Marius and Tessa to reach the Inquisition, and Charter approaches them with an offer to join the cause. Tessa isn’t big on the idea but Marius jumps at the chance to be part of something bigger, to make a difference and have a purpose.

And so the duo become the Inquisition’s de facto Venatori hunters. We see glimpses of their various jaunts throughout the timeline of Inquisition, including missions with Dorian, Sutherland’s crew, and Harding, but none of the missions felt particularly important to the plot or the world. Their major motivation was surviving the Archon’s attempts to kill them, but that threat is eradicated by the Breach. The story then pivots to being a more interpersonal one, with the crux of the tension depending on Tessa’s doubt that Marius sees her as anything more than a convenient partner (not in a romantic sense, Tessa and Charter are together!). But I didn’t really understand why Tessa would doubt him.  

We’re shown early on that he is a good person who cares more for others than himself, even if he is beyond stoic and taciturn. Tessa has traveled with him for years, knows him better than anyone, and yet doubts that he would die to save her? After all they’ve been through? I don’t buy it.  Anyway, this is a fun little glimpse into some of the in-between time in Inquisition but it ultimately suffers from trying to do too much with too little plot and doesn’t contribute much to lore or character development. 

[gumjrop]

The Weather

Amid the CDC’s COVID-minimizing and dangerous rollback to isolation guidance, a new Pew Research poll shows that 27% of Americans are very or somewhat concerned that they will get COVID and require hospitalization, and 40% (nearly half) of Americans are very or somewhat concerned that they will unwittingly spread COVID to others. This number rises substantially for low income brackets, and Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults. Concern about hospitalization was highest in adults with a high school education or less. Despite efforts by the CDC, the Biden Administration, and corporate media to downplay the public’s concern about COVID, these numbers show that a substantial proportion of Americans care about protecting one another.

A popular program providing free rapid antigen tests through the USPS ended on March 9, 2024. Despite the limitations of rapid antigen tests, these home tests continue to be a vital way to quickly identify COVID cases, both to prevent further onward spread as well as to identify the need for treatment with Paxlovid. You can use our letter campaign to let your elected officials know we still need free rapid home tests.

COVID wastewater levels are decreasing, with no states registering “Very High” levels as of 3/15/2024. Eight states are currently at “High” and 15 are at “Moderate” levels of SARS-CoV-2 detected in wastewater.

Wastewater levels show a downward trend in the provisional data (gray shaded area) in all regions. The national wastewater levels are overall indicated as “Low.” Lower wastewater activity is an indication of lower overall viral spread, which is certainly a good thing. However, the “Low” designation is not a representation of low risk in our day-to-day lives, and continued masking and multilayered precautions continue to be necessary to protect ourselves and our communities. State and local trends can also provide additional information, where available.

A recent Axios article highlights the expanding broad utility of wastewater testing for COVID and other infectious diseases, as well as the uncertain footing of the funding and infrastructure for this essential surveillance tool. We encourage you to write your elected officials to let them know you want to keep and expand wastewater testing in your area and nationally.

Wins

On March 13, the People’s CDC hosted a press conference to push back on the CDC’s elimination of COVID isolation guidance and demand accountability to the public (watch the video or read the press release). The online publication (pre-proof) of the People’s CDC External Review in the peer-reviewed scientific journal American Journal of Preventive Medicine Focus was also announced, which is an important authoritative resource highlighting both shortcomings of the CDC’s approach and recommendations for a more transparent, effective, and equitable pandemic response going forward. The full External Review report can be found on the People’s CDC website.

March 15 was Long COVID Awareness Day, and Senator Bernie Sanders along with six cosponsors (Tim Kaine, Edward Markey, John Hickenlooper, Tina Smith, Robert Casey, and Tammy Baldwin) introduced Resolution 590 to formally recognize March 15 as Long COVID Awareness Day. You can ask your senators to support this resolution using this letter campaign. Senator Sanders released a video promising legislation to increase funding for Long COVID research and clinical care, as well as emphasizing the importance of prevention, including vaccination and masking. For more info on Long COVID Awareness Day, see the “Long COVID” section below.

When we make our voices heard, whether with the press, with scientific publications, or with elected officials, we win.

Variants

In the CDC’s most recent Nowcast predictions, JN.1 continues to be the most prevalent variant in the United States (86.5%), with a predicted decrease in JN.1 and sublineage JN.1.13 increasing (9.5%).

Vaccines

The CDC has recommended spring boosters for people age 65 and older, at least 4 months after the previous updated dose. As of 3/2/2024, only about 42.4% of adults age 65 and older had gotten an updated vaccine, and many who were vaccinated in the fall may not realize they are eligible for another dose. 

In addition to the spring boosters recommended for people aged 65 and older, immunocompromised people are eligible for more frequent vaccination. The CDC states, “You can self-attest to your moderately or severely immunocompromised status, which means you do not need any documentation of your status to receive COVID-19 vaccines you might be eligible to receive.”

As a reminder, the currently available COVID vaccine formulations (2023-2024, first available in fall 2023) are effective against the JN.1 variant, with about 54% protection against symptomatic disease. For people of all ages, immunity wanes after 6 months, and, although current eligibility is more limited, we continue to support access to vaccination at least every 6 months for all ages.

If you have not received one of the updated COVID vaccines released last Fall, you can use this tool to find local vaccine providers that are Bridge Access Participants. The Bridge program is currently available through December 31, 2024. 

COVID in Kids

In a recent report in the CDC’s MMWR publication, cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) in 2023 were highlighted. MIS-C is an inflammatory response to a COVID infection that usually occurs 2-6 weeks following an infection. MIS-C may be serious and can affect the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, skin, eyes, or gastrointestinal tract. Although rates of MIS-C have slowed since 2020-2021, 112 cases were reported in 2023, with 82.1% of those occurring in unvaccinated children. Among cases in vaccinated children, 60% occurred in children who had not received a booster within the last year. As of 3/2/2024, only about 13.5% of eligible children aged 6 months to 17 years have received a 2023-2024 COVID vaccine. More info on Long COVID in kids is presented below under “Long COVID.” 

It is clear that kids need protection from COVID, and current efforts are inadequate. We demand that public health authorities take action to protect our children. You can find more information to support protecting kids in our Urgency of Equity toolkit.

Long COVID

March 15 marked the second annual International Long Covid Awareness Day. Across the globe, Long Covid survivors, their allies, and the community fight for increased research, treatment, and visibility for people living with Long Covid. 

Searching #LongCovidAwarenessDay on most social media platforms will connect you to posts from people all over the world describing their experience navigating their ongoing symptoms while trying to educate others about the barriers they face in seeking accessible and effective treatments.

Up to 5.8 million children in the US may be affected by Long COVID. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics from the American Academy of Pediatrics shows that vaccination reduces the risk of Long COVID in children by about 40%. 

Take Action

Super Tuesday has come and gone with nominees in most parties now established for races at the local, state, and national level later this year on November 5th.

People’s CDC wants to remind you that regardless of the outcomes of these elections, we must always continue to organize and fight back against the state’s abandonment of science in favor of corporate interests.

We urge you to use and share our letter campaign demanding that elected officials renew and expand programs to provide free Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs). You can also continue to urge elected officials to support maintaining and extending COVID isolation guidance via our letter campaign. Over 13,000 letters have already been sent, and you can use the same template to send follow up letters.

Whether it’s joining a local mutual aid organization or fighting for increased accessibility measures (required masking, improved air quality, and multilayered precautions) in groups you are already part of, your actions can make your communities safer for all people.

[fans4wga]

To any newcomer joining the industry after they graduated college or just getting into the field, what is your advice on what they should do? Like if they are in LA/NYC or not in LA/NYC, what can they do?

Sorry if this is left field!

That's a huge question with a lot of variables, but fortunately our mods are also newcomers in the industry and have been through this ourselves so hopefully this is helpful :)

A couple things you can do to prepare yourself:

Unpaid internships, though clearly and obviously exploitative of vulnerable populations, are sometimes (UGH) the only or best way to get in the door and have something legit on your resume. (The paid internships are unfortunately so much more competitive, but definitely apply if you can!) A lot of internships and jobs are posted regularly on LinkedIn. This is a good Linkedin group to see job postings for young people working in entertainment.

How do you even make a resume for Hollywood internship/entry-level positions? Great question. Highlight any media experience (yearbook, newspaper, journalism, graphic design) and leadership experience. (Unless it's like, from middle school. That's too far back.) If you have the chance to submit a cover letter, focus less on trying desperately to prove yourself and more on who you are as a person: someone who is determined, yes, but would also be a good, solid coworker; any stories that reveal your talent for narrative and showcase your skills.

If unpaid internships aren't possible for you, consider checking out adjacent jobs in podcasts or journalism or other media, which would still be good on your resume before you make the switch to film/TV.

Get a nice, recent headshot (doesn't have to be a professional shoot, you just want to look professional in your social media and email profile pics.)

Join the picket lines in LA/NY if possible (WGA has the locations here). Everyone out on the picket line is supporting the future of the entire industry. It's not only the current workers on strike, but you and your peers too, who depend on the outcome of these negotiations. Also, if you consider yourself "pre-WGA" (interested in being a writer/WGA member in the future), there are a handful of groups organizing strike support for pre-WGA folks! Get plugged in with them.

Read the trade publications daily, or at least a couple times a week, to stay on top of what's going on in Hollywood. The typical places are Deadline Hollywood, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and I also like IndieWire and the NYT movies section personally for their profiles and reviews. Basically you just want to be someone who knows what's going on in your own industry and can talk intelligently about the state of things.

Likewise, podcasts. If you're going into TV writing, I can't recommend Children of Tendu enough. If that's not your specific field, search around for what other people in your field are listening to!

I hate having to say this, but... Twitter. Lots of WGA members, directors, actors, and industry people are active on Twitter, despite the, er, problems with the platform. Look for both pre-WGA and WGA people, connect with them, start building a community, maybe join a writing feedback group. (Again, since I'm a writer, that kinda applies to just writers, but I'm sure you can find other departments there too!)

On a similar note: You've probably heard a lot about the importance of networking—getting to know people in the industry who might be your coworkers in the future. That's important advice, but even better advice than that is to network horizontally, not vertically. Translation: Don't always seek out people who are in more advanced stages of their career than you: they're probably very busy and their lack of interest in lower-level people could be discouraging, even if it's just a reflection on their lack of time and not on you. Instead, network with people at the same stage as you—people who are new in LA/NY/the industry, people who are coming up and have similar passions and goals as you, people who are your coworkers and peers. I'm coming up with a lot of really cool people and it's very likely we'll all be in a position to help or hire each other 10, 20 years from now.

That said, you could also try to find a mentor who knows more than you do, but that's tricky territory because again... Hollywood. People are busy. But if you do get the chance to apply for a formal mentorship program, or if someone you know shows interest, having a mentor to go to for questions/advice is super valuable!

Acquire skills. Microsoft Excel skills. Standard screenplay formatting skills. Final Draft skills. Graphic design skills. Website building skills. A lot of people start in the industry at the assistant level, and these things are invaluable on your resume.

For writers specifically, I've heard the advice that you need to get 5+ shitty scripts out of your system before writing something decent. And from personal experience, that adage holds true. You need to write a significant amount of crap before you find your voice and get a handle on script formatting. Online classes and writing groups can help a lot with this.

Also for writers: You should not be trying to start your career as a professional writer without 3+ SOLID, GOOD SCRIPTS in your portfolio that match your voice as a writer, fit your (ugh) writer "brand", and have been revised based on feedback from writers you trust. If you have any doubt about the state of your sample scripts, go back to the drawing board and write a new pilot script.

If you want to be a creator, watch stuff extensively! Old stuff, new stuff, award-winning stuff, stuff that you'd want to write/direct/act in someday. Pick a director and watch everything they've made (or the same for writer/actor/costume designer/cinematographer.) You need to be decently fluent in what has come before you. This industry is only 100 years old, so it's very possible with time to become someone who knows the art form inside and out. Don't watch shallowly, either; watch deeply for analysis and critical thought.

Some final words from someone who cares deeply about the overall wellness of young people in the industry. This industry terrorizes people, and there are a lot of stories of abuse and breakdowns. (Oh, another recommendation, though pace yourself because it's a difficult book with a lot of potential triggers: Burn it Down by Maureen Ryan talks about industry abuse, written by a journalist who's tackled a lot of breaking news about abuse in Hollywood. Essential reading for people going into the industry.)

So prioritize taking care of yourself, and not just in the uwu self-care way, but the bone-deep "know thyself", "if you don't take care of yourself, you will literally cease to function" way. Love yourself enough to know when to step back and take time off. Love yourself to gain good time management skills so you can live a less stressful life. Love yourself enough to build a community of people who will look out for each other.

Wishing you the best of luck. If any pre-WGA/early career folks in the industry want to continue this conversation, this mod's main is @captaincrais.

[professorcupcake89]

I am Tim, I operate BDSM101.ICU. I am a Dom, and have been so for over a decade and a half. I won't even try to pretend that I know everything, but I know enough that educating people newly on their BDSM journey is well within my capabilities. Educating would make me an educator, and as such, I have adapted and adopted a Kink educator code of conduct listed below.

INTRODUCTION

The Kink Education Code of Conduct (KECC) establishes a code of conduct for kink educators and producers. It provides practical guidance for navigating many of the ethical dilemmas we face and creates a framework for clear communication between educators and producers.

The KECC is a roadmap for reasonable human beings, not a precise legal code. You should interpret it using good judgment and good faith, seeking always to adhere to the spirit of the code.

This is the educator version of the KECC. This code has been altered to reflect my personal work, such as removing student portions as I do not currently work with classes and students.

MODELING CONSENT

I consistently practice excellent consent in private and in public. Excellent consent is:

Verbal or written when I am teaching or playing in public. Verbal, written, or covered by a pre-existing relationship or negotiation when in private.

Fully informed, where all parties understand what is agreed to.

Expressed with explicit or enthusiastic agreement.

Consistent and continuous.

Not coerced, not forced, and free of manipulation.

PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE

I teach within my area of expertise:

I only teach material I thoroughly understand and am capable of teaching correctly.

If I teach techniques that are contrary to commonly accepted best practices, I clearly communicate that and explain my reasons for doing so.

When teaching any topic in the domain of a particular profession—for example physical fitness, stretching and warmup, anatomy, nerves, blood play, breath play, hypnosis, trauma response, mental health, legal issues, or any kind of medical play—I explicitly explain whether:

I have relevant professional qualifications, or

I have reviewed the material I am teaching with a qualified professional, or

I am teaching my own opinion.

I respect each person’s right to choose their own risk profile:

I do not pressure anyone to perform techniques outside their risk profile.

I make it clear that students are welcome to audit any techniques they are not comfortable performing.

If I teach high-risk techniques or activities, I clearly communicate the risks involved and I encourage my students to negotiate in class before engaging in any hands-on practice.

I respect each venue’s policies about high-risk activities.

INCLUSION

I treat everyone in a respectful manner and make them feel welcome:

In both my personal and professional lives, I do not discriminate against someone because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, sexuality, and pregnancy status), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. I also do not retaliate against anyone because they have submitted a complaint about discrimination.

I do not intentionally do anything that creates a hostile environment for any group of people.

I apologize when something I do creates a hostile environment for any group of people.

I use correct pronouns for each person. I ask people what pronouns they use when I am not sure.

Except when teaching gender-specific topics, I present material in a gender-neutral fashion rather than assuming specific gender roles.

Whenever possible, I teach techniques that are applicable to all genders, body types, and physical abilities.

ACCOUNTABILITY

I hold myself accountable for my actions and enable the community to help hold me accountable:

I acknowledge that I am flawed and will not always succeed at applying this code of conduct to my behaviors and actions.

I respectfully and proactively seek feedback from the people I play with, the people I teach, my peers, community leaders, and others.

I acknowledge my inevitable mistakes and am receptive to others telling me when I have fallen short.

When I make a mistake I do my best to apologize, make things right, learn from the experience, and make changes to ensure the same mistakes don’t happen again.

I engage openly and honestly when addressing any reported consent issues, including participating in an accountability process with anyone who reports that I violated their consent or injured them.

I follow this code of conduct and the accountability processes of producers and organizations I work with.

I post this Code of Conduct wherever I have an online presence and explicitly state that I have voluntarily committed to following it.

I have at least one accountability contact and make their contact information available wherever I have an online presence, as well as in my class handouts. *

I do not use any kind of non-disclosure agreement or threat of legal action to prevent my partners from discussing their experiences with me.

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

I am a professional:

I represent myself honestly, giving complete answers to all questions during the booking process.

I provide complete and accurate information about my experience and qualifications.

I am clear and up-front about my expectations regarding logistics and compensation.

I show up on time and prepared.

I understand my conduct reflects on the venues that hire me and behave in a professional and responsible fashion while working.

DISCLOSURE AND PRIVACY

I proactively provide producers with complete and accurate information about:

Any consent incidents I have caused or been accused of

Any injuries I have caused or been accused of

Any accountability processes I have been the focus of When disclosing information to producers or in public, I am careful to protect the privacy of anyone I may have harmed.

I respect other people’s right to freely discuss their experiences with me:

I never pressure anyone to keep quiet about their experience with me, nor do I ask my partners to refrain from discussing their experiences with me or others.

I do not retaliate against anyone for sharing their concerns about me with others, either directly or via third parties.

I respect everyone’s right to hold private discussions about educators and venues:

I do not ask anyone to share private information with me, nor will I look at information that should not have been shared with me.

I do not harass, challenge, or question anyone who shares information about me in a private forum.

* I am working on fulfilling this one, and will be actively shared once I do have someone I feel is capable of fulfilling the accountability point of contact for me.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Gregory Brown

Published: Sep 1, 2023

About the Author

Dr. Greg Brown is a professor of Exercise Science at the University of Nebraska at Kearney where he also serves as the Director of the LOPERs General Studies program. His primary teaching responsibilities are undergraduate and graduate courses in Exercise Physiology, but he has also taught courses in Introductory Anatomy & Physiology, Sports Nutrition, Research Methods, and Professional Development in Exercise Science. His research has evaluated the effects of nutritional supplements on the physiological response to exercise, the physiological responses to various types of exercise, effective teaching in the exercise science program, and sex-based differences in sports performance. He has authored or co-authored over 50 peer reviewed publications and serves as a peer-reviewer for over two dozen academic journals. He is a member of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA), and the Association of American Educators (AAE). 

He and his wife (Amber) have two adult sons and one daughter-in-law. Sadly, both their cat and dog passed away in the past year. His hobbies include running, hunting, fishing, studying history, and watching movies. 

--

In the current battle over women’s and girls’ rights to female-only sports, a commonly heard mantra is that there are no sex-based differences in sports performance before puberty. Those who make this claim often contend that if a male is put on puberty blockers before age 12 (or Tanner development stage 2; whichever comes first), he can compete fairly in the female category. But is this really true?Are there really no differences in athletic performance between boys and girls before the onset of puberty? Do puberty blockers administered to children really erase male sex-based athletic advantages? Below, I’ll try to provide answers to these questions.

Like many things currently being put forth in public discourse as settled science, the presence or absence of sex-based athletic differences before puberty is not an open and shut case. There are few databases of records for children’s competitive sports performance and there has been limited scholarly research evaluating sex-based differences in competitive sports performance before puberty. Currently, there are no consensus statements from professional organizations such as the North American Society for Pediatric Exercise Medicine (NASPEM), the National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA), the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), or the National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA) stating that there are, or are not, sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty.

Below, I will cover the main reasons our data on pre-pubertal sex differences in athletic performance is relatively poor, and draw some preliminary conclusions based on the data we do have that indicates such differences are actually quite significant.

Lack of Records

One challenge that arises when trying to determine whether there are sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty is the limited availability of records documenting competitive athletic performance in children. For adults participating at the Olympic and collegiate levels, meticulous record-keeping is the norm, and these records are readily accessible online. A simple internet search yields numerous listings of Olympic and collegiate records spanning various sports such as swimming, track and field, cross country, bicycling, and more.

Similarly, records for sports in secondary schools are also carefully maintained. In the United States, it is fairly easy to obtain the results of the most recent state high school track championship from news sources and on the state scholastic athletic association websites. Most secondary schools additionally showcase records for track and field, cross country, and other sports. The abundant availability of records in the Olympic, college, and secondary school arena makes it very easy to compare male and female athletes competing in the same events at the same level of competition. Such comparisons vividly illustrate that once puberty sets in, males outperform females by 10-30 percent (depending on the sport and event).

However, most sports involving pre-pubertal children operate outside the jurisdiction of state scholastic athletic association or even the local primary school. Instead, these activities are typically organized by local clubs or community recreation departments. Children’s sports often prioritize recreation and skill development over competitiveness. As a result, records pertaining to race times, throwing distances, weightlifting achievements, or other athletic benchmarks for children are not as meticulously maintained or as readily accessible as records for high school, college, or Olympic sports. Some have interpreted the lack of records for children’s sport as an indication that any sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty are negligible or insignificant.

Lack of Scholarly Attention

Adding to the challenge of limited records detailing competitive athletic performance before puberty is the constrained number of available scientific evaluations. For example, Handelsman [1] analyzed publicly accessible data on swimming, running, and jumping in children and adolescents. Although his data clearly illustrate that boys aged 10 and under run faster, swim faster, and jump farther than girls of comparable age, he published these findings in 2017 in a paper titled “Sex differences in athletic performance emerge coinciding with the onset of male puberty.”

In 2019 Senefeld et al. [2] drew upon data from USA Swimming and found that, before age 10, the top 5 girls swam faster than the top 5 boys. However, no disparities in swimming performance were observed between the 10th-50th ranked girls and boys. Additionally, in 2020, Huebner and Perperoglou [3] reported that there were no sex-based differences in competitive weightlifting performance before age 10. To my knowledge, these studies represent the only scholarly examinations of competitive performance in children before puberty.

Taken together, the scarcity of sports records for pre-pubertal children and the limited scholarly output on children’s competitive performance has led some to conclude that there are no differences in athletic performance between boys and girls before puberty. Some have even gone so far as to erroneously asserting that a broad consensus exists regarding the absence of sex-based differences in athletic performance before this developmental stage. However, this does not appear to be true, and in the sections below I will present information that demonstrates the existence of sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty.

School Based Fitness Testing

In contrast to the limited records available for sports performance and the scarcity of scholarly evaluations regarding children’s competitive sports performance, there exists a plethora of scholarly evaluations focused on school-based physical fitness testing in children as young as six years old. Various tests, such as the Presidential Fitness Test, FitnessGram, Eurofit Fitness Test Battery, and other school-based physical fitness assessments, consistently show that boys tend to outperform girls of the same age in tests measuring muscular strength, muscular endurance, running speed, aerobic fitness, ball throwing, and kicking distance. On the other hand, girls tend to perform better than boys in tests assessing flexibility.

A small sampling of publications evaluating school-based physical fitness testing includes a longitudinal evaluation of 240 German boys and girls aged 9-12 years [4], an analysis of 85,347 fitness test results among Australian boys and girls aged 9-17 years [5], an evaluation of 424,328 Greek boys and girls aged 6-18 years [6], a study examining 1,142,026 performances in a 20-meter shuttle run among boys and girls aged 9-17 year from 50 countries [7], and an assessment of 2,779,165 Eurofit performances among boys and girls aged 9-17 year from 30 countries [8]. 

Collectively, these studies (along with many others not listed here) indicate a consistent pattern: before puberty, boys tend to outperform girls of the same age in tests measuring muscular strength, muscular endurance, running speed, aerobic fitness, ball throwing, and kicking distance. Conversely, girls typically exhibit better performance in tests focused on flexibility. While physical fitness tests do not always accurately predict success in competitive sports, physical fitness is often a prerequisite for success in sports.

Sports Records

USA Track and Field (USATF) sanctions youth track and field meets in most states, including regional and national championship events. The youngest age categories in USATF are the 8-and-under and the 9-10-year-old age groups, both of which can reasonably be assumed to represent pre-pubertal athletes. Upon evaluating the performances at the USATF state-level Junior Olympics, it becomes apparent that boys frequently jump and throw farther, and run faster than comparably aged girls.

For instance, if we examine the race times for the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, and 1500m races, along with the distances achieved in shot put, javelin, and long jump events in the 2023 USATF Nebraska Association Junior Olympics [9], for both boys and girls in the 8-and-under age group, we find that no girl would have outperformed a boy to secure the gold, silver, or bronze medals in any of these events. For the same events in the 9-10-year-old age group, only one girl would have secured a gold medal (out of a possible 8), while two girls would have clinched silver medals (out of 8), and another two girls would have won bronze medals (out of 8). Of course, one could reasonably argue that data from a single youth track meet in Nebraska may not be representative data for pre-pubertal athletic performance as a whole.

So, if we make the same comparison in the same events (100m, 200m, 400m, 800m and 1500m races, and the distances for shot put, javelin, and long jump) in the 2023 USATF Arizona Association Junior Olympics [10], we observe that girls in the 8-and-under age group would have secured zero gold medals, one silver medal, and two bronze medals. In the 9-10-year-old category, a girl would have tied with a boy for a single gold medal, and three girls would have taken home bronze medals. Yet, once again, one could reasonably argue that the combined data from track meets in Nebraska and Arizona may not accurately represent the broader spectrum of pre-pubertal athletic performance.

So, if we make the same comparison for the same events (100m, 200m, 400m, 800m and 1500m races, and the distances for shot put, javelin, and long jump) at the 2023 USATF National Youth Outdoor Championships [11]—an event that includes athletes from many different states—we discover that girls in the 8-and-under age group would have won two gold medals (out of 8), three silver medals (out of 8), and no bronze medals. Girls in the 9-10-year-old age group would have won a single gold medal, two silver medals, and two bronze medals. Collectively, looking at these three track meets, placing side by side the race times for the 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m, and 1500m races, as well as the distances for shot put, javelin, and long jump for boys and girls in the 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old age groups, it’s clear that if girls were to compete against boys, they would have secured only 23 out of 144 medals. Within this tally, girls would have received only five out of 48 gold medals.

Of course, one could reasonably argue that the examples above represent only a single year and only three specific track meets. However, if we evaluate the overall youth records for the best performances in running, throwing, and jumping from USATF [12], the USATF National Junior Olympics [13], and the School Sport Australia Track & Field Championships [14], they collectively indicate that boys aged 10 and under outperform girls of the same age across all recorded events. On average, boys outperform girls by 3 percent in running, 9 percent in jumping, and 16 percent in throwing events. Similarly, records for boys aged 10 and under in USA Swimming show faster times than girls' records in 18 out of 22 events [15].

While examining medal counts at specific track meets offers valuable, albeit somewhat anecdotal, insights into performance differences between boys and girls before puberty, these counts do not qualify as a rigorous scientific evaluation. Though scholars often use evaluations of overall records for best performances to showcase sex-based differences in adult athletic performance, disparities in pre-pubertal children’s performance are frequently dismissed as being too small to be meaningful. Moreover, the overall youth records from USATF have not been updated since 2018, the records from the USATF National Junior Olympics have not been updated since 2019, and the School Sport Australia Track & Field Championship records have not seen updates since 2016. It’s unclear why these records have not been updated, but it does raise some questions about the accuracy of these records.

Nonetheless, by considering scholarly assessments of school-based fitness test data, several youth track meets, track and field best performance records, and swimming best performance records, it certainly seems like there is an emerging pattern of pre-pubertal male sex-based athletic advantages.

Scholarly Evidence for Sex-Based Sports Differences Before Puberty

Some colleagues and I have recently presented an assessment of sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty at the 2023 Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine [16]. Drawing upon a national database of track and field performance (athletic.net) and evaluating the top 10 performances for boys and girls in the 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old age groups over a 5-year period, we observed consistent trends. Boys consistently (and statistically) ran almost 5 percent faster, long jumped 6 percent farther, threw the shot put 20 percent farther, and threw the javelin 40 percent farther than girls of the same age. At the 2023 Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine, a separate team of researchers from a different university used the same database, albeit with slightly different evaluation methods, and came to similar conclusions regarding the pre-pubertal advantages of male athletes [17].

In light of these findings, it is reasonable to conclude that male athletes indeed possess advantages in sports performance before reaching puberty. This conclusion is founded on extensive scholarly evaluations of fitness tests in schools, data gleaned from youth track meets and records, as well as youth swimming records for best performances. My personal analysis of the top 10 national track and field performances for boys and girls within the 8-and-under and 9-10-year-old age groups across a 5-year period supports this, further corroborated by similar outcomes from another team of researchers. Admittedly, the sex-based disparities before puberty are less pronounced than after puberty, but they exhibit a consistent pattern that yields a statistically significant difference favoring male athletes.

What about Puberty Blockers?

Whether there are, or are not, sex-based differences in athletic performance before puberty still leaves questions about how puberty blockers affect athletic performance. The truth is, we don’t have enough information to answer questions about how puberty blockers affect athletic performance. There are no published studies evaluating the effects of puberty blockers on muscle strength, muscle endurance, running speed, aerobic fitness, as well as throwing or kicking distance in children, whether in school or laboratory settings. Similarly, there is no research on how puberty blockers might impact performance in competitive sports. Limited studies have touched upon the effects of puberty blockers on body composition and height.

Two long-term studies investigating the impact of puberty blockers on body composition and height indicate that the sex-based differences in lean body mass [18] and height [19] persist even after 2 years on puberty blockers followed by an additional 6 years of so-called “gender-affirming hormone therapy.” It is undeniable that male advantages in lean body mass and body height translate to athletic advantages as adults. It’s reasonable to assume that these advantages also extend to athletic performance among children and adolescents. The sex-based differences in performance in children may be smaller than in adults, but small differences can mean the difference between a gold medal and no medal in sports.

Conclusion

Readers of Reality’s Last Stand will be familiar with the important sex-based differences between males and females. These differences begin at conception and continue throughout one’s life. Sex-based anatomical and physiological differences confer inherent athletic advantages to males when compared to females of the same age, possessing similar talents and undergoing similar training, across all age groups, even before puberty. Having a transgender identity, with or without the use of cross-sex hormones, does not eliminate sex-based differences in anatomy and physiology, nor does it erase sex-based differences in athletic performance.

It is my opinion that, in order to maintain a level playing field for female athletic competition, transgender identified males (i.e., “transgirls” and “transwomen”) should not be allowed to participate in the female sports category before or after puberty even when puberty blockers are used.

[drdemonprince]

I've just started using survey websites like Swagbucks and Branded Surveys to try to make some easy money. Do you have any recommendations for other sites/ what responses to give so that I get more surveys lol

Those two sites suck! You can make a lot more money at Prolific.ac and on Amazon's MTurk. Both sites are used widely by social science researchers as a subject recruitment tool, and in the last decade have really come to be respected even by peer-reviewed journal editors as a reputable place for collecting data. There's significant grant funding behind many Prolific and MTurk projects, and the pay rate for completeing surveys can be decent -- particularly if you take a number of free pre-screening surveys first and identify yourself as someone that researchers might be looking pretty hard to recruit.

That said, I don't really believe that the scientific respectability these sites have is truly well-earned, as even I have lied on Prolific pre-screening surveys to qualify for a well-paying study multiple times. The limitations of self-report survey apply here as they always do, and they are worsened by the payment incentive. Everyone on all of these sites has every reason to lie about who they are and to complete surveys and rapidly as possible in order to increase their pay rate.

But given how widespread other questionable research protocols are in the social science literature and how much we have already done to erode public trust, I can't say anything to discourage participants from doing what they can to make a quick buck. On those two sites that I've mentioned, at least the pay is a bit greater and the questions are a bit more interesting than your standard market research study.

[nuadox]

Could ‘Peer Community In’ be the revolution in scientific publishing we’ve all been waiting for?

- By Denis Bourguet , Etienne Rouzies , Thomas Guillemaud , The Conversation -

In 2017, three researchers from the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (INRAE), Denis Bourguet, Benoit Facon and Thomas Guillemaud, founded Peer Community In (PCI), a peer-review-based service for recommending preprints (referring to the version of an article that a scientist submits to a review committee). 

The service greenlights articles and makes them and their reviews, data, codes and scripts available on an open-access basis. Out of this concept, PCI paved the way for researchers to regain control of their review and publishing system in an effort to increase transparency in the knowledge production chain.

Birth of an idea

The idea for the project emerged in 2016 following an examination of several failings in the science publishing system. Two major problems are the lack of open access for most publications, and the exorbitant publishing and subscription fees placed on institutions.

Even in France, where the movement for open science has been gaining momentum, half of publications are still protected by access rights. This means that they are not freely accessible to citizens, journalists, or any scientists affiliated with institutions that cannot afford to pay scientific journal subscriptions. These restrictions on the free circulation of scientific information are a hindrance to the sharing of scientific knowledge and ideas at large.

Moreover, the global turnover for the academic publishing industry in science, technology and medicine is estimated at US$10 billion for every 3 million articles published. This is a hefty sum, especially given that profit margins enjoyed by major publishing houses have averaged at 35-40% in recent years. Mindful of these costs and margins, the PCI founders wanted scientists and institutions to take back control of their own publishing. And so, in 2017, the Peer Community In initiative was born.

By science communities for science communities

PCI sets up communities of scientists who publicly review and approve pre-prints in their respective fields, while applying the same methods as those used for conventional scientific journals. Under this peer-review system, editors (known as ‘recommenders’) carry out one or more review rounds before deciding whether to reject or approve the preprint submitted to the PCI. Unlike virtually all traditional journals, if an article is approved, the editor must write a recommendation outlining its content and merits.

This recommendation is then published along with all other elements involved in the editorial process (including reviews, editorial decisions, authors’ responses, etc.) on the site of the PCI responsible for organising the preprint review. This level of transparency is what makes PCI unique within the current academic publishing system.

Lastly, the authors upload the finalised, approved and recommended version of the article – free of charge and on an open access basis – to the preprint server or open archive.

A revolution unfolding in science publishing

PCI is making traditional journal publication obsolete. Due to its de facto peer-reviewed status, the finalised, recommended version of the preprint is already suitable for citation. In France, PCI-recommended preprints are recognised by several leading institutions, review committees and recruitment panels at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). At the Europe-wide level, the reviewed preprints are recognised by the European Commission and funding agencies such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.

PCI is also unique in its ability to separate peer review from publishing, given that approved and recommended preprints can still be submitted by authors for publication in scientific journals. Many journals even advertise themselves as ‘PCI-friendly’, meaning that when they receive submissions of PCI-recommended preprints, they take into account the reviews already completed by PCI in order to speed up their editorial decision-making.

New ground broken in 2021

This initiative was originally intended exclusively for PCIs to review and recommend preprints, but authors were sometimes frustrated to only see their recommended preprint on dedicated servers (despite being reviewed and recommended, preprints are still poorly indexed and not always recognised as genuine articles) or having to submit it for publication in a journal at the risk of being subjected to another round of review. However, since the creation of Peer Community Journal, scientists now have access to direct, unrestricted publishing of articles recommended by disciplinary PCIs.

Peer Community Journal is a diamond journal, meaning one that publishes articles with no fees charged to authors or readers. All content can be read free of charge without a pay-wall or other access restrictions. Designed as a general journal, Peer Community Journal currently comprises 16 sections (corresponding to the PCIs in operation) and is able to publish any preprint recommended by a disciplinary PCI.

An innovative model on the rise

Currently there are 16 disciplinary PCIs (including PCI Evolutionary Biology, PCI Ecology, PCI Neuroscience and PCI Registered Reports) and several more are on the way. Together, they boast 1,900 editors, 130 members in the editorial committees and more than 4,000 scientists-users overall. PCI and Peer Community Journal are recognised by 130 institutions worldwide, half of which (including the University of Perpignan Via Domitia) support the initiative financially. The number of French academics who are familiar with and/or who use PCI varies greatly between scientific communities. The percentage is very high among communities with a dedicated PCI (e.g., the ecology or evolutionary biology communities, with PCI Ecology and PCI Evol Biol, wherein an estimated half of scientists are now familiar with the system), but remains low among those without one.

To date, more than 600 articles have been reviewed through the system. Biology maintains a significant lead, but more and more fields are popping up, including archaeology and movement sciences. There is still plenty of scope for growth, in terms of greater investment from those familiar with the system and the creation of new PCIs by scientists from fields not yet represented by the current communities.

Other open-science initiatives have been set up across the globe, but none have quite managed to emulate the PCI model. Mostly limited to offers of peer-reviewed preprints (often directly or indirectly requiring a fee), these initiatives, such as Review Commons and PreReview, do not involve an editorial decision-making process and are therefore unable to effect change within the current publishing system.

While the PCI model is undeniably growing and now garners more than 10,000 unique visitors per month across all PCI websites, the creation of Peer Community Journal shows that the traditional academic publishing system is still intact. And it will doubtless endure into the near future, even though the preprint approval offered will hopefully become a sustainable model due to its cost-effectiveness and transparency across the board.

In the meantime, PCI and Peer Community Journal present a viable alternative for publishing diamond open access articles that are completely free of charge for authors and readers. In these changing times of unbridled, unjustifiable inflation placed on subscription and publishing prices, numerous institutions and universities are backing the rise of these diamond journals. PCI and Peer Community Journal embrace this dynamic by empowering all willing scientific communities to become agents of their own review and publishing process.

When science and society nurture each other, we reap the benefits of their mutual dialogue. Research can draw from citizens’ own contributions, improve their lives and even inform public decision-making. This is what we aim to show in the articles published in our series “Science and Society, A New Dialogue”, which is supported by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research.

Denis Bourguet, Directeur de recherches, Inrae; Etienne Rouzies, Conservateur des bibliothèques, Référent Science ouverte, Université de Perpignan, and Thomas Guillemaud, Directeur de recherches, Inrae

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

--

Read Also

Research: The rise of preprints in the COVID-19 era

[quirksphere]

Where to Sell Your Brand Bags: Top Shops to Trust

Selling your branded bags can be a rewarding endeavor, whether you're looking to declutter, upgrade your collection, or simply make some extra cash. However, finding the right platform to sell your luxury items is crucial to ensure a smooth and profitable experience. This guide explores various trusted shops that buy brand bags, offering insights into online marketplaces, luxury resale websites, consignment stores, and more.

Why Selling Your Brand Bags is a Great Idea

Parting with your designer bags can be beneficial for several reasons:

Financial Gain: High-end bags often retain significant value, providing a substantial return on your initial investment.

Sustainability: By selling your bags, you contribute to the circular economy, promoting sustainable fashion practices.

Refreshing Your Collection: Selling allows you to make room for new pieces, keeping your collection updated and aligned with current trends.

What to Look for in a Trusted Shop

When selecting shops that buy brand bags, consider the following factors:

Reputation: Research reviews and testimonials to ensure the shop has a history of fair dealings.

Authentication Process: Choose platforms that offer thorough authentication to guarantee the legitimacy of your items.

Commission Rates: Understand the fees involved to ensure you receive a fair portion of the sale price.

Convenience: Opt for shops that provide a seamless selling process, whether online or in-person.

Online Marketplaces for Selling Brand Bags

Why Choose Online Platforms?

Online marketplaces offer a vast audience, increasing the likelihood of a quick sale. They provide flexibility, allowing you to list items at your convenience and often offer seller protection policies.

Top Online Marketplaces to Consider

eBay: A global platform where you can set your price or allow bidding, reaching a wide audience.

Poshmark: Focused on fashion, Poshmark allows you to list items easily and connect with buyers interested in designer goods.

Vestiaire Collective: Specializing in luxury items, this platform offers authentication services, ensuring trust between buyers and sellers.

Luxury Resale Websites

How Luxury Resale Sites Work

Luxury resale websites specialize in buying and selling pre-owned designer items. They often provide authentication services and may offer direct purchase options or consignment arrangements.

Trusted Platforms for Luxury Bags

The RealReal: An online and brick-and-mortar consignment store that authenticates and sells luxury items, offering sellers a percentage of the sale price.

Fashionphile: Specializing in pre-owned luxury handbags, Fashionphile provides upfront quotes and immediate payment upon acceptance.

Rebag: Focusing on designer handbags, Rebag offers instant price quotes and has physical locations for in-person transactions.

Brick-and-Mortar Consignment Stores

Benefits of Selling Locally

Selling through local consignment stores allows for in-person evaluations, immediate feedback, and the potential for quicker sales without shipping hassles.

Top Consignment Stores by Region

New York: Stores like What Goes Around Comes Around offer consignment services for luxury items.

Los Angeles: The RealReal has a physical presence, providing a platform for selling designer bags.

Bangkok: ALLU Thailand specializes in purchasing luxury brand bags, offering free appraisals and accepting items even without original packaging.

Social Media and Peer-to-Peer Platforms

Selling Through Instagram and Facebook Groups

Social media platforms allow you to connect directly with potential buyers. By posting clear images and detailed descriptions, you can reach an engaged audience interested in designer bags.

Safety Tips for Peer-to-Peer Transactions

Verify Buyer Profiles: Ensure the buyer's profile is legitimate by checking their activity and reviews.

Use Secure Payment Methods: Opt for payment platforms that offer protection, such as PayPal.

Meet in Public Places: If conducting in-person transactions, choose well-lit, public locations.

Auction Houses for High-End Bags

When to Choose an Auction House

Auction houses are ideal for rare or highly valuable bags, as they can attract collectors willing to pay premium prices.

Recommended Auction Services

Christie’s: Offers luxury handbag auctions with global reach.

Sotheby’s: Specializes in high-end auctions, including designer handbags.

Pawn Shops and Quick Cash Options

Pros and Cons of Pawn Shops

Pros: Immediate cash offers without the need for shipping or waiting for a buyer.

Cons: Offers may be lower than other selling avenues due to the shop's need to resell at a profit.

Tips for Negotiating at Pawn Shops

Research Your Bag’s Value: Understand the market value to negotiate effectively.

Be Prepared to Walk Away: If the offer is too low, consider other selling options.

How to Ensure a Smooth Selling Process

Preparing Your Bag for Sale: Clean your bag and take high-quality photos to attract buyers.

Authenticating Your Bag: Provide proof of authenticity, such as receipts or certificates, to build trust.

Setting the Right Price: Research similar listings to price your bag competitively.

Handling Disputes or Issues: Maintain open communication with buyers and be prepared to address concerns promptly.

Conclusion

Selling your brand bags can be a profitable and fulfilling experience when you choose the right platform. Whether you opt for online marketplaces, luxury resale websites, consignment stores, or social media platforms, ensure the shop you select is reputable and aligns with your selling goals. By preparing your bag appropriately and understanding the selling process, you can maximize your returns and contribute to sustainable fashion practices.

FAQs

How can I tell if a shop is trustworthy?

Look for reviews, testimonials, and accreditation. Platforms that offer authentication services and have transparent policies are generally more reliable.

What’s the best platform for selling rare luxury bags?

Rare luxury bags often perform best on auction sites like Christie’s or Sotheby’s. These platforms attract collectors who are willing to pay a premium for unique and limited-edition pieces.

Should I clean my bag before selling it?

Yes, cleaning your bag can improve its appearance and increase its resale value. However, avoid harsh cleaning methods that could damage delicate materials. For high-end items, consider professional cleaning services.

How much should I expect to earn from selling my bag?

The amount you earn depends on several factors, including the bag's brand, condition, rarity, and demand. On average, luxury bags can fetch between 40–70% of their original retail price. For rare or highly sought-after items, you might earn even more.

What happens if my bag doesn’t sell?

If your bag doesn’t sell on one platform, consider listing it on another. Shops that buy brand bags, like ALLU Thailand or Rebag, often offer upfront purchase options. Alternatively, adjust your pricing or enhance your listing with better photos and descriptions.

By following these tips and exploring the various shops that buy brand bags, you can ensure a smooth selling experience and maximize your profits. Whether you're decluttering, upgrading, or simply capitalizing on the value of your luxury collection, there's a trusted platform out there to meet your needs.

[zackacademy]

Enhance Your Expertise with the RRP Refresher Course

Staying current with industry regulations and best practices is essential in the dynamic field of real estate, particularly when it comes to renovation, repair, and painting (RRP) projects. The RRP Refresher Course offers professionals a valuable opportunity to renew their certification, sharpen their skills, and stay updated on crucial safety protocols. For contractors, property managers, and renovators, this course is a cornerstone of continued success in their careers.

The RRP Refresher Course is designed for those already certified in lead-safe practices. Over time, regulations and methodologies evolve, making periodic refresher training vital for compliance and efficiency. This course focuses on reviewing essential safety procedures, regulatory updates, and hands-on techniques for managing lead-based paint hazards. It not only reinforces existing knowledge but also introduces new strategies that align with current industry standards.

One of the primary benefits of taking the RRP Refresher Course is maintaining compliance with federal and state laws. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates that professionals working on pre-1978 residential properties or child-occupied facilities renew their RRP certification every five years. This ensures that contractors remain knowledgeable about the latest regulations and continue to prioritize safety in their work environments.

The curriculum of the RRP Refresher Course typically covers a range of topics tailored to real-world applications. Participants revisit essential lead-safe work practices, including proper containment, cleanup, and disposal methods. The course also emphasizes strategies to minimize the risk of lead exposure to workers and occupants, ensuring that projects are conducted responsibly and safely. These practices are crucial not only for legal compliance but also for protecting public health and fostering trust with clients.

In addition to regulatory compliance, the RRP Refresher Course enhances professional credibility. Homeowners and property managers are increasingly aware of the risks associated with lead exposure and often seek contractors who are certified in lead-safe practices. By renewing your certification, you demonstrate a commitment to professionalism and safety, giving you a competitive edge in the market.

The flexibility of the RRP Refresher Course makes it accessible to busy professionals. Many providers offer both in-person and online training options, allowing participants to choose the format that best suits their schedules and learning preferences. Online courses, in particular, provide the convenience of studying from anywhere, enabling professionals to balance their training with work and personal commitments.

For those pursuing online training, the course typically includes interactive modules, video demonstrations, and assessments to reinforce learning. These digital tools ensure that participants stay engaged and retain critical information. On-site courses, on the other hand, offer the advantage of hands-on practice and direct interaction with experienced instructors, which can be especially valuable for those who prefer a more immersive learning experience.

Another advantage of the RRP Certification Class is the opportunity to connect with industry peers. Whether attending a virtual class or an in-person session, participants can share insights, discuss challenges, and learn from each other’s experiences. This networking aspect fosters a sense of community and collaboration, which can lead to valuable professional relationships and opportunities.

The benefits of refreshing your RRP certification extend beyond individual success. By adhering to lead-safe practices, professionals contribute to a larger goal of reducing lead exposure in communities. Lead poisoning remains a serious public health issue, particularly for children, and certified contractors play a crucial role in mitigating this risk. Their efforts ensure that renovations and repairs are conducted in ways that protect both current and future occupants of affected properties.

Investing in the RRP Refresher Course is a practical and proactive step for professionals who want to excel in the renovation and repair industry. It not only safeguards certification but also enhances skills, boosts credibility, and supports a commitment to safety and excellence. Whether you are an experienced contractor or a property manager overseeing multiple projects, this course equips you with the tools and knowledge needed to navigate the complexities of lead-safe work practices confidently.

Taking the RRP Refresher Course is more than just a requirement it’s an opportunity to reinforce your expertise, stay ahead of industry changes, and contribute to safer, healthier communities. As regulations evolve and client expectations grow, staying informed and certified ensures that you remain a trusted and reliable professional in the field. Embrace the chance to renew your skills and strengthen your career by enrolling in this essential training today.