“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." -Henry David Thoreau.”—or like someone else’s random post, casting nick cave, appropriately, in the avengers, all of like thirty seconds after i’d worked out that shit to my own internal madness’s provisional satisfaction, just popping up on my dash as if to say “well spotted”? because it’s not like those are two things that just naturally go together like peanut butter and chocolate as far as the culture at large is concerned. (via lokiwtf)
Miss Rowland is approximately 55 in rat years, which makes it a bit surprising that she went into heat yesterday for the first time in months. (Amazing what gaining enough to be at a healthy body weight will do for a rat.) So now she’s all “HELLO YES WHERE’S THE MEN” even though she probably shouldn’t be carrying any litters these days. I can just imagine her dragging Gudrun to a restaurant*, where Rowland will proceed to get tipsy on wine spritzers and start making overly loud comments about the handsome waiter’s butt while her daughter cowers in embarrassment.
I’ve received countless messages telling me I should kill myself just because I’m a cis guy, but that’s okay because cis men supposedly only exist to “oppress” you and deny people’s rights. ?? Where is your logic?
top story: tumblr user fuckofftranspeople makes blog called “fuckofftranspeople”, shockingly receives hate mail
The official reason given for denying Maverick the transplant was because he suffered from Coffin-Siris, a rare genetic defect that the doctors said would put him at risk for infection and tumors. They provided Maverick’s parents with a study on the defect.
But when Maverick’s mother, Autumn, contacted the study’s author, she discovered that there was no evidence to support the theory that children with Coffin-Siris had compromised immune systems.
She was confused, but excited. But when she told the doctors, they still refused to go forward with a transplant to save Maverick’s life.
And Maverick’s mother figured out the most likely reason why was because the genetic defect did have some documented effects — namely developmental disabilities.
Maverick’s parents applied to four different hospitals, three of which turned her down, citing the Coffin-Siris defect or, in one case, “the big picture.”
But CNN talked to six different Coffin-Siris experts, all of whom confirmed that the defect was not a valid reason to deny a transplant.
"I’ve never seen a child with Coffin-Siris who was immune compromised," said Dr. John Carey, a pediatrician and geneticist at the University of Utah School of Medicine who has been studying the genetic syndrome for 36 years. "I don’t think it’s a valid reason to deny a transplant."
"(Coffin-Siris) is not a reason to say no to a transplant," said Dr. Grange Coffin, who first identified the syndrome in 1970, along with his colleague at the University of California, Dr. Evelyn Siris. "I would say it’s wrong to do so."
"We absolutely know this happens. It’s a huge problem," David Magnus, the director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University told CNN. “It’s real people sitting in a room making these tough decisions, and it’s not surprising their own prejudices and biases influence them.”
Magnus said he conducted a study that showed despite making no medical difference, more than four in ten doctors considered neurodevelopmental delays in transplant decisions.
Within three weeks, the doctors had adjusted his medication enough that his blood pressure went down, his blood-oxygen levels rose, he had more energy, he gained weight. The baby that once had six months to live didn’t need a transplant anymore and was almost ready to go home.
But should Maverick ever need a transplant, the Boston doctors told his parents, they wouldn’t let the Coffin-Siris affect their decision. He would be a candidate.
One of the most troubling things about the AIDS epidemic is that it could have been stopped so easily by rolling out life-saving antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) early on. Not only do ARVs prevent HIV from developing into AIDS, they also reduce transmission rates and increase people’s willingness to get tested.
But Western pharmaceutical corporations have colluded in pricing these essential drugs way out of reach of the poor. When they were first introduced, patented ARVs cost up to $15,000 per yearly regimen. Generic producers were able to manufacture the same drugs for a mere fraction of the price, but the WTO outlawed this through the 1995 TRIPS agreement to protect Big Pharma’s monopoly.
It was not until 2003 that the WTO bowed to activist pressure and allowed southern Africa to import generics, but by then it was too late – HIV prevalence had already reached devastating proportions. In other words, much of the region’s AIDS burden can be directly attributed to the WTO’s rules and the corporations that defended them. And they are set to strike again: the WTO will cut patent exemptions for poor countries after 2016.
This dearth of basic drugs has gone hand in hand with the general collapse of public health institutions. Structural adjustment and WTO trade policies have forced states to cut spending on hospitals and staff in order to repay odious debts to the West. Swaziland, ground-zero in the world of AIDS, has been hit hard by these cuts. When I last visited I found that many once-bustling clinics are now empty and dilapidated. Neoliberalism has systematically destroyed the first line of defence against AIDS.
The point I want to drive home is that the policies that deny poor people access to life-saving drugs and destroy public healthcare come from the same institutions and interests that helped create the conditions for HIV transmission in the first place.