Page Summary
Active Entries
- 1: Interesting Links for 23-09-2025
- 2: Interesting Links for 22-09-2025
- 3: Photo cross-post
- 4: Life with two kids: International Demon-Hunter Shipping
- 5: Interesting Links for 19-09-2025
- 6: Interesting Links for 21-09-2025
- 7: Interesting Links for 20-09-2025
- 8: Interesting Links for 15-09-2025
- 9: Interesting Links for 18-09-2025
- 10: Interesting Links for 08-09-2025
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 05:13 pm (UTC)Pre 1998, I've assumed the student borrows £2,000 (approximately half the living costs of the student) with the other half having been provided by a grant. They then pay this back in exactly five years once their salary exceeds £26,000. This is an inflation adjusted version of the scheme that was in place at the time. The scheme did change thresholds yearly with inflation so this is a fairly true reflection.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 05:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 11:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 11:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 11:25 am (UTC)Women in our society have fewer pregnancies, and breast feeding has been out of fashion for a few decades until recently. So we get periods, mostly on a monthly-ish pattern, whether or not we are on the pill.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 11:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 11:37 am (UTC)And what the article proposes as a "solution" is essentially keeping women pregnant all the time, because it's "natural" that way. Do you agree with that?
It also doesn't mention that the reason said eternally-pregnant African women don't die of cancer is because they don't live long enough to get it!
no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 11:53 am (UTC)What? I don't see the article talking about fault anywhere. Nobody is being blamed for anything. I can't see where it says anywhere that being on the pill causes cancer - it's talking about how high numbers of periods are associated with it, which happens with absolutely any kind of birth control that doesn't prevent them entirely.
And what the article proposes as a "solution" is essentially keeping women pregnant all the time, because it's "natural" that way.
Again, not what I read. "A truly natural Pill might be one that found a way to suppress ovulation without using progestin." and "Pike's proposed solution is a class of drugs known as GnRHAs, which has been around for many years." indicated to me that what they want is a pill that suppresses ovulation entirely, without the use of progestin.
It also doesn't mention that the reason said eternally-pregnant African women don't die of cancer is because they don't live long enough to get it!
From the article "Those who survive early childhood typically live into their seventh or eighth decade"
no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 02:46 pm (UTC)I hate periods, and have never wanted kids, and b*ggering about with my hormones rarely leads to fun. But I doubt anything short of close simulation of actual pregnancy/lactation is gonna cut the mustard in terms of the equivalent protective health effects.
Do not forget that pregnancy has its own horrible and long-term risks (death [from any number of causes during pregnancy or birth or afterwards], diabetes, tooth loss, single or double incontinence, nasty perineum/vaginal tearing....) a lot of which seem to me equally as bad as cancer - and go on for more of your life too! [as do the kids themselves!]
I didn't get as strong a reaction to the article as your previous posters - it came off to me as a bit more neutral. But I'm not strongly reactive to emotionally-charged words (e.g cancer, pregnancy), and so may not be an average or indicative sample. Also there is very little in the article which is at all news to me or at all surprising [and all of that was about John Rock's personal convictions].
I can see why the article might get some (many) people's goat, though, it could have been written in a way that got the pertinent data from the studies over without even mentioning stuff like isolation during menstruation and all that - not vital to the gist. Could have just stated that the menstrual/pregnancy/breastfeeding status of the women was recorded.
Point is, there's lot of ways the article could have been more carefully written to ensure that there was a lot less risk of coming across all "you should be be barefoot and pregnant else you aren't a natural woman". And many people probably, and justifiably think that it *should* have.
Imagine what propagandal use an arch-conservative could easily put this article (as it is) to with minimal effort....
no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 02:56 pm (UTC)I was fascinated by the isolation stuff - my first question on being told menstruation rates for the Dogon would be "How the hell did they find that out?" and I'm glad the article told me. I didn't feel it was approving of it.
And I am _so_ not worried by what uses arch-conservatives put information to. They're already preaching things I heartily disapprove of, and will happily twist any fact to fit their own agenda. I'd rather that everyone had the facts than we tried to protect people by hiding some of them.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 08:22 pm (UTC)I suppose that upon reflection, really don't think that the isolation thing is a big deal, actually - I thought everybody knew that sort of thing happened/happens in certain communities. I suppose if I wasn't told how they got the data on menstrual timings I'd have assumed the researcher just asked....not unreasonable. I don't think there'd be reason to doubt the accuracy either way (but you never know).
yeah, sure everything has risks, but there is a damned awful history of not studying long-term health risks of various medicines and medical treatments and of inadequately advertising them when they do, in fact, emerge. Question of most good soonest I suppose - and the relative risks, in this case of losts of women without contraception running pregnancy/abortion complications vs long term health issue that may or may not arise. I think it take longer and better studies ot get something to market now - but I could be mistaken there.
They certainly do still do NOT adequately advertise the possible(probable) massive reduction in sex-drive and that is associated with all hormonal contraception. Oh yeah and it can be permanently persistent in some cases even after the cessation.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-30 08:28 pm (UTC)The problem with studying long-term effects is that you don't really want to hold up the release of a drug for thirty years until all the possible side-effects are seen (and even then, trying to keep a trial group on the same drugs long term is tricky). At some point you have to let it out into the wild and then monitor for bad things down the line. We do do more (as you say) but that pushes up costs, and means that less problems are financially viable to look into. Tis all tradeoffs.