Fortunately, this is satire. The New Yorker is basically a printed “Onion”. The unfortunate part is this statement could be true and people are reading it as such due to being misinformed. While I completely agree with OP’s sentiment, these words were not uddered. Hopefully this comment will reach someone and educate them. Please learn the dangers of posting and reblogging misinformed, misinterpreted, and incorrect statements and the repercussions they have.
You know something we don’t get taught often? Why bodies with uteri often have a slight pouche. You wanna know why? Because the uterus leans against the outside wall of the abdominal cavity. The uterus is literally making that little pouche, the belly that we call fat all the fucking time, and that’s why it’s so fucking hard to get a absolutely flat belly! And thank fuck for having a female anatomy professor who is old enough and feminist enough to not give a damn and cheerfully tell us all the details that a male professor might have thought unimportant. Cause fuck this society that ignores organs in order to fat-shame us.
I had no idea. Like, absolutely no idea.
i did not know this at all
Because it isn’t true @biologyweeps I think has repudiated this myth many times.
Like that pouch there is fat, fat that lies over the muscle tissue of the stomach and far away from any present uteri.
Also quiz: how do y’all explain that the dudes and people who don’t have an uterus also have that fat deposit there I’m really curious.
Do y’all not realize how tightly packed everything is in there? Plus the fact that your fricking bladder is in front of your uterus?? If the frickin uterus could push out the abdominal wall we’d be lumpy as hell from everything else. Like come on guys. You can FEEL that it’s a fat pouch. I don’t think it’s society that’s ignoring organs, OP.
I looked into the matter at the request of a friend (and because I was considering going if it was true) and could not find any info online regarding it. So, I gave in and contacted the number to get into contact with Fred.
What I got was a person who was upset that this FALSE information has spread so virally. The Facebook OP asked if he could tell some friends and was told ok, but the information above is inaccurate. The collection is not (and never was) being liquidated. The books are not in danger of being lost or destroyed. And in actuality there are only 3.4-4 million, not 10+. The owners have, in the past, allowed a few people in, family and friends and friends of friends, to browse and buy, but not strangers.
I asked if he wanted this to continue and he said no, frankly he wished it would stop. So PLEASE pass along this sentiment, and do not contact this man further. Leave him and the books in peace!
This headline pops up just about EVERY YEAR. How can the world’s first 3-parent baby keep getting born over and over again?Let me explain to you why that’s not really what you might think it is based on the headline.
1. This basic technique was first carried out in the 90′s. THOSE KIDS HAVE GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL. They called it 3-parent then, and now they’re calling this almost-identical procedure 3-parent. The difference now is just when the sperm fertilizes the egg, being after the egg nucleus is implanted in the egg of a donor, as opposed to before.
2. This is not a situation where each parent gives a third of their DNA. What’s really happening is that there are TWO parents, and one person, a donor, who is donating the cytoplasm and the non-nucleus organelles of the egg. The donor’s egg nucleus–with all of her ribosomal DNA–is discarded. Then, yes, there is like 0.03% of her DNA that is still there, in the mitochondria. Mitochondira convert ATP into energy but they do not have any fun traits on them like your hair color, personality, predisposition to cancer, or basically anything that you would consider getting from your parents.
3. GMO Babies? If not 3-parent, people call these Genetically modified. I guess they are sort of, but listen. This is not some CRISPR-CAS9 shit where you can cut and paste traits here and there and across individuals and organisms. This is all about this one little organelle. I should also note that, in places where this procedure is legal, there is a focus on discarding the female blastocysts, so that only males are born, who do not pass on mitochondria to their own kids.
In short, it is weirdly common for assisted reproductive technology to be blown out of proportion in headlines. And Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
“I think the excuse that it’s just TV is bullshit. It’s just TV that hurts the animals, hurts people, and dumbs down science,” Jim Harrison said with quiet anger. It was clear he’s no fan of one of Discovery Channel’s newest reality shows, Venom Hunters. Jim Harrison, the director of the Kentucky Reptile Zoo, has collected venoms for scientific research and antivenom development for decades. He’s one of the most experienced and well-known professionals in the venom business, and he, like many who work with venomous animals for a living, has spoken out on social media against the show.
Jim and I were sitting at a table during one of the breaks on the last full day of Venom Week, joined by several other distinguished members of the venomous reptile community. Carl Barden, director of the Reptile Discovery Center in Florida, sat to my left, his lips slightly pursed as Jim explained his objections. “People are going to go and over-collect, and they have no husbandry skills, so snakes are going to die. And then there are going to be bites, because they don’t know what they’re doing,” Jim said.
“You think it’s going to go that far?” Carl asked, crossing his arms and leaning back in his chair.
“I do,” Jim replied sternly. “They’re already doing it. We’re already getting calls and emails, people trying to sell us venom, trying to sell us snakes.”
Several nodded and voiced their agreement with Jim. Carl frowned. “I really didn’t think much about it.”
Tearing Open Old Wounds
Discovery’s fall from grace was hard to watch. Though the channel began slipping long ago, I was one of many for whom Shark Week 2013’s kick off special, the mockumentary Megalodon: The Monster Shark That Lives, was both heart- and trust-breaking. “You’ve gone from “the world’s #1 nonfiction media company” to peddling lies and faking stories for ratings,” I wrote in my open letter to the company. “I sincerely hope that you take a little time and reflect on what you’ve become.”
At first, they didn’t seem to. The next year and a half was rough. Discovery replied to critiques by doubling down. When Shark Week 2014 rolled around, it included both a reprisal of Megalodon and began with yet another fake documentary (and even those didn’t get the title of the most disingenuous, fear-mongering, faked show to air that year in my book!). And in case the controversy around Shark Week wasn’t bad enough, Discovery aired Eaten Alive that December—a special where a man was supposedly going to get himself swallowed and regurgitated by an anaconda—earning the ire of reptile lovers worldwide. “I’m sure millions of people watched last night and in the end the only message they took out of it was that snakes are man eaters and that Discovery had lied to them about the man being eaten,” wrote snake breeder, YouTube presenter, and herper Brian Barczyk at the time (his YouTube channel has more than 410,000 subscribers). “It’s more than obvious that the TV networks have no interest in these programs anymore and want to flood our airwaves with garbage sensational shows and feed us the line that they are based in conservation.”
Eaten Alive was the last straw, not only for many long-time viewers, but also for some within the company. New president Rich Ross promised that he was going to get rid of the faked footage and gaudy stunts. “I don’t believe you’ll see a person being eaten by a snake during my time here,” he said. And in 2015, his words held; Shark Week returned to its fin-loving roots, earning cautious praise from even its harshest critics. No Mermaids or other obviously faked footage emerged. It’s been a little over a year now under Ross’s rule, and Discovery seems to be honestly trying to right the ship. I was genuinely starting to believe that they wanted to put Megalodon and Eaten Alive far, far behind them. They almost did.
That commitment to real reality programming with scientific and environmental integrity is part of what makes me so disappointed with Venom Hunters. I can’t help but feel like Discovery keeps taking one step forward only to stumble two steps back.
Venom Hunters begins with a problematic premise, and goes downhill from there.
According to Discovery, Venom Hunters follows four brave teams of expert snake catchers on a mission to save lives. “Every year, venomous snakes kill over 100,000 people and hospitalize thousands more. Despite this staggering number, the deadly venom is also used to save lives in the production of anti-venom. There’s a problem though: anti-venom supplies are dwindling every year, making the stakes even higher for brave professionals who harvest this equally deadly and precious substance.”
“From the Florida swamplands and the plains of Oklahoma, to the Australian outback and Arizona desert, the fearless venom experts will put their lives on the line to track, catch and harvest the venom from these deadly reptiles. The demand for venom is at an all-time high as it is now being used to not only create anti-venom, but also as a key part of cutting-edge medical research that aims to treat diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and even cancer.”
Though the summary doesn’t exactly say that they’re all professional venom producers, it implies that, as Channel Guide Magazine wrote, “the series follows an extremely rare and colorful group of hunters who make a living hunting venomous snakes, extracting the venom for various labs around the world, where it is used for medical research from cancer to blindness to making anti-venom to save lives.” (emphasis mine)
But lacking from Discovery’s summary and biographies of the cast is the reality that the stars’ claims to the profession are somewhat thin. Dan Massey (who is teamed up with his wife, Melanie), for example, does have legit scientific experience studying venoms and the pair “are fully equipped with materials to milk scorpions,” but they aren’t among the handful or so large U.S. venom producers used by antivenom manufacturers. The show’s bio for Tim Fitzer claims that “multiple venom labs have approached Tim about buying his venom,” but also notes that he didn’t have the right equipment and wasn’t in the business before the show. Perhaps the only one known to the professional venom community as a collector (of snakes, not venom) is Ed Chapman.
The last team leader, Brian Barczyk—who was so critical of Eaten Alive—spoke of his experiences, and made it clear that the producers didn’t really care about using professional venom experts. “I told them: I do not have a venom lab. I do not sell venom. This is not my job,” he stated in a recent podcast. While Brian has lots of snake experience from breeding and selling snakes, he said he only began collecting venoms “because of the show.” “I’ve never claimed to be a venomous expert. I’ve never claimed that, ever; the show doesn’t claim that, nor will I.” He also noted that every other team applied to be on the show, while he was the only one that the show’s production company, Authentic Entertainment, successfully approached.
The real venom hunters—the close-knit community of people who spend their days collecting venom for antivenom production and scientific research—are noticeably absent. So I sat down with those people at Venom Week, the official meeting of venom professionals put on by the North American Society of Toxinology, to find out why they weren’t involved. A surprising number of them had the same explanation: they were approached for the show, but ultimately declined.
Carl Barden (the director of Reptile Discovery Center and Medtoxin Venom Laboratories) was contacted early on by the show’s producers. “We always say to those companies ‘We’re happy to do an episode. Come to the lab, watch a venom extraction’ with the hopes of making it an accurate portrayal,” Carl told me. But the producers described a show that didn’t match their daily experiences. “We never expected it to be an adequate representation of what we do, which is why we didn’t do it.”
More no’s came from Al Coritz (of Deadly Beautiful Zoological, LLC), Bryan Fry (Associate Professor with the University of Queensland), Rob Clark (Venitox Laboratories; “I told them ‘That’s not how the venom industry operates,’ and that I wasn’t their guy. I’m glad I didn’t get involved.”), and Nathaniel Frank (MicrurusToxins). The producers also received rejections from Jim Harrison and his KRZ business partner/wife Kristen Wiley—multiple rejections, in fact, as they kept trying to convince the duo over and over again. The show’s casting staff almost got Jeffrey Fobb, a captain with Miami-Dade Fire Rescue’s life-saving Venom Response Program, to be a part of the show, but some shady questions during the interview process made him reconsider. And the list goes on.
Why did the show’s producers have such trouble finding stars? All of the professionals I spoke to said that despite bearing the name Authentic Entertainment, the show’s producers weren’t interested in the realities of the job. Venom Hunters aimed to capture non-stop action with their season-long stars hunting down wild snakes, rather than the daily, controlled extractions from captive animals performed by professional venom producers. Jim and Kristen at the Kentucky Reptile Zoo, for example, run the largest venom laboratory in the USA and have 40 years of experience. They don’t spend their days looking for snakes to catch, milk, and release; they have 2,000 or so of them that they keep and breed. Those animals are milked regularly, and the zoo staff will often perform hundreds of extractions in a row over a matter of hours. When they heard what the production company was going for, they told Authentic that they were off track. “We told them that this show was not how the venom business works and turned them down unless they were willing to do the show right,” said Jim Harrison.
When a producer contacted Ray Morgan, director of the documentary The Venom Interviews, he flat-out told them their “whole premise isn’t real,” spending over an hour explaining the show’s flawed foundation. He described the conversation he had as “oddly interesting,” especially “her utter lack of concern over the veracity of their premise. Couldn’t care less.”
Unreality Television
“The truth of what we do is that it’s very repetitive,” Carl explained. “It’s not very fun to watch.” The show he was approached with—and the show that ran—was not what he does. But he doesn’t really hold that against the show’s stars or producers. “I don’t know what people were expecting. It’s just silly TV,” he said. “I didn’t expect it to have anything to do with my business.”
The “boring” truth is that real venom producers run facilities packed with captive snakes that they milk regularly. And that’s not the only thing the show got wrong. Venom Hunters also makes claims that antivenom shortages are from a lack of venom production, making every drop collected “liquid gold” (that’s literally the title of the first episode). But while antivenoms for some hard-hit areas are becoming scarce, the dearth of these life-saving medicines has nothing to do with the supply of venom (and everything to do with company cost/benefit ratios and pharmaceutical regulatory snafus—after all, the cost of producing antivenoms, from venom purchase to animal husbandry, only makes up 0.1% of the total cost of antivenoms). The venoms needed to produce antivenoms are abundant—just ask Jim about the kilograms of unsold stocks he has sitting in his freezers. He can’t charge much for the majority of venoms, as the demand for them is too low. Most species sell for less than $300 per gram—meanwhile, on Venom Hunters, the teams collected mere tenths of grams at a time, if they didn’t mess up the milking (Tim’s team made several mistakes, including a large snake overshooting the jar and spilling venom all over his team member’s hand, for example). That means that in terms of venom sales, the teams would have pulled in maybe $50 for a full day’s work done by two to three people, assuming they could sell the venom they collected.
It’s no wonder, then, that venom production is anything but a lucrative job prospect. “Am I getting rich producing venom? No!” laughed Carl. “I wish I was. I like Ferraris.” And although Jim Harrison sells venom through the Kentucky Reptile Zoo, that money is used to keep his facilities afloat, not line his pockets. As he explained to Business Insider, he doesn’t even take a salary.
Even venom hunter Brian Barczyk told me: “No one is getting rich from selling venom. Quite frankly, for me, personally, that was never the whole purpose of anything. I had other businesses going. Certainly, I wasn’t quitting my day job to sell venom.”
Barczyk’s own testimony is in direct conflict with how Discovery portrayed (and continues to portray) him:
Clearly, Discovery and Barczyk have different definitions of “day job”.
Built upon such a shaky foundation, it’s no wonder that Venom Hunters doesn’t perfectly depict the everyday lives of venom producers. But the show not only is inaccurate, in trying to sell the premise, Discovery descends from hyperbole and misdirection to outright fabrication. In Part II of this series, I’ll reveal the less-than-factual “facts” the show used to convince viewers of a premise they knew wasn’t true.
“However, the concept of an Ophiuchus astrological sign was not newly introduced in 2015, as we’ve been receiving inquiries regarding this purportedly imminent zodiacal change since as far back as 2002, and a reference to it was published to a NASA web page in 2011.”
“But leading astrological experts say this won’t change things at all. That’s because Western astrology strictly adheres to the tropical zodiac, which is fixed to seasons. The sidereal zodiac, observed in the East, is the one affixed to constellations, and is thus the one that would change. The tropical zodiac has been in place since Ptolemy’s in the second century.“Astrology is geocentric,” astrologer Jeff Jawer [said]. “It relates life on Earth to the Earth’s environment, and seasons are the most dramatic effect, which is why we use the tropical zodiac.“”
“Listen to the experts, and don’t believe everything you read until you check your facts. There are a lot of people out there who think they understand Astrology when they really don’t. Dailyhoroscope.com works only with authentic astrologers and we’ll be sure to keep you informed of the truth.”
Even if you don’t have a cat please reblog this for all your followers who may have their own precious little baby.
I HAD NO IDEA ABOUT TUNA OMFG
If I remember rightly it’s the trace elements of mercury in canned tuna that is toxic to them. Their kidneys can’t filter it out like human kidneys can.
ok im gonna break this down a bit because some of these are BLATANTLY untrue and it kills me every time i see this.
alcohol: not very good for humans, either, but alcohol effects pets the same way it effects humans: targeting the brain and the liver. the issue? it takes way less to kill your cat than it does a human. you weigh, on average, at least 100 pounds (or 10x) more than your cat does. 3 teaspoons of liquour could kill your cat. don’t do it. alcohol WILL poison your cat.
chocolate:
theobromine (and to a lesser degree, caffeine) is the issue with this one. humans? we can break this down in our bodies. cats, dogs, birds, ferrets? they can’t. it usually takes a pretty big amount of theobromine to cause a pet to actually die, though. it’s present in cocoa, so the higher % of cocoa in a chocolate, the less needs to be ingested to cause serious, life-threatening effects. baking chocolate has a high concentration of theobromine and 1 square can kill a cat or small dog. white chocolate is a low risk, on the other hand. chocolate CAN poison your cat, especially DARK and BAKING chocolate.
caffeine: same story as alcohol: not that great for humans either, causes similar effects as in humans… just quicker and with less caffeine ingested. elevated heartrate, seizures, etc. can be seen. dogs and cats are more sensitive to the effects than humans are. caffeine WILL poison your cat.
dairy: cats are lactose intolerant and so their bodies cannot properly break it down– much like how we can break down theobromine and cats/dogs can’t. however, it’s not going to poison your cat, just give them diarrhea and other gastrointestinal upset. dairy WILL NOT poison your cat, but will cause gastrointestinal upset and diarrhea, so it is strongly recommended to not give dairy products to your pets.
fat trimmings: fat trimmings are just fat. if you feed fat to your cats, they will become fat and/or it will increase the level of lipids in the blood, leading to diseases and complications like chronic pancreatitis, which can be fatal. fat trimmings WILL NOT poison your cat, but will lead to disease that can be fatal, so it is strongly recommended to not feed fat trimmings to any pets.
raw meat: cats can eat raw meat. cats are obligate carnivores. cats are designed to only eat meat, and raw meat is not of serious risk to them. disease carried in raw meat? not a problem when you are a cat who has evolved over millions of years to eat raw meat. i hate hearing “cats can’t eat raw meat!” from people with outdoor cats. you realise your cats are eating raw lizard and bird, right? raw meat has more nutrients than cooked meat (which we eat veggies & fruits to compensate for– cats can’t digest these) and, obviously, there are some diseases and bacteria that cats aren’t immune to but cats are less likely to eat rotten meat than dogs are, anyway. treat the meat like you treat human meat and it’s totally fine. cats are DESIGNED TO EAT AND DIGEST RAW MEAT! IT’S PERFECTLY FINE TO FEED YOUR CAT RAW MEAT, but make sure that the meat is in-date and properly stored/cared for. rotten or spoiled meat CAN lead to disease and poisoning, but the same goes for 90% of the animal population!
eggs: its ok to feed your cat eggs. im not even sure why this is a question. raw eggs rarely carry salmonella and even humans rarely contract salmonella from infected eggs. your average cat will never contract salmonella from raw eggs, only in an immuno-compromised cat would this ever be an issue. cats can safely eat raw and cooked eggs, as salmonella is pretty much only a concern in an immuno-compromised cat in the first place.
fish: see raw meat above. fish, however, is a bit of an exception because of higher levels of mercury & low levels of taurine and differing balances of phosphate and calcium mean that it’s not a sustainable diet for cats and could lead to mercury poisoning or bone disease if it is the only protein given. when given ~1 time a week and with varied proteins there is no issue. again, cats are DESIGNED TO EAT AND DIGEST FISH AND OTHER MEATS! however, previous warnings about storing fish correctly still applies, and proteins should be varied due to fish having different levels of phosphorous, calcium, and taurine and mercury content. a primary diet of fish CAN lead to bone disease or mercury poisoning in extreme cases.
grapes and raisins: admittedly, this one is a bit of a wild card. some pets eat raisins/grapes without an issue, but in others, these can cause renal failure and death rapidly. we still don’t know why. animals with prior kidney issues are more likely to be effected by grape/raisin toxicity, and cats are more likely to have kidney issues due to many cats not getting adequate moisture in their diet. grapes and raisins MAY lead to poisoning in some cats and dogs, especially those with pre-existing kidney conditions.
onions and garlic: yes! all members of the allium genus (shallots, scallions, leeks, etc. are included) contain thiosulphate which, when ingested by cats and dogs, can lead to a serious condition in the blood known as hemolytic anemia. basically: their red blood cells burst. this can be fatal and a small amount of onion/garlic/etc. is needed to cause clinically significant issues. onions, garlic, and other members of the allium genus CAN and WILL poison your pet in even small amounts.
tuna: see fish above. canned tuna tends to be soaked in oil which leads to the same issues as fat trimmings in increasing lipid count in the blood. sashimi quality tuna will also have higher concentration of mercury and shouldn’t be consumed more than occasionally in the cat’s diet. canned tuna in oil is often too fatty and leads to the same issues as eating fat trimmings, however, tuna steak/sashimi/etc. quality tuna is the same as other fish: occasional inclusion in the diet is fine!
xylitol: relatively small quantities of this (an artificial sweetener) will cause a sudden drop in blood sugar in dogs, which can lead to comas, seizures, or death. many times, if they are not rushed to the hospital immediately, they will die, and even then, they may suffer permanent liver damage. however… cats are not adversely affected, and typically aren’t attracted to foods w/xylitol in it in the first place. xylitol is NOT likely to poison your cat, but small amounts can KILL your dog, moreso than chocolate!
THANK YOU for providing a little sanity on this weird ass unsourced post.
Humans aren’t even born fully developed–our SKULLS aren’t even fully knitted together at birth!–and people want to believe we come preprogrammed with a gender?
Spare me.
KISS MY ASS!!!!!! KISS MY ASS!!!! NOW ALL THOSE DICKS AT MY SCHOOL CAN KISS MY GENDERLESS ASSS!!!!!!!!!!
@biologyweeps I am getting on a plane in too few hours and I am not allowing myself to look into this any further than I just did (which seems to be “the hippocampus is not different like we thought it was” rather than “we don’t have gender at all”) but perhaps you have time!
So I’ve seen a story circulating around social media, and I figured I would do a little debunking to prevent misinformation.
In the story, a woman claiming to be a black Pediatric/Cardiac Nurse states that a racist couple prevented her from caring for their infant, resulting in the child’s death.
As the daughter of a Critical Care Nurse (the highest certification level for a Nurse), and someone that works with Hospital Security and a police department that deals with the hospital on a daily basis…….nothing in her story makes sense.
Claim: She was the only person that could perform the life-saving task.
Fact: Nurses are primarily tasked with routine patient care and assisting doctors. Even CCRNs do not perform procedures themselves, and hospitals have a Code/Crash Team that responds to any critical situation. The doctors are the ones that actually perform complex or major tasks. Had she claimed to be the Specialist On Call, that would be more believable. But she stated she’s a nurse, and therefore would NOT have been the “only person capable of performing the task”.
Claim: The parents threatened and physically assaulted her, forcing her to leave the room.
Fact: Any time patients’ family causes problems, Security is called to remove them from the immediate area. If they threaten or assault staff, Police are called. Family are not allowed to interfere with the ability of staff to provide medical care. A police report is always filed should someone assault hospital staff.
Claim: Hospital Staff were forced to stand by and watch the baby die due to the parents’ hostility.
Fact: Hospitals have a Social Worker and/or Patient Advocate present, who is there to take over as the Custodian and Guardian of patients. They represent the rights of the patient, should the parents/guardians be endangering the patient or otherwise be felt to be a danger to them.
So in conclusion, the story reads as completely false based on my personal knowledge and experience.
ETA: It seems that she removed the story from her Twitter account, further indicating that something was fishy.
Seeing as this story had popped up on my dash a couple times…
Good info. I haven’t spend much time inside a hospital so some of those aspects of the story didn’t quite stand out as being glaringly strange to me, but after reading this it makes sense that the story isn’t very realistic.
yeahhh i didnt wanna say anything but as a healthcare professional her story held 0 water…
That story set off my “shit that didn’t happen” sensor extremely hard, but I merely passed it by because I certainly didn’t have any substantive reason to think it didn’t.
PiraticOctopus 