It is irresponsible and slightly suspicious that they hype the percentage without letting people know that that percentage also has to do with her family history and not solely association with the gene. However, this article is really stretching to make some connections. I would certainly stay open to the possibility that there are financial interest connecting the media and these companies that hold the gene patents. It's also in there interest because biotech in general wants greater rights to patent. The precedent set, for say, a seed company's right to patent seeds, is seen as obvious in light of a decision that allows a company to patent your non-engineered genes. But to say that having this test covered by insurance is a corporate handout sounds like the argument the insurance companies would make. Obamacare is a handout, don't get me wrong, but requiring them to cover more procedures relating to women's health is about making insurance cover possibly life saving procedures for women that they refused to pay for until mandated. And somehow the author concludes the exact opposite about women's rights, without ever really explaining, how in their framing, this relates to women's rights. They are talking about the rights of the public to not have there genes patented, not exactly a women's right. Indeed the piece's main point is not even well substantiated, the graph they post in the article shows nothing, the day she released the news is the last day in a month long rally in this companies price. What that really shows is that even if there was a gain on the day of the Jolie story, it was one day at the end of a month that saw a huge serge in there stock price. You would think if you wanted to prove that this increased there value you would want the days after the announcement, not before, but maybe that is because if they had looked at the days after, it would reveal counter to their argument, that there has actually been a steady decline in value.
;oh and the article talks about how this would 'only' affect 1 in 1200 women, which if is correct, would mean that only about 250,000 women would be affected in america, or around 6 million worldwide. not exactly an insignificant number. And my final critic would be that since the supreme court is not elected and sits for life, public opinion has little sway on their decisions.
Natural News isn't always the most credible source. They have broken some major stories though, so not to be discounted completely. The stock chart doesn't support the claims. I included it to note the profit motive driving this type of medical technology. I also used the article less for its specific content and more as a jumping-off point to discuss the larger ramifications of this disclosure. It's a high-profile cancer case and it is linked to genetics, rather than all of the environmental sources and causes of cancer. It also highlights the disparity between rich and famous actor and CFR member Jolie being able to not only afford the procedure but also the subsequent reconstructive surgery to maintain her image, and those who would be forever scarred assuming they could pay for the amputation alone. I can imagine a future in which class is delineated by those women who can flaunt their wealth on their chests and the preventatively mutilated masses whose wounds are not a badge of honor but rather a permanent designation as one of the genetically impure poor. Beyond that are the frightening implications of gene-patenting and the links to eugenics. Now cancer is being framed in the minds of the masses as a genetic deficiency to be engineered out rather than a product of an environment saturated by harmful pollutants. Its another example of solving systemic problems with cures generated by that same system.
3 comments:
It is irresponsible and slightly suspicious that they hype the percentage without letting people know that that percentage also has to do with her family history and not solely association with the gene. However, this article is really stretching to make some connections. I would certainly stay open to the possibility that there are financial interest connecting the media and these companies that hold the gene patents. It's also in there interest because biotech in general wants greater rights to patent. The precedent set, for say, a seed company's right to patent seeds, is seen as obvious in light of a decision that allows a company to patent your non-engineered genes. But to say that having this test covered by insurance is a corporate handout sounds like the argument the insurance companies would make. Obamacare is a handout, don't get me wrong, but requiring them to cover more procedures relating to women's health is about making insurance cover possibly life saving procedures for women that they refused to pay for until mandated. And somehow the author concludes the exact opposite about women's rights, without ever really explaining, how in their framing, this relates to women's rights. They are talking about the rights of the public to not have there genes patented, not exactly a women's right. Indeed the piece's main point is not even well substantiated, the graph they post in the article shows nothing, the day she released the news is the last day in a month long rally in this companies price. What that really shows is that even if there was a gain on the day of the Jolie story, it was one day at the end of a month that saw a huge serge in there stock price. You would think if you wanted to prove that this increased there value you would want the days after the announcement, not before, but maybe that is because if they had looked at the days after, it would reveal counter to their argument, that there has actually been a steady decline in value.
;oh and the article talks about how this would 'only' affect 1 in 1200 women, which if is correct, would mean that only about 250,000 women would be affected in america, or around 6 million worldwide. not exactly an insignificant number. And my final critic would be that since the supreme court is not elected and sits for life, public opinion has little sway on their decisions.
Natural News isn't always the most credible source. They have broken some major stories though, so not to be discounted completely. The stock chart doesn't support the claims. I included it to note the profit motive driving this type of medical technology. I also used the article less for its specific content and more as a jumping-off point to discuss the larger ramifications of this disclosure. It's a high-profile cancer case and it is linked to genetics, rather than all of the environmental sources and causes of cancer. It also highlights the disparity between rich and famous actor and CFR member Jolie being able to not only afford the procedure but also the subsequent reconstructive surgery to maintain her image, and those who would be forever scarred assuming they could pay for the amputation alone. I can imagine a future in which class is delineated by those women who can flaunt their wealth on their chests and the preventatively mutilated masses whose wounds are not a badge of honor but rather a permanent designation as one of the genetically impure poor. Beyond that are the frightening implications of gene-patenting and the links to eugenics. Now cancer is being framed in the minds of the masses as a genetic deficiency to be engineered out rather than a product of an environment saturated by harmful pollutants. Its another example of solving systemic problems with cures generated by that same system.
Post a Comment