Glenmark Generics is issuing a nationwide recall of seven lots of birth control pills. The pills are labeled “norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol tablets.”
Because of a packaging error, some of the pills were placed in the wrong order within the packs, according to a statement from the Food and Drug Administration. The packs contain three types of pills with varying levels of hormones, designed to be taken at different times during a woman’s cycle.
The pills were rotated 180 degrees within the pack, so the weekly tablet orientation is reversed, and the lot number and expiration date are visible only on the outer pouch, according to the FDA. Any pack for which the lot number and expiry date is not visible is subject to recall.
Because of this error, the daily regimen for these oral contraceptives may be incorrect, leaving women without adequate contraception, and at risk for unintended pregnancy.
These packaging defects do not pose any immediate health risks, but consumers whose pills are affected should begin using a non-hormonal form of contraception immediately, the FDA said. Patients who have the products (lot numbers are provided below) should notify their physician and return the product to the pharmacy.
Lot numbers of affected packs are as follows: 04110101, 04110106, 04110107, 04110114, 04110124, 04110129 and 04110134. The packs were distributed nationwide between Sept. 21 and Dec. 30, 2011. The complete name of the product is norgestimate and ethinyl estradiol tablets USP, 0.18 mg/0.035 mg, 0.215 mg/0.035 mg, 0.25 mg/0.035 mg (Generic).
The error was discovered when a consumer complained she received a pack in which the tablets were packaged in reverse order, the FDA said.
In the correct packaging configuration, the top row contains seven white to off-white tablets, and the bottom row contains seven inactive, light green tablets in bottom row ( correctly packaged packs are pictured here ).
Last month, Pfizer recalled 28 lots of generic birth control pills labeled Norgestrel and Ethinyl Estradiol tablets, when the company found some packs contained an inexact count of inert or active ingredient tablets, and tablets out of sequence.
I am a feminist, and because I’m a feminist I critique every medium of media I come across on how it treats women, racial minorities, people with disabilities, other religions and cultures, people who aren’t straight or cisgender or sexual, and people who aren’t upper class. Pretty much every media is horrible towards all of those people. For some reason people don’t see that unless it’s porn.
One thing about porn that I like to point out is that the people involved in porn have given their consent. There are women, and feminists, who like to be submissive sexually or who are involved in S&M in that way. There’s a huge difference between how you want to be treated sexually and how you want to be treated as a person. …
“We haven’t gone for gritty, we’ve gone for grounded. If we try and make Batman, we’ll fail. The new Batman is it’s own thing - and also in terms of tone, Spider-Man is nothing like that character. Spider-Man is witty, Spider-Man is a kid, Spider-Man wants to have fun, he’s a teenager and he needs to go through first love and piss around”—
I like Lucy Liu, and I’m pleased they’re casting a WOC as Watson because TV NEVER does that, but I’m worried they’re just doing this so they can slap them together while avoiding homoeroticism or, heaven forbid, gay people.
in my experience network television rarely ever shies away from homoerotic subtext between two white male leads. what they do tend to avoid is TEXTUALLY portraying two male (or female) characters in a same-sex romance, or even bother to put queer characters in the background. so what you end up with is a lot of closeness between two guys (bcs women rarely get to be co-leads lbr) that isn’t ever allowed to be more than that, instead it’s just teased at. a lot. because the networks know we’ll eat it up. so you get a lot of coded ‘no-homo’ jokes that reinforce how it’s never going to happen, and in fact that the idea of it is laughable, and show creators chuckling nervously about how they’re flattered but the close partnership between the two dudes they wrote was soooo not intended to be read as romantic i mean ew right
which happens on show after show after show
and as I see it that is WAY more of a blatant rejection of homosexuality than genderflipping a traditionally male character. which is all that has happened here. the way i see it there’s a few leaps being made that make me unable to follow most of the concern trolling on my dash:
- that casting a woman is ‘hetting’ up ACD’s Holmes (when neither the original text nor ANY adaptation i can name were ever textually queer to begin with, as awesome as that would’ve been. i’m tired of subtext, when will we finally get some text?)
- that Joan and Sherlock are OBVIOUSLY going to hook up (which isn’t quite so obvious when the Joan is a woman of color, it’s just not) (but also the assumption that a woman would NATURALLY only be brought in so that a romance could happen is faulty because it stems from fandom’s tendency to conflate women with icky girly romance and other things that have no place in their traditionally male-centric canons).
- that Lucy Liu’s casting is the problem and not Jonny Lee Miller’s (when the only problem I can see is that Sherlock wasn’t also genderflipped).
Fandom’s rage over all this is very typical and it’s an extension of the boys’-club mentality that forms around canons that hyperfocus on white straight male homosocial relationships, and that tend to marginalize anyone who isn’t that. The shows (and there are a lot of them) do it, and then the fans follow suit. There’s a lot of valid reasons to not be on board with another Holmes adaptation, but I don’t think this is one of them because I’ve seen it too many times before.
Human race, why do you have to tear each other down all the time? There isn't really a ticker tape finish line somewhere that we're all trying to reach. There is no reason to be as mean, spiteful, and vindictive as you are toward one another. Someone else's happiness is not a threat to your own, okay? Please try to remember that.