The data is not there. It’s possibly carcinogenic but they say that about loads of stuff. I’m glad she’s convinced and think people should refrain from putting anything in their vaginas for the purpose of “cleaning" it but that doesn't change the data.

That may very well be, but the evidence doesn't support it as fact.

Talc use in general was not recently linked to cancer. Dubious evidence suggests that placing talc inside of your vagina may be linked to ovarian cancer.

That’s a company thing, though. She should absolutely report him to HR. But it’s not HIPAA. I’m not trying to be a dick about her experience, I just think it’s important for people to understand where that privacy law extends.

In that case, they may have violated your organizational rule but it is not HIPAA.

Correct. It would be a violation on the part of the insurance company but yes. In either if she told him, he violated a social contract but not a legal one. Which sucks beyond belief, but is an important distinction for people to know.

It says very clearly on the HIPAA page that you are wrong. Th company may bind you, but federal legislation does not.

“Not directly relevant” is a weebit of an understatement here beets.

Thank you so much for sharing your story with us.

This is incredible and thank you for bringing attention to it.

This is fascinating and some much needed further context for the protests around the sexual assault case.

This changes depending on the age of the mother (trying later in life sometimes adds an urgency that leads to earlier fertility treatments) or known medical conditions, but doctors typically don’t even consider something wrong until after the one year mark of dedicated trying.

Honestly not sure if you’re being sarcastic because of the two different replies, but taking a leap of faith that this is genuine, I'm glad you see the problem with it.

You do realize you just basically wrote a spousal rape fantasy story on a feminist site right?

Old is relevant because he has a different perspective on journalism and ethics than people who are coming into it now (and readers in 2016) may have — something which is clearly the case because he thought the whole thing was nbd.

I was totally shocked that it didn’t get more coverage. An old white male author (one already getting heat in the media cycle for another issue) admits to willfully violating the privacy of others in an article that borderline glorifies the criminal and completely ignores the impact on the victims being spied on.

No, I was responding to someone who said they thought they should get antibiotics on demand for UTIs — Kinja makes it virtually impossible to see who is responding to who so I get the confusion, sorry to snipe.

I'm aware. Your point being?

In this case it was probably more that she was on immunosuppressants from the transplant but either one is possible.

Truth. Overuse of anti anything really. Bacteria/viruses/fungi are smart, adaptive fuckers and it's best not to give them the constant opportunity to try out our arsenal.