Mardukas

I feel like a leak investigation of that size mist be due after all that drinking...

"If A is true, everything hinges on B" does not imply that everything, independent of A or not, hinges on B.

It is i

But they "welcomed" the friction. I do not think I have ever heard someone "welcome" an inconvenience.

If you mean wRiggle In Piss in the last panel? Then, sure.

This a typical "grindset" opinion and it is retarded. People deserve to get payed. The the owner class is allowed to undercut some people, who are used to even less, does not justify keeping wages low.

This is the part that should tell me that 90% of the finding between 2013-2023 excludes women?

Where does it say that? It says

An analysis by the committee that wrote the report finds that just 8.8 percent of NIH grant spending from 2013 to 2023 focused on women’s health research

A bigger portion of the finding needs to go towards finding out if there really are sex differences. But this is not the same as 92.2% of spending ignores women.

According to the article the NIH has been required to include women in medical research since the 90s and have been required to determine whether there are any expected sex differences since 2016.

Also, if they determine that there are no sex differences, does it matter if the research has been conducted on female animals or not?

No not really. Whilst it may not be gender agnostic, including both men and women does not make research for male bodies. Sure, historically this has been a problem and this is why it became a requirement to include women in the 90's, who h is mentioned in the article.

Yes I did but I had trouble understanding what the number meant. The article in question made it seem like the remaining funding ignored women when it didn't. That number corresponds to funding specific to women. It does not mean ober 90% is male focused. That's why I was interested in how much was male-only funding as this number would be better at revealing the inequality.

No they aren't mutually exclusive, that's true. But if women-only research funding is below 10%, this says nothing about male-only funding. From what I could find that majority of funding goes to research that is gender agnostic. The problem seems to be that when gender specific funding is warranted, male-specific conditions seemed to get more attention than made sense. If the goal is to have equality in healthcare, is this not promising?