cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5845995

Check it out.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5845995

Check it out.

Check it out.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5785682

Let's hope it goes through. 🙏🙏

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5785682

Let's hope it goes through. 🙏🙏

Let's hope it goes through. 🙏🙏

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5779704

Subtitle:

---

The letter, which was sent to the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, attempts to use consumer protection laws to make it against the law to support puberty blockers.

---

From the article:

---

On Tuesday, a group of 22 Republican attorneys general, led by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, sent a letter to the president and vice president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, accusing the organization of violating consumer protection laws by endorsing the use of puberty blockers. The letter also demands answers to 14 probing questions and extensive access to internal documents. While the letter carries no legal authority, states have increasingly used vague and broad consumer protection laws to investigate the records of gender-affirming care and abortion providers, often with little to no judicial oversight.

The letter, bearing the seal of the Idaho Attorney General's office, seeks to prohibit the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) from endorsing puberty blockers as a form of reversible gender-affirming care for transgender teenagers, using consumer protection laws as the basis. "Statements made by medical trade organizations, like the AAP, are subject to state consumer protection laws… misleading and deceptive statements of medical trade associations are connected to commerce and reach consumers," the letter states, asserting the authority of Republican-controlled states to challenge the AAP’s endorsement of puberty blockers and justify extensive investigations into the organization's documents.

The letter leans on flawed science and previous hit pieces from far-right, anti-transgender think tanks that have struggled to gain credibility in scientific and medical communities. It criticizes the organization for describing puberty blockers as “reversible,” a stance supported by several medical and scientific organizations, backed by studies, and decades of use in treating precocious puberty and other conditions. A review by the Sax Institute found that “two systematic reviews reported that puberty suppression treatment is reversible,” and that the treatment is “effective, safe, well tolerated, and reversible.”

The letter heavily references the Cass Review. On the second page, for example, it asserts that the claim puberty blockers are reversible is false, “beyond medical debate.” To support this assertion, it cites the Cass Review, which identifies several "possible" irreversible consequences, such as interference with neurocognitive development, bone density, and “blocking normal pubertal experience and experimentation.”

See this claim here:

These claims, however, are not well-supported by evidence. For instance, the assertion regarding neurocognitive development in the Cass Review is entirely speculative. In contrast, the Sax Review found that transgender youth who received gender-affirming hormone therapy demonstrated better cognitive development compared to those who did not, meaning that gender affirming care actually improved the cognitive development for many trans youth through a reduction in negative psychological symptoms. It likewise states that one study making this assertion did not control for ASD and anxiety, which have proven impacts on cognitive development. Other studies on brain development primarily focus on sheep or on youth experiencing precocious puberty.

Similarly, bone density concerns are frequently cited to justify bans on puberty blockers. However, the Sax Review notes that bone density reductions are “within one standard deviation of normal,” and that bone density is restored once puberty resumes. Additionally, most youth in the studies showing bone density reductions were deficient in vitamin D, according to the Sax Review. This is why the informed consent form for puberty blockers addresses this risk and its mitigation, stating, “It is important that patients on Lupron Depot® take other measures to protect their bones: keeping active and ensuring good calcium and Vitamin D intake.”

---

Read the rest here.

Just trying to support this person. Good Substack.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5779704

Subtitle:

---

The letter, which was sent to the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, attempts to use consumer protection laws to make it against the law to support puberty blockers.

---

From the article:

---

On Tuesday, a group of 22 Republican attorneys general, led by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, sent a letter to the president and vice president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, accusing the organization of violating consumer protection laws by endorsing the use of puberty blockers. The letter also demands answers to 14 probing questions and extensive access to internal documents. While the letter carries no legal authority, states have increasingly used vague and broad consumer protection laws to investigate the records of gender-affirming care and abortion providers, often with little to no judicial oversight.

The letter, bearing the seal of the Idaho Attorney General's office, seeks to prohibit the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) from endorsing puberty blockers as a form of reversible gender-affirming care for transgender teenagers, using consumer protection laws as the basis. "Statements made by medical trade organizations, like the AAP, are subject to state consumer protection laws… misleading and deceptive statements of medical trade associations are connected to commerce and reach consumers," the letter states, asserting the authority of Republican-controlled states to challenge the AAP’s endorsement of puberty blockers and justify extensive investigations into the organization's documents.

The letter leans on flawed science and previous hit pieces from far-right, anti-transgender think tanks that have struggled to gain credibility in scientific and medical communities. It criticizes the organization for describing puberty blockers as “reversible,” a stance supported by several medical and scientific organizations, backed by studies, and decades of use in treating precocious puberty and other conditions. A review by the Sax Institute found that “two systematic reviews reported that puberty suppression treatment is reversible,” and that the treatment is “effective, safe, well tolerated, and reversible.”

The letter heavily references the Cass Review. On the second page, for example, it asserts that the claim puberty blockers are reversible is false, “beyond medical debate.” To support this assertion, it cites the Cass Review, which identifies several "possible" irreversible consequences, such as interference with neurocognitive development, bone density, and “blocking normal pubertal experience and experimentation.”

See this claim here:

These claims, however, are not well-supported by evidence. For instance, the assertion regarding neurocognitive development in the Cass Review is entirely speculative. In contrast, the Sax Review found that transgender youth who received gender-affirming hormone therapy demonstrated better cognitive development compared to those who did not, meaning that gender affirming care actually improved the cognitive development for many trans youth through a reduction in negative psychological symptoms. It likewise states that one study making this assertion did not control for ASD and anxiety, which have proven impacts on cognitive development. Other studies on brain development primarily focus on sheep or on youth experiencing precocious puberty.

Similarly, bone density concerns are frequently cited to justify bans on puberty blockers. However, the Sax Review notes that bone density reductions are “within one standard deviation of normal,” and that bone density is restored once puberty resumes. Additionally, most youth in the studies showing bone density reductions were deficient in vitamin D, according to the Sax Review. This is why the informed consent form for puberty blockers addresses this risk and its mitigation, stating, “It is important that patients on Lupron Depot® take other measures to protect their bones: keeping active and ensuring good calcium and Vitamin D intake.”

---

Read the rest here.

Just trying to support this person. Good Substack.

Subtitle:

The letter, which was sent to the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, attempts to use consumer protection laws to make it against the law to support puberty blockers.

From the article:

On Tuesday, a group of 22 Republican attorneys general, led by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, sent a letter to the president and vice president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, accusing the organization of violating consumer protection laws by endorsing the use of puberty blockers. The letter also demands answers to 14 probing questions and extensive access to internal documents. While the letter carries no legal authority, states have increasingly used vague and broad consumer protection laws to investigate the records of gender-affirming care and abortion providers, often with little to no judicial oversight.

The letter, bearing the seal of the Idaho Attorney General's office, seeks to prohibit the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) from endorsing puberty blockers as a form of reversible gender-affirming care for transgender teenagers, using consumer protection laws as the basis. "Statements made by medical trade organizations, like the AAP, are subject to state consumer protection laws… misleading and deceptive statements of medical trade associations are connected to commerce and reach consumers," the letter states, asserting the authority of Republican-controlled states to challenge the AAP’s endorsement of puberty blockers and justify extensive investigations into the organization's documents.

The letter leans on flawed science and previous hit pieces from far-right, anti-transgender think tanks that have struggled to gain credibility in scientific and medical communities. It criticizes the organization for describing puberty blockers as “reversible,” a stance supported by several medical and scientific organizations, backed by studies, and decades of use in treating precocious puberty and other conditions. A review by the Sax Institute found that “two systematic reviews reported that puberty suppression treatment is reversible,” and that the treatment is “effective, safe, well tolerated, and reversible.”

The letter heavily references the Cass Review. On the second page, for example, it asserts that the claim puberty blockers are reversible is false, “beyond medical debate.” To support this assertion, it cites the Cass Review, which identifies several "possible" irreversible consequences, such as interference with neurocognitive development, bone density, and “blocking normal pubertal experience and experimentation.”

See this claim here:

These claims, however, are not well-supported by evidence. For instance, the assertion regarding neurocognitive development in the Cass Review is entirely speculative. In contrast, the Sax Review found that transgender youth who received gender-affirming hormone therapy demonstrated better cognitive development compared to those who did not, meaning that gender affirming care actually improved the cognitive development for many trans youth through a reduction in negative psychological symptoms. It likewise states that one study making this assertion did not control for ASD and anxiety, which have proven impacts on cognitive development. Other studies on brain development primarily focus on sheep or on youth experiencing precocious puberty.

Similarly, bone density concerns are frequently cited to justify bans on puberty blockers. However, the Sax Review notes that bone density reductions are “within one standard deviation of normal,” and that bone density is restored once puberty resumes. Additionally, most youth in the studies showing bone density reductions were deficient in vitamin D, according to the Sax Review. This is why the informed consent form for puberty blockers addresses this risk and its mitigation, stating, “It is important that patients on Lupron Depot® take other measures to protect their bones: keeping active and ensuring good calcium and Vitamin D intake.”

Read the rest here.

Just trying to support this person. Good Substack.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5776986

From the article below (more in the comments):

---

Games Workshop, the creators of Warhammer, have found themselves at the center of a drama that even Tzeentch might envy. But this time, it’s not about rule changes, lore retcons, or miniature prices—it’s about money. A good chunk of shareholders, like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Fidelity, recently raised their proverbial pitchforks over executive pay raises that could rival the vaults of the Imperial Palace. Let’s break down exactly why Games Workshop’s AGM (Annual General Meeting) looks to have turned into an intense session of “Who’s getting paid too much?”

What Sparked the Shareholder Backlash?

Imagine you’re a loyal shareholder. You love the company; you love the lore (or maybe just the dividends.) Then you notice your favorite game’s CEO, Kevin Rountree, is now earning close to three times what he made just four years ago. Not bad, right? Unlike last year’s hefty payout, there’s no new massive surprise dividend this year to sweeten the deal for you. For nearly 25% of the shareholders, this may have felt like a power move from the board while their wallets stayed the same.

Summary of the 2024 AGM Voting Results

At the 2024 AGM, shareholders were given the chance to vote on resolutions, including two particularly spicy ones, Resolutions 10 and 11. The problem? We don’t actually know what they were about specifically (because nothing’s ever that simple). However, when almost a quarter of your shareholders object to something, you might want to pay attention. The board said they’d “check in” on the matter in about six months. Sounds like a long cooldown, doesn’t it?

Let’s face it—when people see the phrase “executive pay hike,” it tends to stir feelings. And when that increase more than doubles the salary of key figures in the company (not to mention even higher jumps for non-executive directors), shareholders begin to question the fairness of the power balance.

The Role of Major Institutional Investors (Fidelity, Vanguard, BlackRock)

Financial titans. Fidelity, Vanguard, BlackRock—names that could almost be mistaken for rival factions in a new Warhammer expansion. These big players control vast chunks of shares, and they’re not the type to be amused by excessive pay hikes without corresponding gains. When institutions this large feel their investments aren’t being properly managed, even Space Marines couldn’t save you from the incoming pushback.

Kevin Rountree’s Salary: A Significant Jump Since 2020

Speaking of big moves on the battlefield, Kevin Rountree has been leveling up faster than an overfed Tyranid. Back in 2020, Rountree’s base salary was around £700,000. By 2024, he’s knocking on the door of £2 million annually. That’s quite the pay rise—especially when you add another £2 million in stock at his disposal. It’s the kind of reward you’d expect after single-handedly slaying a dragon (or managing a tabletop empire). But in the eyes of some, this rate of salary increase may seem like a special character in the rulebook getting too many overpowered abilities at once.

CEO Compensation Tripled in 4 Years

Rountree’s income has tripled in four short years. That’s right—threefold in the time it takes for a typical Warhammer edition to come and go. When you see a leap like that, eyebrows tend to raise faster than the point costs in a new codex. While Games Workshop has undoubtedly been successful, some shareholders might be wondering if it’s necessary for the CEO’s pay to inflate quite so aggressively, especially when dividends don’t seem to be flying in as frequently as some would hope.

Rountree’s £2 million package includes his base salary, bonuses, and a little something extra in stock awards. Bonuses doubled between 2020 and 2021 when the latest remuneration policy was given the green light. With his base salary and bonuses alone, the man is pulling in enough to buy more than a few Battleforces every year (and maybe even have some extra for Forgeworld minis).

Impact of the Remuneration Policy Approved in 2021

That brings us to the 2021 remuneration policy—the mystical document that opened the vaults of the empire for Rountree and the board of directors. This policy essentially sets the guidelines for how executives get paid, and once approved, it led to significant salary increases. While it clearly worked for some (looking at you, Rountree), a growing group of shareholders seem to be questioning if it went too far. Perhaps the salary buffs have become a little unbalanced, and like any game, a rebalance might be in order.

Board Member Pay Raises: The Source of Shareholder Concern?

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5776986

From the article below (more in the comments):

---

Games Workshop, the creators of Warhammer, have found themselves at the center of a drama that even Tzeentch might envy. But this time, it’s not about rule changes, lore retcons, or miniature prices—it’s about money. A good chunk of shareholders, like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Fidelity, recently raised their proverbial pitchforks over executive pay raises that could rival the vaults of the Imperial Palace. Let’s break down exactly why Games Workshop’s AGM (Annual General Meeting) looks to have turned into an intense session of “Who’s getting paid too much?”

What Sparked the Shareholder Backlash?

Imagine you’re a loyal shareholder. You love the company; you love the lore (or maybe just the dividends.) Then you notice your favorite game’s CEO, Kevin Rountree, is now earning close to three times what he made just four years ago. Not bad, right? Unlike last year’s hefty payout, there’s no new massive surprise dividend this year to sweeten the deal for you. For nearly 25% of the shareholders, this may have felt like a power move from the board while their wallets stayed the same.

Summary of the 2024 AGM Voting Results

At the 2024 AGM, shareholders were given the chance to vote on resolutions, including two particularly spicy ones, Resolutions 10 and 11. The problem? We don’t actually know what they were about specifically (because nothing’s ever that simple). However, when almost a quarter of your shareholders object to something, you might want to pay attention. The board said they’d “check in” on the matter in about six months. Sounds like a long cooldown, doesn’t it?

Let’s face it—when people see the phrase “executive pay hike,” it tends to stir feelings. And when that increase more than doubles the salary of key figures in the company (not to mention even higher jumps for non-executive directors), shareholders begin to question the fairness of the power balance.

The Role of Major Institutional Investors (Fidelity, Vanguard, BlackRock)

Financial titans. Fidelity, Vanguard, BlackRock—names that could almost be mistaken for rival factions in a new Warhammer expansion. These big players control vast chunks of shares, and they’re not the type to be amused by excessive pay hikes without corresponding gains. When institutions this large feel their investments aren’t being properly managed, even Space Marines couldn’t save you from the incoming pushback.

Kevin Rountree’s Salary: A Significant Jump Since 2020

Speaking of big moves on the battlefield, Kevin Rountree has been leveling up faster than an overfed Tyranid. Back in 2020, Rountree’s base salary was around £700,000. By 2024, he’s knocking on the door of £2 million annually. That’s quite the pay rise—especially when you add another £2 million in stock at his disposal. It’s the kind of reward you’d expect after single-handedly slaying a dragon (or managing a tabletop empire). But in the eyes of some, this rate of salary increase may seem like a special character in the rulebook getting too many overpowered abilities at once.

CEO Compensation Tripled in 4 Years

Rountree’s income has tripled in four short years. That’s right—threefold in the time it takes for a typical Warhammer edition to come and go. When you see a leap like that, eyebrows tend to raise faster than the point costs in a new codex. While Games Workshop has undoubtedly been successful, some shareholders might be wondering if it’s necessary for the CEO’s pay to inflate quite so aggressively, especially when dividends don’t seem to be flying in as frequently as some would hope.

Rountree’s £2 million package includes his base salary, bonuses, and a little something extra in stock awards. Bonuses doubled between 2020 and 2021 when the latest remuneration policy was given the green light. With his base salary and bonuses alone, the man is pulling in enough to buy more than a few Battleforces every year (and maybe even have some extra for Forgeworld minis).

Impact of the Remuneration Policy Approved in 2021

That brings us to the 2021 remuneration policy—the mystical document that opened the vaults of the empire for Rountree and the board of directors. This policy essentially sets the guidelines for how executives get paid, and once approved, it led to significant salary increases. While it clearly worked for some (looking at you, Rountree), a growing group of shareholders seem to be questioning if it went too far. Perhaps the salary buffs have become a little unbalanced, and like any game, a rebalance might be in order.

Board Member Pay Raises: The Source of Shareholder Concern?

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5776986

From the article below (more in the comments):

---

Games Workshop, the creators of Warhammer, have found themselves at the center of a drama that even Tzeentch might envy. But this time, it’s not about rule changes, lore retcons, or miniature prices—it’s about money. A good chunk of shareholders, like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Fidelity, recently raised their proverbial pitchforks over executive pay raises that could rival the vaults of the Imperial Palace. Let’s break down exactly why Games Workshop’s AGM (Annual General Meeting) looks to have turned into an intense session of “Who’s getting paid too much?”

What Sparked the Shareholder Backlash?

Imagine you’re a loyal shareholder. You love the company; you love the lore (or maybe just the dividends.) Then you notice your favorite game’s CEO, Kevin Rountree, is now earning close to three times what he made just four years ago. Not bad, right? Unlike last year’s hefty payout, there’s no new massive surprise dividend this year to sweeten the deal for you. For nearly 25% of the shareholders, this may have felt like a power move from the board while their wallets stayed the same.

Summary of the 2024 AGM Voting Results

At the 2024 AGM, shareholders were given the chance to vote on resolutions, including two particularly spicy ones, Resolutions 10 and 11. The problem? We don’t actually know what they were about specifically (because nothing’s ever that simple). However, when almost a quarter of your shareholders object to something, you might want to pay attention. The board said they’d “check in” on the matter in about six months. Sounds like a long cooldown, doesn’t it?

Let’s face it—when people see the phrase “executive pay hike,” it tends to stir feelings. And when that increase more than doubles the salary of key figures in the company (not to mention even higher jumps for non-executive directors), shareholders begin to question the fairness of the power balance.

The Role of Major Institutional Investors (Fidelity, Vanguard, BlackRock)

Financial titans. Fidelity, Vanguard, BlackRock—names that could almost be mistaken for rival factions in a new Warhammer expansion. These big players control vast chunks of shares, and they’re not the type to be amused by excessive pay hikes without corresponding gains. When institutions this large feel their investments aren’t being properly managed, even Space Marines couldn’t save you from the incoming pushback.

Kevin Rountree’s Salary: A Significant Jump Since 2020

Speaking of big moves on the battlefield, Kevin Rountree has been leveling up faster than an overfed Tyranid. Back in 2020, Rountree’s base salary was around £700,000. By 2024, he’s knocking on the door of £2 million annually. That’s quite the pay rise—especially when you add another £2 million in stock at his disposal. It’s the kind of reward you’d expect after single-handedly slaying a dragon (or managing a tabletop empire). But in the eyes of some, this rate of salary increase may seem like a special character in the rulebook getting too many overpowered abilities at once.

CEO Compensation Tripled in 4 Years

Rountree’s income has tripled in four short years. That’s right—threefold in the time it takes for a typical Warhammer edition to come and go. When you see a leap like that, eyebrows tend to raise faster than the point costs in a new codex. While Games Workshop has undoubtedly been successful, some shareholders might be wondering if it’s necessary for the CEO’s pay to inflate quite so aggressively, especially when dividends don’t seem to be flying in as frequently as some would hope.

Rountree’s £2 million package includes his base salary, bonuses, and a little something extra in stock awards. Bonuses doubled between 2020 and 2021 when the latest remuneration policy was given the green light. With his base salary and bonuses alone, the man is pulling in enough to buy more than a few Battleforces every year (and maybe even have some extra for Forgeworld minis).

Impact of the Remuneration Policy Approved in 2021

That brings us to the 2021 remuneration policy—the mystical document that opened the vaults of the empire for Rountree and the board of directors. This policy essentially sets the guidelines for how executives get paid, and once approved, it led to significant salary increases. While it clearly worked for some (looking at you, Rountree), a growing group of shareholders seem to be questioning if it went too far. Perhaps the salary buffs have become a little unbalanced, and like any game, a rebalance might be in order.

Board Member Pay Raises: The Source of Shareholder Concern?