upworthy
More

3 months ago, the FDA yelled at Kim Kardashian — and revealed a much bigger problem.

Kim Kardashian, former breaker of the Internet and star of "That Show You Watch on the Treadmill," is pregnant.

But will she get her baby body back??? AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW!!!

Unfortunately, pregnancy hasn't been all baby bump, push present, and smooth sailing for the reality star. Like most expectant mothers, Kardashian has suffered from occasional, painful bouts of morning sickness.

Fortunately, unlike most of her pregnant cohort, Kardashian was able to take that suffering, grab it by the collar, and monetize the ever-loving bejeezus out of it.


For those who hate squinting, that's Kardashian singing the praises of a morning sickness drug called Diclegis.

Just, you know, giving it some completely spontaneous love on social media. Like normal people do. For their 37 million friends. A genuine, heartfelt, totally-not-secretly-highly-compensated-stealth-endorsement from your bud, who definitely has real actual personal experience using the product in question.

Who wouldn't believe her?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for one.

An FDA official, seen here making sure some lettuce isn't a deadly biohazard. Photo by the FDA.

Turns out, Kardashian's post was, in fact, a paid advertisement. (I know. Try to remain calm.) Not only was it a paid advertisement, but it was a paid advertisement that left out some pretty crucial information about some of the drug's pretty nasty potential side effects.

Because of the vast reach of Kardashian's Instagram feed, the agency was compelled to issue a response — and it was an ornery one:

"The social media post is false or misleading in that it presents efficacy claims for DICLEGIS, but fails to communicate any risk information associated with its use and it omits material facts. Thus, the social media post misbrands DICLEGIS within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and makes its distribution violative. ... These violations are concerning from a public health perspective because they suggest that DICLEGIS is safer than has been demonstrated."

Two things should be immediately clear from the FDA statement.

1. It would make amazing Adele lyrics...

"Amazing."

And...

2. Taking medical advice from a reality TV star is a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, Kim Kardashian is just the tip of the iceberg...

Prescription drug ads in general — even ones that do get their facts right — are kind of the worst.

Abilify has been great for my anxiet ... AAAGGHH A SENTIENT BATHROBE IS FOLLOWING ME AAAAGGHH! Photo by Raza Syed, used with permission.

If you watch any TV at all, chances are you've seen at least a bajillion-and-a-half commercials urging you to "talk to your doctor" about Nexium, Cialis, Novorex, Fontainebleau, Prospector Pete's Tooth Caulk, or what have you if you experience any number of vague, over-broad symptoms.

Sneezing? Talk to your doctor about oxycodone. Photo via iStock.

And sure, you could demand your doctor write you this or that prescription. And they'd probably smile and nod. Most likely, they'd try to gently talk you down. But there's a chance they would just decide it's not worth the trouble and give you what you want — even if it's a drug you don't actually need. And that's where the problem lies.

Asking a professional to disregard their hard-won expertise on the advice of a commercial is kind of ridiculous when you think about it.

How ridiculous? Just ... imagine any of the following scenarios:

"Donating to earthquake relief in Haiti? Talk to your charity about sending your cash to Sweden instead."

"Claiming a deduction for that charitable gift you just made? Talk to your accountant about turning it into a home mortgage interest deduction!"

"And speaking of home, why does your home have to be made of bricks and mortar? Talk to your builder about graham crackers and strawberry cream cheese."

Sturdy as a rock! Photo by rcstanley/Flickr.

That's what drug ads are trying to get you to do.

Doctors aren't perfect, of course. They're human, and they do get things wrong from time to time. But drug commercials are essentially hoping you'll go to your physician and say, "Sure, you've got professional integrity, six years of graduate school, and took an oath to do no harm, but what about this 30-second B-roll of women in bathtubs voiced by the third lead actor from 'Suits' that I just saw? How does that stack up?"

They're trying to Kardashian you.

Not only are these ads often misleading, they also help drive up the price of drugs.

It's no secret that Americans like things bigger and better.

A "small" in America.

Our towels are plusher. Our French fries are more fried. Our hats are larger.

And our drugs are the most expensive in the world — often double the price of what they are in other similarly wealthy countries.

The United States is one of only two countries in the world that allow direct-to-consumer drug ads — and we pay extra for medicine because of it.

New Zealand is the other. Obviously, there's worse company we could be in. Photo by thinboyfatter/Flickr.

Turn on British TV, and you won't see Benedict Cumberbatch striding purposely across a cricket pitch, saying, "Pardon me, sir, but if it's not terribly much of a bother, would you mind inquiring with your physician about Crumpetrex?" Watch television in Germany, and no one will urge you to "ASKEN ZE DOCTOR FIR SCHNITZELGRAZ!"

We are the only suckers who get those ads shoved in our faces. (New Zealanders do too, but they get hobbits in exchange.)

And pharmaceutical companies go buck-wild on these ads ... spending $20 billion over the past five years.

That cost gets passed on to sick people (and to people who pester their dermatologist until she throws up her hands and signs over a prescription for Cialis so she can move on to her next wart-freezing already).

Regardless of our reasons for needing a medication, that's not a cost we should be paying.

Like Kim Kardashian's Instagram feed, drug commercials serve pretty much no practical purpose — and there's no reason they couldn't quietly disappear forever.

Serious doctors mean business. Photo via iStock.

That's what the American Medical Association — the largest professional organization of physicians in the United States — wants, which is why it voted to call for a ban on the ads last week.

"Today's vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially driven promotions and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices," Dr. Patrice Harris, a member of the AMA board, told the Chicago Tribune. (Come on, Adele, are you seeing this? So much gold here!)

That's a great first step. But there's still more that could be done.

Unfortunately, the AMA vote doesn't address subtle social media ads like Kardashian's, which could lead pharmaceutical companies to simply shift their ad dollars toward efforts on platforms like Facebook and Instagram. (And let's be honest, who among us wouldn't share a Facebook-optimized George Takei meme featuring dancing arthritic cats, sponsored by Celebrex?)

Meow to your doc ... purrrrr about Celebrex! Photo via iStock.

It also doesn't address direct-to-physician marketing, in which drug companies use sales representatives to tout the benefits of their medications to doctors in person, which accounts for a huge portion of pharmaceutical industry spending — in addition to just being generally kind of shady. ("Funny, my doctor prescribed me the exact same medication that was featured on that nifty pen in his office!)

If we really want our drugs to pull even price-wise with the Canadas and Norways of the world, a federal law that calls for transparency, competition, and fair pricing needs to be passed and enforced.

As for Kim Kardashian? She ultimately made good on her endorsement deal...

...and satisfied the FDA in the process.

#CorrectiveAd I guess you saw the attention my last #morningsickness post received. The FDA has told Duchesnay, Inc., that my last post about Diclegis (doxylamine succinate and pyridoxine HCl) was incomplete because it did not include any risk information or important limitations of use for Diclegis. A link to this information accompanied the post, but this didn't meet FDA requirements. So, I'm re-posting and sharing this important information about Diclegis. For US Residents Only. Diclegis is a prescription medicine used to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy in women who have not improved with change in diet or other non-medicine treatments. Limitation of Use: Diclegis has not been studied in women with hyperemesis gravidarum. Important Safety Information Do not take Diclegis if you are allergic to doxylamine succinate, other ethanolamine derivative antihistamines, pyridoxine hydrochloride or any of the ingredients in Diclegis. You should also not take Diclegis in combination with medicines called monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), as these medicines can intensify and prolong the adverse CNS effects of Diclegis. The most common side effect of Diclegis is drowsiness. Do not drive, operate heavy machinery, or other activities that need your full attention unless your healthcare provider says that you may do so. Do not drink alcohol, or take other central nervous system depressants such as cough and cold medicines, certain pain medicines, and medicines that help you sleep while you take Diclegis. Severe drowsiness can happen or become worse causing falls or accidents. Tell your healthcare provider about all of your medical conditions, including if you are breastfeeding or plan to breastfeed. Diclegis can pass into your breast milk and may harm your baby. You should not breastfeed while using Diclegis. Additional safety information can be found at www.DiclegisImportantSafetyinfo.com or www.Diclegis.com. Duchesnay USA encourages you to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
A photo posted by Kim Kardashian West (@kimkardashian) on


Maybe not ... quite as catchy. But ... progress?

Badge
Adobe
Adobe
Technology

Here’s how one nonprofit org is using Adobe to change the world

Adobe empowers nonprofits to fundraise, advocate, and further their missions.

True

In 2024, it’s practically impossible to function as a nonprofit without the right digital resources. Nonprofits use computer systems and applications for things like education, fundraising, engaging clients, and communicating with donors. However, with limited funding and expertise, it's often difficult to get the digital tools they need to fully support their missions.

The planet needs nonprofit organizations, and nonprofits need better digital tools. For decades, Adobe has provided nonprofits with the tools they need to fulfill their mission—helping them with everything from social media advocacy to educational videos to graphic design. Now, Adobe is offering the pro version of Adobe Acrobat for Nonprofits, the most requested and comprehensive set of document and e-signature tools, for just $15 per user per year, which represents a 94% annual savings off the regular price. This will make it easier than ever for nonprofits to streamline business processes and increase their impact with engaging educational and fundraising assets – from annual reports, contracts and grant submissions to brochures and white papers.

Keep reading to hear more about how Adobe helped one nonprofit improve efficiencies and giveback potential – and how you can start using Adobe tools today for your organization.

A nonprofit success story

Albert Manero, a mechanical engineer and graduate of the University of Central Florida, founded Limbitless Solutions, Inc., as a passion project in a small lab. Today, Limbitless is celebrating its 10-year anniversary and has grown into an interdisciplinary team based at the University of Central Florida in Orlando that includes 50 interns with nine different fields of expertise. Their mission? To inspire and empower underserved communities through creative, accessible technology.

Manero and his team of experts create bionic, 3D-printed arms for children with limb differences. Combining visual storytelling with art and engineering, the Limbitless team wants children with limb differences to feel included and capable, while at the same time, able to express their personal identity more fully. Developing bionic arms covered in flowers or designed like Iron Man’s armor, kids with these bionic limbs can not only grip objects, hold hands and more, but can feel empowered to be themselves.

Using Adobe to make a difference

Limbitless, like many others, has utilized Adobe for Nonprofits offerings, which gives nonprofit organizations access to Adobe programs at a deeply discounted rate, including access programs like Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Express and Adobe Acrobat as well as Adobe’s 3D tools.

Adobe solutions are the oil that keeps organizations running smoothly behind the scenes. For the grant application and reporting processes, employees at Limbitless have credited Adobe Acrobat with helping the team secure funding and communicating clearly with donors and partners. With Acrobat, they’re able to create, edit, and manage PDF documents that look professional and polished. The company has also transitioned most of its internal documentation to digital formats using Acrobat. This includes everything from design blueprints, brand guidelines, intern contracts, and user manuals for bionic limbs.

Better tech for a better future

In addition to helping day-to-day operations run smoothly, Adobe has also helped bring Limbitless’ mission of inclusion and accessibility outside of office walls.

Using Adobe Express, the fast and easy create-anything app, Limbitless has been able to create quick how-to videos for young patients and their families that showcase how to use their bionic limbs, as well as a series of videos promoting STEAM (science, technology, engineering art and math) education. The company’s Operations, Advocacy, and Logistics team utilizes Express as well, developing content and visual assets for their social media accounts. Recently, Limbitless partnered with the Adobe Express’ Animate Characters team to create six unique, limb-different selectable avatar characters for their educational outreach and social media campaigns.

And Adobe is helping Limbitless empower kids with limb differences, too: Limbitless’ comic series, Bionic Kid, was created using Adobe Illustrator and features a superhero with limb differences who uses a Limbitless prosthetic arm. This inspired a fundraising concept initiated from the idea by a Limbitless prosthetic recipient Zachary Pamboukas, which has been used in fundraising efforts for more bionic arms and has already raised over $20,000.

Inside the organization and out, Adobe is enabling people to reach their full potential, contributing to better nonprofit organizations and, overall, a better world.

Learn more about the new Adobe Acrobat for Nonprofits offering and explore more ways Adobe can help your organization today.

From Your Site Articles
Innovation

Astronaut shares the profound 'big lie' he realized after seeing the Earth from space

This change in perspective could change humanity.

via Rubén Moreno Montolíu/Flickr

Our home, from space.

Sixty-one years ago, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to make it into space and probably the first to experience what scientists now call the "overview effect." This change occurs when people see the world from far above and notice that it’s a place where “borders are invisible, where racial, religious and economic strife are nowhere to be seen.”

The overview effect makes man’s squabbles with one another seem incredibly petty and presents the planet as it truly is, one interconnected organism.

In a compelling interview with Big Think, astronaut, author and humanitarian Ron Garan explains how if more of us developed this planetary perspective we could fix much of what ails humanity and the planet.

Garan has spent 178 days in space and traveled more than 71 million miles in 2,842 orbits. From high above, he realized that the planet is a lot more fragile than he thought.

“When I looked out the window of the International Space Station, I saw the paparazzi-like flashes of lightning storms, I saw dancing curtains of auroras that seemed so close it was as if we could reach out and touch them. And I saw the unbelievable thinness of our planet's atmosphere. In that moment, I was hit with the sobering realization that that paper-thin layer keeps every living thing on our planet alive,” Garan said in the video.

“I saw an iridescent biosphere teeming with life,” he continues. “I didn't see the economy. But since our human-made systems treat everything, including the very life-support systems of our planet, as the wholly owned subsidiary of the global economy, it's obvious from the vantage point of space that we're living a lie.”

It was at that moment he realized that humanity needs to reevaluate its priorities.

“We need to move from thinking economy, society, planet to planet, society, economy. That's when we're going to continue our evolutionary process,” he added.

Garan says that we are paying a very “high price” as a civilization for our inability to develop a more planetary perspective and that it’s a big reason why we’re failing to solve many of our problems. Even though our economic activity may improve quality of life on one end, it’s also disasterous for the planet that sustains our lives.

It’s like cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Actor William Shatner had a similar experience to Garan's when he traveled into space.

"It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered," Shatner wrote. "The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna … things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind."

“We're not going to have peace on Earth until we recognize the basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality,” Garan said.

However dire the situation looks from the surface of Earth, the astronaut has hope that we can collectively evolve in consciousness and wake up and embrace a larger reality. “And when we can evolve beyond a two-dimensional us versus them mindset, and embrace the true multi-dimensional reality of the universe that we live in, that's when we're going to no longer be floating in darkness … and it's a future that we would all want to be a part of. That's our true calling.”


This article originally appeared two years ago.

From Your Site Articles
space
Animals & Wildlife

Scientists just solved the chicken-and-egg debate, so what will we argue about now?

A billion-year-old discovery has officially cracked the ultimate evolutionary mystery.

Richard Symonds

This handsome gent just got some bad news.

In the ultimate mic-drop for chicken-or-egg debaters, Chromosphaera perkinsii, a billion-year-old unicellular organism, reveals that nature had "eggs" on the menu way before chickens (or any animals) arrived. But, though the mystery has been unscrambled, the discovery has cracked open an entirely new chapter in the story of life's origins.

Meet Chromosphaera perkinsii, a single-celled organism found in marine sediments off Hawaii that threw evolutionary biologists a curveball. This tiny protist, dating back more than a billion years, does something remarkable: it organizes itself into multicellular structures that look exactly like the earliest stages of animal embryos.

A sequence of images showing Chromosphaera perkinsii forming a colony. It looks like images you may have seen of early cell division, but this is of individual Chromosphaera perkinsii forming a colony. © UNIGE Omaya Dudin

Nature’s OG egg

Researchers from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), led by Omaya Dudin, have spent years studying this humble organism, and the findings are nothing short of stunning. Unlike most single-celled creatures, C. perkinsii can coordinate cell division without growing larger. Instead, it creates colonies that resemble the first steps of animal embryonic development.

"Although C. perkinsii is a unicellular species, this behaviour shows that multicellular coordination and differentiation processes are already present in the species, well before the first animals appeared on Earth."

— Omaya Dudin

Even more mind-blowing? When scientists analyzed the genetic activity within these colonies, they found it eerily similar to what happens in the embryos of modern animals. The processes that allow embryos to grow from a single cell into a multicellular organism—a hallmark of animal life—were apparently hanging out in the evolutionary toolbox long before animals even existed.

via GIPHY

A billion years of practice

The study, published in Nature, even raises the possibility that multicellularity evolved multiple times in different lineages, meaning the transition from single-celled life to complex organisms could be less linear (and more chaotic) than previously believed.

"It’s fascinating, a species discovered very recently allows us to go back in time more than a billion years."

— Marine Olivetta

The research could also reignite debates about mysterious 600-million-year-old fossils that look like embryos. Are they early animals or ancient organisms like C. perkinsii? Either way, this tiny protist suggests that nature was testing out egg-like developmental strategies long before anything resembling a chicken—or even a jellyfish—arrived on the scene.

The egg’s ultimate win

For anyone still clinging to the chicken in this debate, it’s time to throw in the towel. The egg wins by a landslide. And while these ancient “eggs” might not have shells or yolks, they set the stage for the evolutionary leaps that eventually gave us the breakfast staple we know today.

Still not convinced? Neil deGrasse Tyson shares the evolutionary approach to the puzzle. He bluntly points out that the egg came first; it was just laid by a bird that was not a chicken.

@neildegrassetyson we've cracked the case over which came first, chicken or egg! 🐣 #scienceflex
♬ original sound - StarTalk

Discoveries like this remind us how much we still don’t know about the origins of life. If a billion-year-old protist can hold the key to one of our oldest questions, imagine what else nature has waiting for us in its archives. But one thing’s certain: we finally have our answer. The egg was here first, and it’s been waiting for us to catch up for over a billion years.

So, with that settled, we are now tasked with finding something else to argue about. Science has yet to weigh in on the tree in the woods. Perhaps that puzzle will be the next to fall.

From Your Site Articles
life's mysteries
Family

Researchers studied kindergarteners' behavior and followed up 19 years later. Here are the findings.

Every parent wants to see their kid get good grades in school. But now we know social success is just as important.

Image from Pixabay.

Big smiles in class at kindergarten.


Every parent wants to see their kid get good grades in school. But now we know social success is just as important. From an early age, we're led to believe our grades and test scores are the key to everything — namely, going to college, getting a job, and finding that glittery path to lifelong happiness and prosperity.

It can be a little stressful. But a study showed that when children learn to interact effectively with their peers and control their emotions, it can have an enormous impact on how their adult lives take shape. And according to the study, kids should be spending more time on these skills in school.

Nope, it's not hippie nonsense. It's science.

Kindergarten teachers evaluated the kids with a portion of something called the Social Competence Scale by rating statements like "The child is good at understanding other's feelings" on a handy "Not at all/A little/Moderately well/Well/Very well" scale.

The research team used these responses to give each kid a "social competency score," which they then stored in what I assume was a manila folder somewhere for 19 years, or until each kid was 25. At that point, they gathered some basic information about the now-grown-ups and did some fancy statistical stuff to see whether their early social skills held any predictive value.

Here's what they found.

1. Those good test scores we covet? They still matter, but maybe not for the reasons we thought.

Back To School GIF by IFC - Find & Share on GIPHY

education, research, competency, kids

Meeting high expectations...

Billy Madison GIF from Giphy

Traditional thinking says that if a kid gets good grades and test scores, he or she must be really smart, right? After all, there is a proven correlation between having a better GPA in high school and making more money later in life.

But what that test score doesn't tell you is how many times a kid worked with a study partner to crack a tough problem, or went to the teacher for extra help, or resisted the urge to watch TV instead of preparing for a test.

The researchers behind this project wrote, "Success in school involves both social-emotional and cognitive skills, because social interactions, attention, and self-control affect readiness for learning."

That's a fancy way of saying that while some kids may just be flat-out brilliant, most of them need more than just smarts to succeed. Maybe it wouldn't hurt spending a little more time in school teaching kids about the social half of the equation.

2. Skills like sharing and cooperating pay off later in life.

Adam Sandler Pee GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

friendship, movies, GPA, emotional maturity

Adam Sandler helps out a friend dealing with a stressful situations.

Billy Madison GIF from Giphy

We know we need to look beyond GPA and state-mandated testing to figure out which kids are on the right path. That's why the researchers zeroed in so heavily on that social competency score.

What they found probably isn't too surprising: Kids who related well to their peers, handled their emotions better, and were good at resolving problems went on to have more successful lives.

What's surprising is just how strong the correlation was.

An increase of a single point in social competency score showed a child would be 54% more likely to earn a high school diploma, twice as likely to graduate with a college degree, and 46% more likely to have a stable, full-time job at age 25.

The kids who were always stealing toys, breaking things, and having meltdowns? More likely to have run-ins with the law and substance abuse problems.

The study couldn't say for sure that strong or poor social skills directly cause any of these things. But we can say for sure that eating too much glue during arts and crafts definitely doesn't help.

3. Social behaviors can be learned and unlearned — meaning it's never too late to change.

social behavior, social skills, learning, positive social traits

Adam Sandler GIF of getting his groove on.

Billy Madison GIF from Giphy

The researchers called some of these pro-social behaviors like sharing and cooperating "malleable," or changeable.

Let's face it: Some kids are just never going to be rocket scientists. Turns out there are physical differences in our brains that make learning easier for some people than others. But settling disputes with peers? That's something kids (and adults) can always continue to improve on.

And guess what? For a lot of kids, these behaviors come from their parents. The more you're able to demonstrate positive social traits like warmth and empathy, the better off your kids will be.

So can we all agree to stop yelling at people when they take the parking spot we wanted?

But what does it all mean?

This study has definite limitations, which its researchers happily admit. While it did its best to control for as many environmental factors as possible, it ultimately leans pretty heavily on whether a teacher thought a kid was just "good" or "very good" at a given trait.

Still, the 19-year study paints a pretty clear picture: Pro-social behavior matters, even at a young age. And because it can be learned, it's a great "target for prevention or intervention efforts."

The bottom line? We need to do more than just teach kids information. We need to invest in teaching them how to relate to others and how to handle the things they're feeling inside.

Ignoring social skills in our curricula could have huge ramifications for our kids down the road.


This article originally appeared nine years ago.

From Your Site Articles
Internet

How a 1950s housewife without arms cared for her 7 children without the help of technology

Her favorite hobby was embroidery.

National Library of Australia

Amazing video shows 1950s mom of 7 without arms doing it all on her own

It may be difficult to imagine living in a world with limited technological assistance available but to do it while also physically disabled seems nearly impossible without extensive support. But that's exactly what people had to do for years and one mom made the news in the 50s for her unique experience raising children. Phyllis Lumley was born without arms and one foot six inches longer than the other in Battersea, London.

Her ability to care for her children, all seven of them, without any outside assistance is what seems to be the reason she garnered so much attention. A picture of the mom placing her baby in the bassinet along with a story of the large family made it to the Australian newspaper. Lumley's story is inspiring to others due to her sheer determination to figure out how to become a mother and homemaker successfully.

While the mom of seven didn't have arms or hands to assist her while her husband was working, in the interview conducted by British Pathé you see her utilize her feet and mouth to compensate. It's something she had become accustomed to since childhood, never letting her disability slow her down.

National Library of Australia

The many forms of technology that have become part of our daily lives simply didn't exist in the 50s. Same goes for the advancements in prosthetics and other assistive technologies, they were mere dreams for future generations to enjoy. Lumley was determined to live life on her terms and not the limited expectations of those around her. So when she and her husband decided it was time to start a family, Lumley practiced how she would care for an infant by practicing with a doll.

In 1954, she told Pix that though she faced strange looks and ill words as a child, when she became pregnant she found a clinic that treated her like any other pregnant person.

National Library of Australia

"Mrs. Lumley admits that when her first babies were very young, there were times that she seemed to be up against problems that were insoluble but she learned that if she thought hard enough she could find a way around every difficulty," Brittish Pathé narrates.

In the video, the mom uses her feet to comb her child's hair, button someone's sweater, iron clothes and thread a needle to embroider a handkerchief. Her ability to be a successful caregiver clearly caught the attention of the world at that time, especially since there weren't really any accommodations for disabled people back then, let alone robotic prosthetic arms.


Caring for 7 children isn't an easy task for able-bodied individuals but in a true sign of the times, Lumley did it with little to no help from her husband. The woman mastered managing a household at a time when childrearing and housekeeping fell solely on the mother most of the time, which is evident in the interview.

The video recently made it's rounds on social media where people were flabbergasted at Lumley's skills with someone writing, "The fact that she threaded a needle alone is mind blowing, and the fine embroidery!! That’s bonkers."

The Goldbergs Yes GIF by ABC NetworkGiphy

Another person says, "how tf does one raise seven kids with NO ARMS?? I've barely gotten by with BOTH my arms and two kids!"

"Fine motor skills with her feet is ridiculously impressive," someone else chimes in.

"I love the looks in her children’s eyes. You can see how much they adore her. This is one impressive Mama," one person shares.

Lumley clearly loved her children and stopped at nothing to make sure they were properly cared for even if she had to pave her own path to do it.

From Your Site Articles
mom of 7 without arms
Joy

Someone asked if 80s kids really 'roamed freely.' After 40,000 answers, the truth is clear.

There is definitely some rose-colored nostalgia in these responses, though.

Photo credit: Canva, @othingstodo_com/X

Were 80s childhoods really as feral as they sound?

Ah, the nostalgia of an 80s childhood. If you've ever watched "The Goonies" or "Stranger Things," you've seen how kids of all ages were largely left to their own devices most of the time, parents playing a background role if any role at all. Children went on unsupervised outdoor adventures for hours upon hours, getting into just enough trouble to learn some lessons but not enough to die (usually).

But is that really what childhood in the 80s was like? Were parents really that hands-off? Did kids really roam around freely like the movies and stereotypes portray? Were people really not worried about what the kids were up to when no one knew where they were and no one had cell phones to check in?

Someone asked that very question and the overwhelming response pointed to a clear answer.

Yes, 80s kids really did have childhoods that are hard to imagine now

"Did parents in the 80s really allow their kids to roam freely, or is that just a portrayal seen in movies?" X user OThingstodo asked. Here are the top responses:

"Really. And it was awesome."

"Facts. We are the generation who raised ourselves. There really was a commercial that came on each night asking parents if they knew where their children were. We survived off hose water & anything we perceived as food. (Berries, fruit trees, etc) We were not allowed to sit inside.. if we tried, we'd get loaded down with chores. We truly were the feral generation.. we took no guts, no glory to new heights & feared absolutely nothing. It was amazing times that still, to this day, bring forth a rush of nostalgia at the smallest memory."

"This is so true. And Sometimes we just got to cook our own TV dinners. And our parents did not constantly have to engage us or make sure we weren’t bored."

"Allowed? We were not allowed in the house during the day. We had bikes and friends. There was 3 rules 1: don't get hurt 2: don't be brought home by the police 3: see that light? If it's on you're late and grounded."

"In the summer it was get home when the streetlights come on. Raised on hose water & neglect. It was glorious."

"I used to roam the sewer drains around town with my friends. Just a handful of us and some flashlights."

"Yep. We rode our bikes all over the place exploring reality. We also had unlicensed lemonade stands, and after we sold out, we’d ride up to the store alone to buy snacks alone. We had our own house keys, we stayed home alone after school, and we cooked for ourselves. No one freaked out about it either."

"We left the house after school and they wouldn’t see us until the street lights came on. Didn’t ask us where we had been or what we did either. We were raised on hose water and neglect in the 70’s and 80’s."

"Well into the 90s. They told us to be home for dinner by ___ or before nightfall. They didn't have a clue where we were or really any way of finding out. This was just the norm. ... then cell phones."

"It’s true. Realize that back then, there weren’t cell phones, video games, 24 hour kids TV, etc. You wanted to be with your friends & that was outside, even in winter. Your bike was your prized possession & while there were bad elements then too, it wasn’t like now. Sad."

That last point, "while there were bad elements then too, it wasn't like now" sentiment came up a lot in the responses. Let's dive into that a bit.

It's easy to look at the past through rose-colored glasses

For the most part, everything people said about those 80s childhoods is true, except this: The world was not safer back then. There weren't fewer "bad elements" and there wasn't less crime.

Around the year 2015, articles started coming out about how children were statistically safer than they'd ever been.

In fact, statistically, the 80s were less safe than now by pretty much every measure. Looking at violent rime statistics from 1960 onward shows that the 80s had significantly higher violent crime rates than we've seen in the 2000s. The idea that Gen X childhoods were carefree with nothing to fear is simply wrong. We just weren't aware of everything there was to fear.

Social media and 24-hour cable news networks put scary things in front of our faces all day every day, giving us a skewed perception of reality. And that's not just conjecture—according to Pew Research, Americans tend to think crime is rising even when it's going down. "In 23 of 27 Gallup surveys conducted since 1993, at least 60% of U.S. adults have said there is more crime nationally than there was the year before, despite the downward trend in crime rates during most of that period."

The folks remembering their free-range childhoods as blissful and safe seem to have forgotten that we started our days pouring milk from cartons that had pictures of missing children on them. A few high-profile abductions and murders of children caused a bit of a missing children panic in the U.S, leading President Reagan to sign the Missing Children Act in 1982 and the Missing Children's Assistance Act in 1984, which founded the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

But "high-profile" in the 80s meant a spot on the nightly national news and a headline in a newspaper. Most crimes were only reported locally, there as no "going viral online" and it was easy to avoid scary news if you wanted to. We live in a totally different world today, but not in the way people think. We're safer by nearly every measure, from car accidents to infectious disease to violent crime. But we feel less safe, which directly affects how we parent our children.

There was indeed magic in our blissful ignorance

There's something to be said for being unaware of every bad thing that's happening in the world. We may have been less safe in the 80s in actuality, but not knowing that had its perks.

The question is, can we put the genie back in the bottle? Is it possible to give kids an 80s-style childhood in the age of ubiquitous screens and parents being arrested for letting their tweens walk less than a mile from home by themselves?

Societal expectations of what kids can and should do have changed drastically, as have levels of anxiety and fear in general. Parenting styles have shifted toward more involvement and greater attachment, which isn't bad in and of itself but can be taken to an extreme. The neglectful parenting style of the past wasn't ideal and neither is the overprotective style the pendulum swung to.

If we could somehow find a way to give kids the joy of unstructured outdoor exploration of the 80s and the stronger parent-child connections of the present, we might just hit the sweet spot of raising healthy kids. Perhaps the next generation of parents will figure it out.

From Your Site Articles
80s childhood
Trending Stories