The McGill Daily Vol. 111 Issue 03

Volume 111, Issue 3 | Monday, September 20, 2021 | mcgilldaily.com nerds since 1911

The McGill Daily is located on unceded Kanien’kehá:ka territory.

Published by The Daily Publications Society, a student society of McGill University.

2

table of Contents

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

Table of Contents 3

editorial • Royal Vic is for the People

4 • News AGSEM Updates • How McGill’s Vaccine Protocols Stack Up

6 • FEATURES Purdue Pharma’s Impact on the Opioid Crisis

8

culture • Fast Fashion and Unsustainable Practices • The Met Gala and Performative Activism

10 • commentary Making McGill More Adaptable • Open Letter from the Canadian Network on Hepatitis C

12

Compendium!

• Horoscopes

EDITORIAL

Volume 111 Issue 3

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

3

editorial board

3480 McTavish St, Room 107 Montreal, QC, H3A 0E7 phone 514.398.6790 fax 514.398.8318 mcgilldaily.com

The McGill Daily is located on unceded Kanien’kehá:ka territory. coordinating editor

Pandora Wotton managing editor

Nicole Huang news editor

Abigail Popple Saylor Catlin commentary + compendium! editor

Vacant

culture editor

Olivia Shan Anna Zavelsky features editor

Emma Hébert

science + technology editor

Vacant

sports editor

Vacant

video editor

Vacant

photos editor

Rasha Hamade illustrations editor

Eve Cable

copy editor

Disha Garg design + production editor

Vacant

social media editor

James Cohn radio editor

Pilar Steers cover design

Rasha Hamade contributors Eve Cable, Canadian Network on Hepatitis C Trainees, Catey Fifield, Tessa Furey, Rasha Hamade, Agathe Nolla, Abigail Popple, Viola Ruzzier, Isabel Sices le délit

Philippe Bédard-Gagnon

rec@delitfrancais.com

Published by the Daily Publications Society, a student society of McGill University.

The views and opinions expressed in the Daily are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of McGill University.

The McGill Daily is not affiliated with McGill University.

3480 McTavish St, Room 107 Montreal, QC H3A 0E7 phone 514.398.690 fax 514.398.8318 advertising & general manager

Boris Shedov

sales representative

Letty Matteo

ad layout & design

Mathieu Ménard dps board of directors

Simon Tardif (Chair), Abigail Popple, Philippe Bédard-Gagnon, Kate Ellis, MarcoAntonio Hauwert Rueda, Asa Kohn, Thibault Passet, Boris Shedov, Pandora Wotton

All contents © 2018 Daily Publications Society. All rights reserved. The content of this newspaper is the responsibility of The McGill Daily and does not necessarily represent the views of McGill University. Products or companies advertised in this newspaper are not necessarily endorsed by Daily staff.

Printed by Imprimerie Transcontinental Transmag. Anjou, Quebec.

ISSN 1192-4608.

The Royal Vic Must Continue to Serve the Milton Parc Community

R

oyal Victoria Hospital (RVH) has a long and varied history of serving the Milton Parc and Golden Square Mile neighbourhoods since its establishment in 1893. The hospital has been a site of healing and harm, having housed both innovative research and the unethical government-funded MK Ultra experiments. While the space has not been used as a hospital since 2015 due to efforts to centralize healthcare in Montreal, the recent development of new plans for the site concerns community members, who fear for the future of the site and the communities it is meant to serve. The hospital was established with the intent that it must only be used for healing – as such, current and future development plans must consult and take seriously the needs of resident Montreal community members.

To centralize research and resources, RVH merged with four other Montreal hospitals to form the McGill University Health Center (MUHC) in 1997. In 2015, the hospital moved to the Glen site to be in geographic proximity with six other MUHC facilities – the Royal Vic at Mount Royal has since been decommissioned. As of June 2018, the 130,000 square metres of land is in the hands of the Société Québécoise des Infrastructures (SQI), who are developing a “master plan” for the site.

In order to manage the revamping of McGill’s portion of the site, Principal Suzanne Fortier created the “Principal’s Task Force on the Academic Vision and Mission of the RVH Site,” composed of senior administrators, academics, students, and staff, to decide how this land would be used. Notably, Milton Parc community members were excluded in the creation of this “vision.” The task force culminated in “The New Vic” – a Sustainability Sciences and Public Policy centre, notably marketed on the website through an amalgamation of academic buzzwords: the project is described as “a revolution in pedagogy” praised for its “intellectual vibrancy.” McGill University submitted the opportunity dossier detailing their plans for the RVH site in September 2020, and it was approved by Quebec government officials in May 2021. The New Vic was designed to contribute to McGill’s Strategic Academic Plan, which ​​s tates that “no university can lead globally in the 21st century without putting sustainability at the centre of its operations.”

According to the New Vic website, the project “aims to help heal the planet, by tackling the great challenges of sustainability that threaten it,” supposedly “in line with the RVH’s original vocation as a place of healing.”

Despite these claims, McGill remains heavily invested

in fossil fuels, which contradicts the plan’s supposed goal of sustainability, proving the university is more interested in “lead[ing] globally” than sustaining and supporting the community.

Milton Parc Citizen’s Committee (MPCC), a grassroots non-profit and non-partisan organization, gathered community groups under the Royal Vic for the Public Coalition, which aims to keep the RVH site publicly owned. RVH primarily served the Milton Parc neighbourhood, so the coalition’s research team, “Our Royal Vic,” focused on consulting the aforementioned neighbourhood’s members. These consultations were done through two virtual sessions and are continued through a questionnaire on what community members would like to see done with the space in order to fulfill their material and social needs. In addition to community consultations, MPCC has been leading actions against privatization over the past few years, such as marches and rallies.

Opposition to the privatization of the Master Plan site (which includes the New Vic), as outlined in the open letter, stems from resistance to further gentrification that would intensify the housing crisis.

The gentrification of the Milton Parc community has been driven by the development of luxury condominiums and large influx of students into the neighbourhood. Privatization of the Royal Vic space would further displace low-income residents and the communities’ unhoused population, a population that is disproportionately Indigenous. During COVID-19, RVH was used as a shelter and place of quarantine for unhoused people who tested positive for the virus. The MPCC asks that the site continue to serve the local community through social housing, community spaces, education, and health resources. The open letter, currently signed by 62 local organizations including SSMU, notes “that the slopes of Mount Royal should not be reserved only for the elite, but should also be accessible to the general public.”

The Office de Consultation Publique de Montréal (OCPM) conducted a public consultation on use of the space on September 8, and an additional question and answer session will be held on September 23. If you are a student who lives in Milton Parc, you have a responsibility to advocate for the community in which you live. Submit a question for the session, fill out the Royal Vic for the Public questionnaire if you live in Milton Parc, and, if you are able, join the march against privatization that is set to take place on Sunday, September 26 in front of the site.

Read us online! website Facebook Instagram twitter

www.mcgilldaily.com www.facebook.com/themcgilldaily @mcgilldaily @mcgilldaily

CONTACT US Coordinating NEWS COMMENTARY CULTURE FEATURES SCI+TECH SPORTS

coordinating@mcgilldaily.com Managing PHOTOs news@mcgilldaily.com commentary@mcgilldaily.com ILLUSTRATIONS DESIGN + PRODUCTION culture@mcgilldaily.com COPY features@mcgilldaily.com WEB + Social Media scitech@mcgilldaily.com MULTIMEDIA sports@mcgilldaily.com

managing@mcgilldaily.com photos@mcgilldaily.com illustrations@mcgilldaily.com design@mcgilldaily.com copy@mcgilldaily.com web@mcgilldaily.com multimedia@mcgilldaily.com

4

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

News

Checking in with AGSEM

President discusses in-person learning concerns Catey Fifield Staff Writer

E

arlier this year, the Daily reported on issues members of the Association of Graduate Students Employed at McGill (AGSEM) were experiencing with Workday, the HR system that the university implemented in Fall 2020. After hundreds of TAs and invigilators missed paycheques that semester, with some still missing those paycheques in Winter 2021, AGSEM wrote an open letter to Principal Suzanne Fortier and her colleagues demanding fair compensation and “the maximum penalty for McGill’s violations of employment law.”

It’s been more than six months since that letter was published, and a lot has changed. For this week’s issue, the Daily caught up with leaders of AGSEM to get an update on the Workday situation and to find out how graduate student employees are coping with the return to in-person learning.

“To our knowledge, all our members have received their full pay,” writes AGSEM president Mario Roy. The union’s request for an investigation to confirm this has yet to be carried out. Regardless, Roy adds,

“Workday is still a system that is creating a lot of frustration among users.” The confusing interface and technical difficulties acknowledged at the outset of the rollout have not disappeared, and the union maintains that “if the system is not satisfying the needs of the university, it should be changed for a better system.”

“Workday is still a system that is creating a lot of frustration among users.”

- Mario Roy, AGSEM president Roy says the university made an offer of compensation for employees who received their pay late, but the union – which originally requested a $50 late fee plus a monthly interest of 1.24 per cent, the same penalties students must pay when they don’t make their tuition payments on time – found this offer “unsatisfactory.”

Negotiations are ongoing, and AGSEM is “looking at all the options

available in order to resolve [the dispute] as soon as possible.”

From the first annoucement that McGill would return to in-person learning, AGSEM members have had more than Workday on their minds. In an April survey of 704 graduate students, including 392 employees, nearly half of respondents said they would prefer that the Fall 2021 semester be conducted fully remotely, while 41.5 per cent said they would feel safe returning to campus only once the undergraduate population was fully vaccinated. Based on these results and members’ concerns “about the eagerness of McGill to bring the McGill community back to in-person activities,” AGSEM leaders wrote to the university administration over the summer to request accommodations – for instance, the ability to hold office hours over Zoom – for employees who wished to work remotely.

“Very few consultations were made with the union during the summer,” Roy says, “and the consultations were mainly to inform us about their plan.” The McGill administration opted to leave the decision to allow graduate student employees to work from home to the students’ employers – that is, the professors and instructors they assist. This

Eve Cable | Illustrations Editor is worrisome, Roy says, “because some employers might refuse to accommodate our members when fairly requested.”

With the spread of the Delta variant and the increase in daily COVID-19 cases in Quebec, union members are worried “that the lack of sanitary measures or the lack of enforcement for sanitary

Analysis: McGill’s COVID Protocol

measures currently in place could create a situation where our members would end up working in an unsafe environment.”

Even greater is the fear that the university may not react quickly enough to protect its students and staff in the event of an outbreak – Roy believes an outbreak has a “high chance” of happening.

How McGill compares to other Canadian universities

Abigail Popple Coordinating News Editor

Note: the figures cited in this article are current as of September 17. Due to the rapidly-changing nature of public health guidelines and case numbers, the following information may not be entirely up-to-date.

P

ublic health guidelines vary from province to province, as do universities’ requirements for attending school on campus.

To get an idea of how McGill’s COVID guidelines stack up against other large universities, the Daily has analyzed the COVID precautions of large universities across Canada.

Case Tracking

U

niversities’ policies concerning the report of COVID cases on campus vary widely; some universities provide students with a week-by-week case count, while others do not

report case counts at all. McGill makes their case tracker publicly available, as do the Université de Montréal (UdeM), the University of Toronto (UofT), and the University of Alberta (UofA).

Some universities provide students with a week-byweek case count, while others do not report case counts at all.

However, the information included in case trackers varies from school to school. McGill’s website claims that all reported positive cases are included in case-tracking figures, but clarifies that cases are only

considered a result of community transmission if 1) the virus is found in two or more students who have been in the same class or area within the past 14 days, and 2) the cases “are not explainable by another epidemiological origin.” Some students claim that McGill’s contact tracing is not thorough enough, and have created Google Forms in order to track cases themselves. Likewise, McGill’s contact-tracing guidelines were subject to criticism from students last Fall, when students claimed that their positive test results were not being included in McGill’s overall case count.

UdeM and UofA also claim to include every positive test result which is reported to them in their figures, but do not distinguish between individual cases of COVID-19 and instances of community transmission. While UofT makes note of “outbreaks on campus” – that is, community transmissions – in their case tracker, they do not specify what

counts as an outbreak.

Some universities, such as Concordia University, X University

Universities have cited concerns about sharing personal health information to justify withholding case numbers. (formerly known as Ryerson University), and the University of British Columbia (UBC), do not make case counts publicly available whatsoever. At these institutions, students are made aware of COVID cases if they were in close contact with the infected individual within the 14 days leading up to their test; universities have cited concerns

about sharing personal health information to justify withholding case numbers. At UBC, a student-run website tracks cases by compiling the notices which students receive after a possible exposure to the virus – however, reporting from the Ubyssey indicates that UBC administrators claim that they cannot verify the data on this site in the interest of protecting “patient confidentiality.”

On-Campus Guidelines

M

cGill, Concordia, and UdeM all require students to wear masks when indoors, but social distancing is not enforced in classrooms. Because the Quebec government currently does not include postsecondary educational institutions among its designated testing centres, these universities are not distributing COVID tests. In contrast, UofA, UBC, UofT, unvaccinated individuals to be tested frequently. While each of these schools require masks to

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

news be tested frequently. While each of these schools require masks to be worn indoors, UofA is the only one which requires students to remain two metres apart while in classrooms due to stricter public health guidelines implemented after the Alberta government declared a state of emergency. UofA also recently implemented a vaccine mandate, joining UofT and X University in requiring proof of vaccination to enter school buildings.

UofA, UBC, UofT and X University all provide rapid testing, and mandate unvaccinated individuals to be tested frequently.

Further, some universities require students as well as employees to complete a COVID self-assessment form before arriving on campus. Concordia, UofT, X University, UofA, UdeM, and the Okanagen campus at

5

UBC all require students to submit health screenings daily; while McGill requires a similar screening for employees, students do not have to use the COVID-19 self assessment tool. Additionally, students at Concordia, UofA, and UofT were required to complete a video module about COVID safety prior to the beginning of the Fall 2021 semester.

Accommodations for Students

M

cGill has made it clear that students and faculty are expected to be present on campus regardless of any safety concerns they have – in a recent press conference with the Daily, Deputy Provost Fabrice Labeau stated that safety concerns were not a valid reason to not attend in-person school. UdeM, UBC, and UofA also expect students to be on campus. Concordia is using a hybrid model, though international students claim they are experiencing difficulty due to missing the in-person elements of their classes. However, Concordia has decided to make online classes a permanent fixture and will continue to offer them.

UofT and X University have not transitioned to being fully in-person, but anticipate holding

more classes in person during the Winter 2022 semester.

McGill students who are presenting with COVID19 symptoms or who have received positive test results must complete the COVID-19 self-assessment form and selfisolate. As some lectures are not recorded, and approximately 85 per cent of classes at McGill are being conducted in person, it is unclear how the University

Abigail Popple | Coordinating News Editor expects students to comply with isolation protocol and participate in school.

McGill has also stated that students who have been in contact with a “low-risk COVID19” case will not be notified of potential exposure, pursuant to Public Health protocol. Those who have been in medium-risk and high risk contact with an infected individual are notified.

Montreal Public Health defines

medium-risk contact as an extended period (15 minutes or more) of close contact (less than two metres apart) wherein one or both individuals were not properly wearing their mask.

High-risk contact occurs when individuals are in unmasked, “sustained physical contact” – for example, roommates or sexually-active partners are in high-risk contact when one party is infected.

Abigail Popple | Coordinating News Editor

6

features

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

How Purdue Pharma Got Away with it All

The family behind the opiod crisis will walk away with little to no consequences

Eve Cable Illustrations Editor

P

urdue Pharma began production of OxyContin – the largest contributor to opioid addiction globally – in 1995, pushing the use of the drug for a wider range of ailments than ever before as pain relief medication. Executives at Purdue Pharma continued to assert throughout the years that OxyContin led to addiction in fewer than one per cent of patients, increasing widespread willingness to prescribe the drug and assuaging previous concerns concerning addictive pain medication. Most importantly, Purdue Pharma enacted one of the most relentless marketing campaigns for an opioid drug ever, essentially manipulating healthcare professionals into over-prescribing the medication, and misleading both healthcare professionals and the general public about the true nature of the drug. Since then, over 3,000 cases have been brought against Purdue Pharma from public and private claimants, with over 47 American states suing the company, 29 of which specifically name the Sackler family as defendants.

While the opioid epidemic continues to ravage communities, the Sackler family remains one of the richest families in the world, with a September 1 bankruptcy settlement absolving them from any long-term blame or accountability for their role in the crisis. The settlement, approved by federal Judge Robert Drain, grants immunity to the Sackler family in any future opioid-related lawsuits, while simultaneously marketing meagre payouts for those affected as a “solution” to the years of pain and suffering the family has caused.

While it may seem as though one of America’s richest families has narrowly avoided prosecution, the Sacklers have spent more than a quarter of a century profiting from opioid addiction and deaths – all while keeping themselves at an arm’s length from legal matters concerning the drug and Purdue Pharma. At the end of it all, the Sacklers will still remain one of America’s wealthiest families. This begs the question: how did they manage that?

It is crucial to note that the Sackler family’s ability to absolve

themselves of any blame and responsibility in the opioid crisis is not a last-minute stroke of luck. Rather, it is the success of years of calculated manoeuvres that set the family up for longterm financial security and minimal legal accountability. The three most central figures in the family are Arthur, Mortimer and Raymond Sackler, who bought pharmaceutical company PurdueFrederick in 1952. While Mortimer and Raymond took responsibility for Purdue itself, Arthur became the biggest name in the new field of medical advertising.

This connection would be a key foundation for the massive amounts of marketing that Purdue Pharma would go on to do for OxyContin.

While Arthur Sackler died in 1987 and OxyContin production did not start until 1995, his widow Jillian’s claims that he should be removed from any discussion of the opioid crisis are purposely ignorant of his contributions to Purdue’s investment in medical advertising.

“Where his brothers built their reputation manufacturing and selling pharmaceuticals, Arthur Sackler gained his business renown by promoting them,” Christopher Rowland writes in The Washington Post.

While the opiod epidemic continues to ravage communities, the Sackler family remains one of richest families in the world.

This is the cornerstone of Purdue Pharma’s identity: relentless advertising and marketing to healthcare professionals. Arthur Sackler helped build that identity by becoming a leading expert in the field of medical advertising, while Raymond and Mortimer Sackler used their clinical expertise alongside this foundation to launch

Eve Cable | Illustrations Editor OxyContin into the big leagues of prescription pain medication.

Though Arthur died before the release of the drug itself, he was no doubt a key contributor to the corporate culture of malicious over-advertising for profit. Jillian Sackler’s desire to protect her late husband’s name is a subtle yet downright offensive way of overwriting the ways in which the Sackler family has organized to protect their financial interests from the very beginning of their business ventures.

It is the precedent of overzealous marketing to healthcare professionals that really launched the opioid epidemic in the late ‘90s and early 2000s. Between 1996 and 2001, Purdue hosted over 5,000 pharmacists, physicians and nurses in attractive, all-expenses-paid symposiums, where healthcare professionals were trained liberally in the benefits of prescribing OxyContin. These symposiums, held often in “popular sunbelt vacation sites,” played an active role in healthcare professionals’ willingness to over prescribe medication. While most clinicians who attended these symposiums believed that enticing

trips “would not alter their prescribing patterns,” researchers Orlowski and Wateska have compiled data to prove the contrary, arguing that attending events such as these leads to “a significant increase in the prescribing patterns” of the drugs being discussed during the conference.

Another incredibly sinister aspect of Purdue Pharma’s marketing scheme regarding OxyContin was its abuse of data from physicians around the US in order to concretely target certain communities.

Using physician data, executives were able to identify which doctors prescribed the most opioids, then target those clinicians with more advertising.

While Purdue Pharma and Sackler family members claim this was to identify “physicians with large numbers of chronic pain patients,” the database also identifies “which physicians were simply the most frequent prescribers of opioids and, in some cases, the least discriminate prescribers.”

Ultimately, Purdue weaponised large amounts of physical health data to maximise their sales reach, with no real regard for the patients at the centre of it all.

The other factors that increased OxyContin sales in terms of marketing were a “lucrative bonus system” for sales representatives, a patient coupon program for a free month-long prescription of the medication, and the distribution of promotional items. While the average sales representative’s salary for the company in 2001 was US $55,000, Purdue was paying out an average bonus of $71,500, with a cumulative $40 million paid out in bonuses to sales reps in that year alone, blatantly displaying the company’s impetus to keep their sales reps selling vast quantities of OxyContin. The message that OxyContin had a “less than one per cent risk of addiction,” a statistic based on studies that have since been disputed, was disseminated across the country through sales representatives.

The coupon program allowed for patients to receive a free prescription of OxyContin for a full month, and when the program was ended in 2001, over 34,000 coupons had been redeemed.

While it’s not uncommon for pharmaceutical companies to send branded merchandise to doctors, a

features plethora of stuffed toys, CDs, and clothing hit medical professionals desks, an “unprecedented” level of merchandising for such a medication, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

This is nothing short of conscious manipulation of medical professionals for profit, and there is a strong case that Purdue Pharma, and specifically members of the Sackler family, knew the drug to be significantly more addictive and risky than described in their advertising. This level of marketing and manipulation could only happen because of years of medical advertising expertise that was built into the fabric of the company the groundwork laid by Arthur Sackler serving as the foundation of Purdue’s calculated strategy.

Part of this strategy had to include addressing doctors’ fears concerning opioid prescription, which they had long been told was high-risk and should generally be reserved for end-of-life care.

Purdue’s argument was that OxyContin was a different type of medicine than the drugs they had come across before, because it was a sustained-release opioid, in contrast to opiates like morphine, which are immediate-release. The protective coating on OxyContin means that the drug is slowly released into the patient’s system over an extended period of 12 hours. Purdue claimed that this difference reduced the addictive nature of the drug, and made it safer for more widespread consumption than immediate release drugs like morphine. Moreover, they sought to address the issue of ongoing chronic pain, and argued that sustained-release OxyContin was better for managing constant or ongoing pain than immediaterelease options. However, the FDA’s medical review officer in 1995 observed that OxyContin did not have a significant benefit for patients, and that similar results were achieved with immediaterelease oxycodone.

Purdue Pharma made OxyContin seem like a lifeline for sufferers of chronic pain. A drug that would allow relief for 12 full hours, longer than most other competitors, and only two pills to take per day, which would provide, according to Purdue, “smooth and sustained pain control all day and all night.” With Purdue Pharma continually claiming that the drug carried only a one per cent risk of addiction, it seemed like a medical miracle for individuals who had previously found no solutions for their pain conditions.

However, for most patients, internal Purdue documents have shown that the drug, for many people, did not offer 12 hour relief.

Instead, individuals began to experience withdrawals during the interim period between pills,

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

7

experiencing “body aches, nausea, anxiety and other symptoms of withdrawal.” This suggests that the higher dose extended release pill was releasing the dose quicker than desired, essentially rendering the “extended release” function of the drug useless and sending patients into withdrawal. An LA Times investigation into this 12 hour problem noted that “when the agony is relieved by the next dose, it creates a cycle of pain and euphoria that fosters addiction.”

This is nothing short of conscious manipulation of medical professionals for profit, and there is a strong case that Purdue Pharma [...] knew the drug to be significantly more addictive and risky than described in their advertising.

Purdue had created the perfect storm for an epidemic of addiction, and their executives, including members of the Sackler family, have been quick to deny any intent in this respect, claiming that they had no role to play in the opioid epidemic and that their genuine goal was to relieve pain. However, internal documents prove that to be false - in fact, OxyContin was made to replace a previous Purdue product called MS Contin, which was no longer a moneymaker for the company. In a 1990 memo, Purdue scientist Robert Kaiko made it clear that the expiration of MS Contin’s patent would lead to a decrease in revenue for the company: “MS Contin may eventually face serious generic competition.”

Therefore, the company was determined to find a new cash flow, but they needed it to stand out from pain medications that other pharmaceutical companies would be releasing - it needed to be different enough from MS Contin that it was considered a brand new “miracle” drug.

Instead of demonstrating any care for sufferers of chronic pain, Purdue Pharma was entirely finance

and profit-oriented. Chief executive Michael Friedman addressed Kaiko’s concerns: “OxyContin can cure the vulnerability of the [...] generic threat and that is why it is so crucial that we devote our fullest efforts now to a successful launch of OxyContin.” Executive meetings were therefore focused on finding a ‘cure’ to the financial threat of Big Pharma competition, not on finding a cure to patients’ chronic pain.

In addition to being purely financially motivated, Purdue Pharma has also been consistently vague about what they did and did not know about OxyContin in the first months and years after the drug’s release. The first trials of OxyContin were in women recovering from surgery in two Puerto Rican hospitals in 1989; these women complained of pain increase in the first eight hours, with half needing more medication before the 12 hour mark. After this clearly inconclusive study, OxyContin was somehow deemed safe, and the drug was approved as a longer-lasting painkiller despite the fact that it had failed to control patients’ pain for the marketed 12 hours.

Moreover, Purdue Pharma knew years before any legal cases that addiction was an issue with their medication, and that they were contributing to widespread abuse of opioids. While the company and many individual Sackler family members have claimed that they knew only years after OxyContin’s release that it was dangerous, internal files from 1996 reveal a different story. Executives knew that pills were being crushed and snorted, with the company’s sales reps using the words “street value,” “crush” and “snort” in 117 notes from visits to medical professionals between 1997 and 1999. The crushing of pills removes the protective film that makes the medication extended release, therefore meaning that individuals were receiving an extremely high dose of medication directly into their bloodstream. Purdue Pharma’s sales representatives clearly acknowledged there was evidence of OxyContin being crushed and snorted; executives’ failure to intervene despite this knowledge leaves the blood of millions on their hands.

Purdue Pharma and members of the Sackler family knew what their drug was doing to people sooner than they claimed. The evidence for this is objective, written in internal memos and shared multiple times in court depositions, both in the 2007 case against the company and in the bankruptcy case this year. To see the Sackler family walk away with immunity from all future opioid related lawsuits is evidence of both the court and country’s lack

Purdue Pharma knew years before any legal cases that addiction was an issue with their medication, and that they were contributing to widespread abuse of opiods. of care for the victims of addiction, and demonstrates an obsession with pandering to the needs of the wealthiest corporations and members of society.

Ba nkr uptcy cour t was t he Sacklers’ way out of t he Ox yContin crisis, but for hundreds of t housa nds of indiv idua ls a nd fa milies across A merica a nd t he world, t he crisis leaves perma nent irrepa rable da mage to t heir lives a nd communities, including t he loss of at least 500,000 lives. While t he Sacklers made a n absolute minimum of $10 billion f rom t he sa les of

Ox yContin, t he t housa nds of people whose lives have been ravaged by t he opioid crisis will be unable to sue t he Sacklers for t he da mage done, essentia lly t he last na il in t he cof f in for seeking a ny sma ll form of justice. Purdue Pha rma a nd t he Sackler fa mily a re responsible for what New York’s at torney genera l, Letitia Ja mes, describes as “t he taproot of t he opioid epidemic;” t hey have blood on t heir ha nds, a nd t hey ’re get ting away wit h it.

8

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

culture

Fast Fashion’s Excess Agathe Nolla Culture Contributor

F

Overconsumption in the age of e-commerce

rom late 2000s Youtube, to Instagram, and later TikTok, fashion influencers have consistently used their social media platforms to hook in audiences through a series of lookbooks, hauls, and challenges.

Many influencers’ support of the ultra-fast fashion industry is but one insidious example of a culture of overconsumption.

Brands spare themselves the trouble of making commercials and instead rely on influencers to promote their products.

With their followers numbering from the thousands to millions, influencers hold tremendous power as they guide their fans into choosing specific brands.

Meanwhile, social media companies bolster their success through algorithms, introducing online marketplaces, and monetary investments. Through 2022, Facebook is dedicating a $1 billion USD budget to pay influencers and content creators because their content

attracts new users and increases consumers’ average screen time.

As a result, nowadays trends spread wider and saturate the market at a much faster rate.

As the climate crisis gains more visibility, influencers face new criticism concerning the sustainability and ethics of the brands they support – but it is corporations who are the most culpable.

In the US, Shein has grown rapidly in popularity in 2021 and is the most talked-about brand on Youtube, Instagram, and TikTok. On fashion TikTok you can find several challenges consisting of a parade of different outfits all linked to a general theme (e.g. “how I would dress in cities around the world.”)

Another popular type of video is the #sheinhaul, in which TikTokers exhibit the excessive amount of clothing they bought and money they spent. In order to create daily content and stay relevant, inf luencers feel obliged to buy more and more clothes.

They turn towards inexplicably low prices, fast shipping, and trendy designs, inciting their

to six weeks, compared to ultra-fast fashion, such as Shein, who perpetually post new designs to their website. The designs are often duped from high fashion runways and ripped off from small, independent brands. Designer Mariama Diallo tweeted “Im SO over these major brands stealing from black designers. [Shein] STOLE my @ sincerelyriaxo designs to a T.” Crochet brand Elixiay, who makes ethical, handmade, and sustainable clothing, wrote “It’s quite disheartening to see my hard work reduced to a machine made copy.”

Shein has completely overcome its competitors during the past six months. Between 2019 and 2020, their annual sales revenue doubled to over US$10 billion. As the brand continues to gain popularity on social media, it made up 13 per cent of all fast fashion sales in January 2021. As of August 5, it accounts for 30 per cent of sales – dominating any other brand in retail.

Shein lacks transparency about their Trending content and the rise working conditions, wages, mateof e-commerce accelerate trend rials, and environmental impact. cycles and fashion seasons. Fast As fashion has become globalized fashion such as H&M and Zara for cheaper production, fast fashion release new collections every four has outsourced production, able to followers to buy fast fashion for economic reasons.

Crochet brand Elixiay, who makes ethical, handmade, and sustainable clothing, wrote “It’s quite disheartening to see my hard work reduced to a machine made copy.”

exploit garment workers, the majority of whom are young women, by not paying a living wage, not allowing labour unions, and not implementing policies that are specific to the safety of women workers. National governments do not presently have the authority to impose laws on an international market as it may impact foreign economic stability. However, consumers with the economic means should seek out and support brands with a sustainable approach to the environment and ethical labour rights and human rights to resist the ubiquitous nature of ultrafast fashion.

Many influencers’ support of the ultra-fast fashion industry is but one insidious example of a culture of overconsumption.

Eve Cable | Illustrations Editor

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

CULTURE

9

On AOC’s Met Gala Dress “Tax the Rich” is a failed attempt at activism

Isabel Sices Culture Contributor content warning: police brutality

T

he Met Gala, postponed this

year due to COVID-19, is generally touted as one of the most exclusive fashion events of the year. Celebrities and other public figures gather for the gala, which is always centered around a theme; this year, A Lexicon of American Fashion. The Met Gala red carpet is filled with celebrities sporting a wide variety of designs, which range from traditional tuxedos to experimental, sculptural ensembles. However, despite the diversity in sartorial decisions, nearly all in attendance share one commonality: wealth.

While she was schmoozing with the “1 per cent,” Black Lives Matter protesters were being violently arrested outside of the Met. A single ticket to the Met Gala costs a minimum of US$30,000, with tables at the event going for as much as US$275,000 each. Beyond that, celebrities in attendance are styled in luxury hotels by top-notch hair and makeup artists, and fitted with extraordinarily expensive outfits. In other words, it is not an affordable affair. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, U.S. Representative of the 14th district in New York City, showed up last Monday wearing a white, floor-length gown which, in bold red letters, read “TAX THE RICH” across the back, she was bound to stir the pot.

Galvanizing, provocative, and to-the-point, Ocasio-Cortez’s dress was designed by Aurora James, founder of Brother Vellies – a Black, immigrant, woman-owned high-fashion label.

Similarly, Ocasio-Cortez’s hair, makeup, and photography for the event was fashioned entirely by BIPOC, women, and LGBTQ+ artists.

Ocasio-Cortez was intentional about avoiding cisgender, straight, white men designers and stylists, who historically make up the majority of the American fashion industry.

While New York City politicians are regularly offered an invitation

Eve Cable | Illustrations Editor to the Met Gala free of charge — as they bear an interest in New York’s cultural institutions due to the city’s “creative economy” — many criticized Ocasio-Cortez for attending such an expensive event while sporting what seems to be a glaringly hypocritical message.

Ocasio-Cortez defended her attendance in an interview filmed at the event, saying, in reference to her dress, “I think it’s incredibly important, because when we talk about supporting working families, and when we talk about having a fair tax code, oftentimes this conversation is happening among working and middle class people[…] and I think it’s time that we bring all classes into the conversation of having a fairer country.”

While she was schmoozing with the “1 per cent,” Black Lives Matter protesters were being violently arrested outside of the Met. One protester said through a microphone: “​We cannot go back to normal. Where was your rage last year? Thirty-five thousand dollars for a fucking ticket to show your fucking clothes, while our people are still dying! Our people are still dying! Our people are still being murdered! And there are millions of dollars going to this museum. We demand free housing! We demand all political

was an archetypal example of performative activism.

Instagram commenters were quick to point out the hypocrisy As poignantly and performative nature of Ocasioexpressed by the Cortez’s gesture, with comments such as “I’m sorry[…] but this designer Aurora is performative bullshit. Enjoy rubbing elbows with the rich at a James, fashion is not party in which the tickets cost 30k,” and “You wore this at an event with only a medium for a lot of rich people though? When does the message actually become aesthetic expression, the deed?”

Ocasio-Cortez, however, has but “at its best is also received plenty of praise. On Instagram, author and fashion a tool to express consultant Aja Barber proclaimed in regard to Ocasio-Cortez’s ourselves, share our dress “What is more glorious than showing up to a rich person cultural identities event like this and telling rich people you’re coming for them and and challenge especially them while eating their free food?” Barber elucidates that ideas and norms.” while the “tax the rich” message was not “quite shocking [it was In comparison, the stakes for still] tongue in cheek,” especially political expression at the Met for the event to which it was worn.

Gala are relatively low: OcasioWhile the maddening gridlock Cortez could (and did) wear a that is the American government dress exhibiting such a pithy severely hinders any one slogan without any significant congressperson’s ability to enact repercussions aside from ensuant dramatic tax reform, Ocasio-Cortez internet feuds. As such, those on has consistently advocated for a the internet continued to insist massive increase in taxation for the that Ocasio-Cortez’s dress choice very wealthy. To fund the Green prisoners to be freed! We demand justice for our people!”

New Deal — which was co-authored

by Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts — Ocasio-Cortez proposes a top tax level of 70 per cent. For reference, the current top marginal tax rate in the United States sits at a cool 37 per cent. So while her dress itself might not actually be effective at taxing the rich, her policy and agenda certainly reinforce her message of taxing the rich (and so does her status as a self-proclaimed democratic socialist).

Although Ocasio-Cortez sparked the most public discourse, she was not the only one at the Met Gala championing explicit messages of politics or human rights through their style. Soccer player Megan Rapinoe carried a clutch which read “In Gay We Trust,” a nod to the official motto of the United States, “In God We Trust.”

Additionally, Carolyn Maloney, US Representative of New York’s 12th district, wore a dress which read “Equal Rights for Women”– in reference to the women’s suffrage movements of the early 20th century. As poignantly expressed by the designer Aurora James, fashion is not only a medium for aesthetic expression, but “at its best is a tool to express ourselves, share our cultural identities and challenge ideas and norms.”

10

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

commentary

Changing Minds, Changing Institutions

Advancing a doctrine for adaptability at McGill Tessa Furey Commentary Contributor

T

he COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the necessity to build systems here at McGill that can respond to constantly changing risks and circumstances.

Although this period has been extremely difficult for students, staff, and faculty, it also provides an opportunity to radically reassess and reimagine the future of the institution. Charting a course forward (or perhaps more aptly, drawing a fresh map) is an important and necessary task as we enter a new era which will be defined by the unfolding pandemic.

Using this unique time to advance an agenda of adaptability is imperative.

True strategies of adaptability prepare for future risks by creating flexible, equitably-informed structures of decision making, placing trust and faith in the decision-making capacities of people, instead of codifying the modalities of a single tradition or generation.

Removing the emphasis on grading and high pressure test and exam scores, and providing more flexibility in course delivery, are two important steps to remove barriers for all students, including neurodivergent and disabled students.

The rapid changes of the past two years have exposed structural issues, particularly in terms of accessibility, within institutions such as McGill. But even before the pandemic, students had outgrown the old systems of governance.

Prioritizing adaptability and accessibility is the way forward for learning in the digital age. The university must recognize that preInternet pedagogical philosophies are completely incompatible with current and incoming generations of students, many of whom

have been exposed, through the internet, to such a quantity of data from such a young age that a complete redefinition of “higher learning” is required. A developing field of research is focused on the study of how the Internet affects cognitive development.

There is ongoing discourse as to whether these effects on cognition are net-positive or negative; the accepted constant is that change in cognitive functioning and brain structure is most definitely occurring. Not only are brains changing, but learning pathways have altered. In the digital soup of the 21st century, students may be exposed to complex, multidisciplinary realms of thought and expression before they even step foot on campus. Information hierarchies are in the process of collapse, which the University must recognize.

In particular: 1. segmentation of subjects into introductory and higher-level courses with strict prerequisites; 2. faculty, program, major and minor structure; 3. emphasis on specialization; 4. focus on exam performance and grades; 5. reliance on rote digestion of materials; and 6. course-specific methods of inquiry; are old, fragmentary methods which are incompatible with new generations of learners, who are entering the university with different background knowledge and information processing skills than pre-Internet cohorts.

Flexibility in course delivery and program pathways is paramount to include modes of inquiry which are disempowered by the current system. Removing the emphasis on grading and high pressure test and exam scores, and providing more flexibility in course delivery, are two important steps to remove barriers for all students, including neuro-divergent and disabled students. Only through changing these systems can the university hope to move forward as a more equitable institution.

COVID-19 has demonstrated how problems within the old system tend to assert themselves during crisis management. For example: dialogue between students within different areas of interest, between teachers and students, and between students and Montreal’s broader public, was decimated with the shift to online learning. In McGill’s Spring 2021 “Checking in Today, Planning for Tomorrow” survey, only 14% of undergraduate students

Eve Cable | Illustrations Editor reported that they “Agreed/ Strongly Agreed” that the “Social Engagement” aspect of their experience at the university was “progressing well.”

This problem of broken dialogue is not inherent to online learning; it is systemic. Class delivery in large lecture halls, with minimal room for questions and student-led discussion, physical separation of on-campus resources into subjectbased libraries and spaces, and the oft-discussed McGill “bubble” that isolates students from the city represent institutional barriers to meaningful communication.

Students should feel supported and like a valued part of the community, and this cannot be achieved without improving communication and support. Without working to break down systemic barriers, simply moving material delivery to an online learning environment is an incomplete strategy of adaptability.

If the university is committed to resilience in the contemporary space, we must consider all avenues to serious change, now. Otherwise, McGill risks further losing touch with future generations, who are already deciding they may best be left to their own devices, further engendering a split between intelligent inquiry and academia, a separation which tuition fees, OSD accommodation pathways, and the current, violent exclusion of

immunocompromised students from campus already contribute to. A deeply problematic schism between the new knowledge paradigm and modern research is widening as crisis management continues beneath the current institutional structure.

Having grown up in the information age, youth are used to seeking and internalizing holistic comprehensions of the world, given their complete exposure to data and their submersion within machines of intelligence. This context carries minds down paths unknown to previous generations of scholars, and is creating radical alterations to laws of division, segmentation and separation which have been deemed necessary to rigorous application of the scientific method in times past.

Ultimately, I’m not worried about the resilience and mutability of the youth – spaces for new thought will be made by us, and are made by us, especially as the environment of learning becomes increasingly irrelevant, as two years of online school have driven home.

The question is rather whether institutions of higher learning, such as McGill, will continue to uphold the status quo – a decision which will eventually have to be made by the highest levels of policy makers here at

the university.

At the very least, the structure of board governance should be immediately questioned. Not only should old structures be dismantled, but the individuals in power should be replaced.

McGill and other post secondary institutions need diverse voices from the community and from students on how to move forward. As brains and learning capacities shift, the marking system should fall under scrutiny, as should the operations of academic advising and program selection. The teacherstudent relationship should be reimagined, and the separation of learners into different classes based on age, experience, and distinction should cease.

Communal materials, spaces, and platforms should be encouraged. It is important to keep in mind that McGill is a colonial institution built on and complicit in the oppression of groups of people and systems of thought which threaten those in power. Removing the barricades to influence built into this institution will create a safer and more welcoming learning environment for all students. I urge McGill to remember that none of us can hope to escape this calculus.

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

COMMENTARY

11

Open Letter: Hepatitis Can’t Wait Teachings from COVID-19 to combat Hepatitis B and C viruses

Canadian Network on Hepatitis C Trainees 2021-2022

W

e are living in an era of overlapping pandemics.

Like oceanic currents, some flow and spread discreetly under the surface. Others, like tsunamis, wreak havoc as they pass.

Populations have been decimated by microscopic pathogens, but we have come out on the other side, stronger and more knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, the current COVID19 pandemic reaffirms that we still have a lot to learn on how best to control pandemics and combat emerging pathogens. If we look under the surface, below the blaring crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2, more pandemics are ongoing. Silently, many viruses are circulating in the population and causing their slow but steady devastation. One such group of blood-borne pathogens are hepatitis viruses.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are of particular concern, as they have established lifelong infection in over 300 million people worldwide.

Globally, chronic viral hepatitis is the leading cause of liver cancer and liver failure, accounting for approximately 1.1 million deaths per year. The study of these viruses has led to many scientific advancements, such as an effective vaccine for HBV and curative treatments for HCV. These achievements prompted the World Health Organization’s (WHO) commitment to eliminate viral hepatitis as a public health threat by 2030. To improve standard of care and achieve these viral hepatitis elimination targets, we need to take some lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

How have HBV and HCV research provided useful tools to combat COVID-19?

Broad acting antivirals Antivirals can be repurposed to target pathways that are conserved across several viruses. As such, the nucleoside analogs Remdesivir and Sofosbuvir, originally developed to target RNA viruses including Ebola and HCV, have been used to treat COVID-19. RNA viruses often share similar features, enabling us to target them with the same compounds. Many other antivirals that being used to treat chronic HBV and HCV infection are also in phase II/III clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19.

Vaccine development platforms Beyond antivirals, vaccines play a key role in eliminating any viral threat. The HBV vaccine was the first approved vaccine to use recombinant DNA technology, which paved the way for subsequent vaccines, including COVID-19.

The ChAdOx1 vector was initially developed at the University of Oxford as a delivery vector for an HCV vaccine candidate. Although this platform did not prevent chronic HCV infection, it was subsequently used in the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine with great success. Finally, mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna may have reached approval for the first time; however, they have been under development against several pathogens, including HCV. Thus, both HBV and HCV vaccine platforms have provided a steppingstone to accelerate COVID19 vaccine development. In turn, the advancements in mRNA vaccine technologies can be applied in the future to produce an efficacious HCV vaccine.

Genotyping Viruses that replicate using an RNA polymerase, like SARSCoV-2, HBV, and HCV, are prone to changes in their genome called mutations. Many of these mutations can be harmful to the virus, while some provide increased fitness.

Advantageous mutations can become prevalent in the viral population, leading to variants or even different genotypes and subtypes, as is the case for HBV and HCV. Effectively, different HBV or HCV genotypes are associated with various clinical outcomes such as disease severity and progression, or response to treatment. As such, genotyping is of great importance for providing optimal patient care and informed treatment. Previous knowledge about virus evolution has prompted surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants to identify mutations of concern and study their susceptibility to vaccines.

How can our response to the COVID-19 pandemic inform the future of HBV and HCV care?

Telemedicine To reduce traveling and contacts, many activities were moved to a remote format during the COVID19 pandemic — healthcare was no exception. Physician consultations

were carried out remotely when possible, and this virtual approach has previously been shown to help lessen the stigma around various medical issues while making healthcare more accessible. This model comes with many benefits, such as reduced travel, clinic wait times, and anxiety related to HBV and HCV testing and treatment.

Even in the post-COVID-19 era, we can look to implement telemedicine to simplify the viral hepatitis cascade of care.

Facilitated booking systems for testing and vaccination Faced with the immense task of testing and vaccinating an entire population, provincial governments within Canada put in place an online system for individuals to book their appointments without any involvement of staff.

To prevent the spread of infectious pathogens, the first and most important step is to get tested. Historically, stigma and lack of access to testing have been some of the greatest barriers for the prevention, management, and treatment of infectious diseases.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revolutionized the testing process by introducing mobile highcapacity testing centres at diverse locations with specific guidelines for vulnerable populations such as people experiencing homelessness, drive-through testing, home testing kits, and rapid antigen/RNA tests.

To improve the standard of care, these services should be expanded to include viral hepatitis testing and vaccination. Scaling up testing capacity should also be supported with increased efforts to ensure and improve linkage to care, which could greatly improve hepatitis elimination efforts.

Transparency and in-depth data tracking Throughout the pandemic, the Canadian government has been extremely transparent by releasing daily counts of new infections, positive tests, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) occupancies, and deaths. COVID-19 regional hotspots and populations to be prioritized for vaccinations were also noted. This has improved disease awareness and democratized data such that targeted public health initiatives were implemented to further prevent virus spread.

On the contrary, HBV and HCV surveillance reporting is not routine nor timely in many regions across

Canada. This impedes our ability to address outbreaks with adequate localized prevention, testing, linkage to care and treatment offerings.

Viral hepatitis testing should be included as part of regular medical check-ups for key populations and one-time universal testing for the general population. Applying similar dashboards used for COVID-19 surveillance to support the routine and transparent reporting of viral hepatitis data could be a huge step towards normalizing hepatitis while increasing public engagement and progress towards elimination.

Concerted global efforts to accelerate evidence synthesis and support decision-making Governments across the globe have been proactive during the COVID-19 pandemic to adopt public health measures, implement new models for testing and promote mass uptake of vaccination.

Governments have thus relied upon access to the latest evidence to make informed decisions.

Many international initiatives and networks (i.e. COVID-END) have emerged during the pandemic to accelerate evidence synthesis and support decision-making. Progress towards the global elimination of HBV and HCV is also contingent upon international coordination of efforts. Organizations like Action Hepatitis Canada and the World Hepatitis Alliance could draw upon the knowledge and experience acquired through such networks to engage with decision makers more effectively and, ultimately, optimize the global response to the HBV and HCV pandemics.

What has allowed us to respond so quickly to the COVID-19 pandemic?

The rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 combined with a high fatality rate among certain populations called for a rapid global response from governments and the WHO. This response provided financing for emergency vaccine development that led to the administration of highly efficacious vaccines less than one year into the pandemic. Unlike COVID-19, chronic diseases like viral hepatitis take years to develop and lower an individual’s quality of life slowly but steadily. Symptoms of HBV/HCV usually do not appear until late-stage liver disease, at which point the consequences are unlikely to be reversible. Because of the slow progression and lack of

early signs, viral hepatitis does not receive a similar urgency-influenced response from the government, and the amount of funding and public attention that it does get limits research and elimination efforts.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that strong political will, high public awareness, and a rapid and concerted response from scientists and pharmaceutical companies can lead to unprecedented breakthroughs. Using the lessons from COVID-19, we could formulate new guidelines for dealing with other ongoing pandemics and important epidemics. By applying similar strategies to increase disease awareness among the public, we can collectively work towards the elimination of several viral threats and prepare for future pandemics.

Concluding remarks Learning as much as we can about pandemics and taking meaningful steps towards protection against infection and control of disease spread are key elements of an elimination strategy.

Although we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel for COVID-19, other pandemics are ongoing, and “hepatitis can’t wait”. Applying lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic could not only accelerate our progress towards the elimination of viral hepatitis but also help us limit the damage of the next pandemic. Similar to the study of oceanic currents and winds to determine where the next tsunami will hit, public health and research efforts directed at HBV and HCV can help build protective structures to break the waves before they even reach the shore.

This open letter was co-authored

by Marylin Rheault, Mohamed Abdelnabi, Jawaira Atif, Samaa Gobran, Zoë Greenwald, Guillaume Fontaine, Dahn Jeong, Charlotte Lanièce Delaunay, Gillian Kolla, Gayatri Marathe, Jean Damascene Makuza, Sabrina Mazouz, Sameh Mortazhejri, Jiafeng Li, ChingHsuan Liu, Michael Palmer, Ana Maria Passos-Castilho, Yasmin Saeed, Manolya Sag, Mohamed Shengir, Sasha Tejna Persaud Udheister, Hannah Louise Wallace, and Simmone D’souza.

Acknowledegments, author affilliations, and references can be found at mcgilldaily.com.

September 20, 2021 mcgilldaily.com | The McGill Daily

COMPENDIUM!

12

Go Outside, Touch Some Grass Horoscopes Aries (Mar 21 Apr 19)

You will have something to do with bats in the near future. Or maybe in the recent past. In any case, bats will enter your life at some point.

Cancer (Jun 21 Jul 22) You will have ambiguous experiences with elephants this week. Not necessarily real ones, they might be elephant pins or stuffed elephants or something.

Be aware.

Taurus (Apr 20 May 20)

You likely have a lot of cat hair on your clothes. A lint roller may bring you luck. Or at least get rid of the cat hair.

Leo (Jul 23 Aug 22)

You will find a good spot to read this week. Keep track of it – it’ll come in handy later.

Libra

Scorpio

(Sept 23 Oct 22)

(Oct 23 Nov 21)

You will eat something you really like this week. Remember it and try to have it again sometime soon. If you forget, it’ll be a lot harder to find it again.

Capricorn (Dec 22 - Jan 19)

Fall is coming. Take the opportunity to go on walks, visit some parks, and step on every crunchy leaf you can find.

Be nice to bugs. They haven’t done anything wrong, and they’re cute. Especially snails. Are snails bugs? Be nice to them regardless, it’s not their fault if they’re not bugs.

Gemini (May 21 Jun 20)

Sometime soon, hold out your hand to a campus squirrel. You might get a high-five.

Virgo (Aug 23 Sept 22)

This is the week to try something new. Make a soufflé, learn to sew, go ziplining, use a new attachment on your vaccuum cleaner.

Sagittarius (Nov 22 - Dec 21) Call an old friend to see how they’re doing, catch up, reconnect. Or an old enemy to see how they’re doing, catch up, brag about your successes.

Aquarius

Pisces

(Jan 20 Feb 18)

(Feb 19 - Mar 20)

Assuming it rains this week, catch some raindrops on your tongue, it’ll make you happy. If it doesn’t rain, I have no advice for you.

Buy one of those little plastic bottles full of soap and blow some bubbles this week. Bubbles are underrated.