unicorn

Few people will dispute you when it comes to Cuba, including the US State Department, which assigns Cuba a Level 2 caution only (due to petty crime), comparable to most western European countries (UK, France, Germany, Spain, etc.): https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/Cuba.html Travel restrictions to US citizens for Cuba are due to politico-economic reasons, not issues of safety or wrongful detention. Iran, Russia, and North Korea, however, have put Americans in prison with the only goal of using them as bargaining chips to gain concessions from the US. I have seen documentaries regarding many US citizens who were tortured and imprisoned in Iran with no evidence of any wrongdoing. In other cases, the alleged wrongdoing is so inconsequential as to be absurd. Almost everyone has heard of the case of Brittney Griner, who was sentenced to 9 years of hard labor for possession of less than one gram of hash oil used for joint pain, although the typical sentence in Russia for such an offense is 2 weeks' imprisonment: https://sports.yahoo.com/hashish-oil-did-land-brittney-114041136.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFB84SCkoRSJplumKLae6zaMJniMp2A8k-uaOidEkSjmo--g52tNQVixkmWDTHuvdcaNqwzVZsMtXz-lMA32rVEmGc_x27An2UFGwx76aRjo7duCQmNkdIIcdMpVPpwLTMCGlSDfwVGo9p0a7W9e9IvocFfNR6ry3Khq66S5ZqcA "...In Russia, cannabis is illegal. An individual possessing less than 6 grams of cannabis or two grams of hash can be fined or jailed for up to 15 days. Possessing any more than that becomes a more serious criminal offense...". To get her out, the US had to exchange her for Viktor Bout, a murderous illegal arms dealer. An unintentional slip-up led to an international horror story. As for North Korea, most people have heard the story of Otto Warmbier, who was literally tortured to death (murdered) for allegedly trying to steal a poster worth a few dollars at most. Here are the stories of some Americans wrongfully detained in Iran (including one who was there to support environmental efforts in Iran): Travel to countries which wrongfully detain US citizens should be allowed only if the citizens sign acknowledgement/release forms which state: (1) They are aware the country wrongfully detains citizens, and therefore travel to that country is strongly discouraged; and (2) In the event of wrongful detention, the US government will not negotiate a release, and will prosecute anyone who attempts to pay any sort of a ransom to secure release. I would blame any US citizen who attempts to travel to Russia, Iran, or North Korea, because they intentionally imperil themselves and their country. This is why a favor forcing any citizen who travels to such countries to acknowledge the danger and release their country from any peril they incur.

Propaganda only can take hold where there's no free press (such as the Russian Federation). Visa policy is obviously unrelated. Russia has a mostly "monkey-see, monkey-do" policy, wherein they simply reciprocate the other country's visa policy. FYI, few if any Western countries require so much as an e-visa for Mexico. Brazil may require visas for US citizens soon, so far wisely postponing that to take effect. Countries in green, including most Western countries, don't require a visa for Brazil.

You could have just left it at that, perhaps adding "Oh, yeah. You're right--I agree." See how simple it is to be succinct? 😉

No, it's not the same. Russians get all of their information from Putin. What do you think US opinion would be like if the only source of information we could access was Fox News? Intentionally putting out false information with no one to challenge it? Any reporter who dares challenge a false narrative murdered? No political challenges allowed? You don't understand what it's like to live in a dictatorship. Even just wearing a rainbow flag can get you thrown in jail. Yes, Putin is a despicable dictator. Most Russians are his victims, however. Any idea that they have choices is an illusion.

While I agree with you that at this point the evidence for Biden's dementia is convincing, it's pretty obvious that Trump has dementia as well. Trump may have fronto-temporal dementia, which could bode bigger danger. https://news.yahoo.com/5-times-trump-showed-signs-165136412.html Trump has mixed up President Biden and former President Obama so often that he even had to post a disclaimer on Truth Social explaining that these flubs were intentional. Just a few days ago, Trump mixed the two up during an appearance on Fox News. He was talking to Sean Hannity about the necessity of giving presidents immunity when he said, "Because when he leaves office, the opposing party, president, if it's the opposing party, will indict the president for doing something that should have been good, like Obama dropped missiles, and they ended up hitting a kindergarten or school or the apartment house, a lot of people were killed." Earlier this month, Trump made a similar mistake when he claimed he was ahead of Obama in the polls when he meant to say Biden. "As you know, crooked Joe Biden and the radical left thugs have weaponized law enforcement to arrest their leading political opponent, and leading by a lot, including Obama — I'll tell you what," he said during a Washington D.C. summit, Business Insider reports. In this same speech, he also mixed up Obama and his 2016 presidential election opponent, Hilary Clinton. "With Obama, we won an election that everyone said couldn't be won," he said... Last September, at a speech at the Pray Vote Stand summit in Washington, D.C., Trump claimed that Biden is “cognitively impaired” before warning that the current president would lead up into WWII — you know, the war that our grandparents fought in... At a rally in South Carolina last year, Trump went on another rant about wind turbines, this time claiming that “windmills” were killing whales by “driving them crazy.”

Man boobs simply aren't sexually provocative...

I feel a song coming on...

The fact that it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. I suspect someone complained. The article states she was pulled aside, rather than speaking to her in front of the passengers. If she chose to blab about it afterward, that was her choice.

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. Should people be allowed aboard wearing anything they please? Only a swimsuit? Topless? A KKK robe? That Kiwi was obviously trying to get a reaction--and she got one. Boo-hoo. Airlines rarely have to take such action, but some people simply take the extra effort to dress in ways designed to provoke negative reactions--and then complain when they get a negative reaction. Why should parents be forced to let their children admire her breasts?

Well, I think it's rather prejudiced to hate people due to their nationality. It would be more accurate to say "he is teaching the world what Putin's values are, and your country is hated." The Russian people really have no choice in the matter. The last and only remaining candidate to oppose the war was thrown off the ballot, as everyone knew was going to happen. I have met some perfectly nice Russians. Putin controls the press in Russia, so Russians can only hear what a great guy he is. Even if they did want to get rid of him, there is no way to do so. Putin can and does eliminate any opposition, including even expressions of disapproval.

I think it would be more accurate to say the candidate who's a better public speaker, not more likable. I would also point out that H. Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump did (a full 2 percentage points more). Trump was only elected due to the tragedy of the ridiculously outdated electoral college system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

The Cochrane Review provides some of the most complete and objective literature review: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010315.pub5/full This 2022 review of the latest data showed: " At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future."

The graph you posted simply posted definitions, not treatment guidelines. Indeed, treatment guidelines do vary, depending on the organization. While there is a small improvement in cardiovascular benefit to getting the BP from the 130s to the 120s, this is counterbalanced by a small increase in harms from the meds for most people. So, for the average patient (not someone with coronary artery disease or congestive heart failure, for example), the risks of tight BP control outweigh the benefits (unless one can bring the BP down from exercise, diet, weight loss, treatment of obstructive sleep apnea, or other non-pharmacological methods). https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2022/1200/practice-guidelines-hypertension.html#:~:text=Using a blood pressure target,65 and 80 mm Hg. Key Points for Practice • Blood pressure targets of 140 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic offer similar reduction in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality as lower targets and have fewer adverse effects. • Lower blood pressure targets lead to a reduction in myocardial infarction, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years. • After achieving initial blood pressure control, shared decision-making can be used to determine whether lower blood pressure targets should be considered. More recent guidelines take into account more recent studies, which look at overall morbidity and mortality, not simply a reduction in cardiovascular events: https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Articles/2024/02/05/11/43/2023-ESH-Hypertension-Guideline-Update Please note that both guidelines stress the importance of individualization of care, not simply "one size fits all." Note the important sentence "Pooled Cohort Equation and SCORE2/SCORE2-OP provide estimates for 10 year risk of fatal/nonfatal cardiovascular events and should be used to guide treatment decisions."

Well, we are not privy to either's medical records, so we cannot know what diagnoses either may have. You are also right that people with AD can live a long time, especially if they have healthy lifestyles. Part of my estimates relies on the rate of decline in mental function of the two candidates. But this study in the prestigious British Medical Journal shows that healthy lifestyles do make a difference. I believe the yellow and purple are mislabeled on the graphs. https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers/life-expectancy#fa-qs How long can a 70-year-old live with dementia? People can live for many years with an AD diagnosis. Dementia is a symptom of the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease. In one 2022 studyTrusted Source, people lived an average of 1.4 to 4.1 years with dementia, depending on gender and healthy lifestyle factors. The study: https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj-2021-068390

On the subject of dementia, you can't seem to remember what was just written in recent posts on this string. Few people, including on this forum, believe Biden is fit for the Presidency. Certainly neither SK nor myself. The issue is that Trump isn't either. And the question is who would be more dangerous.

Ideal goals vary, depending on patient factors, including especially other health conditions and age. For an average risk patient, there's little benefit in getting the BP much under 139/89. Some patient could benefit more from a BP of 129/79 or lower. Best measurements are home evening measurements in a calm environment, with the BP taken after the person has been sitting for 5 minutes with both feet flat on the floor, back rested, no talking or activity.

That was my sense. My fiance's name was on the reservation, so it's not as if I was sneaking him in. He does not look at all like a minor. We've gone to countless hotels around the world (and US), and never been so questioned.

As I tried to explain previously, the Social Security numbers are very poor estimates, and intentionally designed to avoid penalizing those with good health habits, by treating all people equally from a financial standpoint. (For example, my best friend's domestic partner was a couch potato who spent his days drinking and watching TV. He was wise to start collecting social security as soon as he was able, 60, and died of pancreatic cancer at the age of 63). While we have incomplete data, I believe it's unlikely Biden will still be alive in 5 years, much less alive and able to make the least bit of sense when talking (almost certainly unable to complete his duties as POTUS). I also don't think Trump/Putin would be able to complete his term, though that would end up as a bigger mess. Alzheimer's patients lose memories like an onion that's being peeled. The oldest memories are the last to be lost. This is why Biden remembers Mitterrand, not Macron, and Kohl rather than Merkel, and also why Trump remembers Pelosi rather than Haley. It's only a matter of time before they even lose their ability to recognize even the most familiar politicians and even close family members. Yes, other people will take on the POTUS duties (as was the case for Reagan and FDR), but neither candidate is starting in a good place.

Yes, obviously. 😆

Social Security actuaries are a pretty lousy way to predict life expectancy for any given individual, especially in older age. A person's health, demographics, and habits play a huge role. Obviously, social security can't go into details, nor, probably, should it. We certainly don't want social security to say "We're going to give you a bigger monthly check because you're a smoker, boozer, and a fat couch potato, and probably don't have long to live." I don't know the details of his health history, but my guess is it's unlikely Biden would survive a 2nd term, and even less likely that he'll make it without obvious behavioral manifestations of dementia. Hearing him say that he spoke to Mitterrand in 2021 was particularly cringe, since Mitterrand died in 1996. Mistaking Angela Merkel for Helmut Kohl was even more cringe. This is not his (nor Trump's) pretty blatant evidence of overt confusion, which can be a pretty late sign of dementia. I suspect he may show signs of agitation and even worse confusion in the next 2 years. (Both candidates already show some of those signs) (I don't see the resemblance): There are online calculators which are much better predictors of life expectancy in older people: https://apps.goldensoncenter.uconn.edu/HLEC/ I think you're giving too much credit to death certificate statistics. Death certificates are often completed by physicians who might not even know the patient. Autopsies are very rarely performed. My legal (not biological) father's cause of death was listed as pneumonia, which certainly was the immediate cause, but the reason he aspirated into his lungs was advanced dementia. My mother's cause of death was listed as "Multi-infarct (hypertensive stroke) dementia," although in her 84 years, she never had high blood pressure. My sibs and I did pay for a private autopsy, and found out she died of a very rare form of cancer (angiosarcoma). Whoever put that diagnosis on her birth certificate had not only never laid eyes on my late mother, but he hadn't even bothered to look at her medical records. Unless there's an obvious cancer or drug overdose/violent death, coroners put tremendous pressure on physicians to write down an MI (heart attack), stroke, COPD, or pneumonia (obviously influenza if the patient tested + for that).

As much as I despise Trump, and think that he also probably has dementia, it seems pretty obvious at this point that Biden almost certainly does as well. One of the challenging aspects to caring for people with Alzheimer's, in particular, is that they usually don't have any insight into their own cognitive decline. So, unfortunately, since I doubt anyone would dare confront him (not that any confrontation would likely be successful), I doubt Biden will bow out. Yes, alas, it looks as though it'll be two men whose minds are slipping away battling each other. The question is who would be more dangerous. Obviously, best-case scenario, someone is able to convince Biden to let someone else run in his place. I do see that as unlikely, however. Only sure-fire way to know for sure would be to administer each a cognitive assessment test such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test. Trump described it as "very hard" (it's not, if you don't have cognitive impairment) 4 years ago, and I can't imagine he'd pass it now. Nor, I don't imagine, would Biden.

Well, as for us, we're living the gay fairy tale...

I like A. Blinken

https://www.facebook.com/realdoctormike https://www.instagram.com/doctor.mike/ https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/mikhail-varshavski.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Mike