unicorn

BN is responsable for this tragedy from start to finish, although Hamas is worse. The US is essentially bankrolling BN's entire operation, and our aid should be contingent on how it's carried out. BN's policies were the catalyst for this mess. Before BN even got elected, Biden should have made an announcement that the amount of US aid to Israel would depend on whom they elected. And now, Biden should make it clear that further US $$ would depend on how the fight was conducted. I remember hearing some Israeli government official saying something along the lines of "We're of course interested in what our friends in the US have to say, but ultimately it's up to us to decide how to conduct this war." I thought, "No, it's our money. If you can't behave in a decent manner, it's up to us to decide whether or not to continue to fund it." The arrogance of BN and his officials simply floors me. The US can and should put its foot down. Certainly, one cannot in any way justify what Hamas did. The response, however, is becoming increasingly over-the-top, as plainly manifested by Israeli soldiers gunning down their own citizens, who were holding white flags. That was standard IDF protocol, not a fluke. Time to put a stop to this. There should be new elections in Israel.

That David Ermold sounds like a piece of work himself: https://apnews.com/domestic-news-domestic-news-general-news-46b00bab86dc4238a4d03a8688a65605 "...Ermold said he has no firsthand knowledge of Caudill, 45, using anti-gay slurs. But he has posted screenshots of others on Facebook making the accusations, calling Caudill a bigot and urging others not to vote for him. At least one person who made those accusations has since retracted them. Caudill showed The Associated Press lengthy private Facebook messages from one man who apologized and said his account had been hacked... This annoyed Ermold, who acknowledged he was “bitter” about losing the primary. He said he didn’t regret posting the messages about Caudill, even if they helped Davis win...". Calling someone a bigot simply based on rumor/innuendo and being bitter about losing a primary represents childish pettiness in the extreme. Fortunately, Caudill was elected and has been gay-supportive, despite Ermold's defamatory statements.

Wow. Maybe some air traffic controller or pilot had too much celebration for New Year's?

Yikes. I'm all for more research, but according to that link (of a lay press article): "In theory, the similarity of the two bacteria suggests that the meningitis B vaccine could offer some protection against gonorrhea... But to date all of the data supporting the use of the vaccine to protect against gonorrhea have been observational, meaning researchers have looked at gonorrhea rates in cohorts of people who received the vaccine for meningitis-control purposes." Observational studies can only suggest areas for further research in the form of randomized clinical trials. They never suggest causation. The observation that those who are vaccinated against MGC have 33% to 42% fewer gonorrhea infections that those who don't only raises the question. It does not provide an answer. One obvious interpretation of the observation is that people who've received the meningococcal vaccine are simply more cautious, and could be doing any number of other helpful behaviors, such as partner selection, condom use, and so forth. Of course, one might argue that vaccination against meningococcus is very unlikely to cause harm, so why not. That's true. However, any help the vaccine may or may not provide is still quite speculative. I would get the vaccine with the idea that it'll protect me against MGC. Even if it were to provide some 38% protection from GC (probably best-case scenario, and theoretical at this point), that's not something to count on.

Well, if you put "perhaps" after a statement, the perhaps can be anything, no matter how outlandishly unlikely. Putting unfounded medical advice out there might lead someone to rely on that information, and get into real trouble. There is no evidence that scrubbing won't be harmful, either. One can imagine that tears in the skin could increase risk. I know of no evidence either way. What a person might find "aesthetically attractive" is entirely besides the point.

Well, those bacteria take hold in the urethra and the rectum (and throat). Where did you get the information that scrubbing those places helps prevent infection? I haven't read that anywhere. If anything, it might be that damaging a mucous membrane could increase the risk of infection. Please read page 1 of the syphilis brochure and page 2 of the gonorrhea brochure. The CDC does not believe washing is helpful. https://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/the-facts/syphilis_bro_508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/std/gonorrhea/the-facts/gonorrhea_bro_508.pdf "• Washing the genitals, urinating, or douching after sex will not prevent any STD..."

Although there are quite a few people on this board from Thailand, this string was not posted in the Gay Thailand forum. IMHO, it would have been more appropriate to title this string "Thai domestic airfares set to fall.". This board isn't, and shouldn't be serving only the gay Thai community.

Medicare Advantage can help those temporarily out of the country. However, if you live abroad, you'll probably need another policy. They're usually much less expensive in foreign countries than they are in the US.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470439/ "...When patients with gonococcal arthritis are treated with antibiotics, there is usually full recovery without any sequelae...". Kudos to whoever diagnosed you. It's not an easy diagnosis to make, in that one must suspect it (of course, if you already had urinary symptoms, the diagnosis may have been more obvious). Hopefully, you will also be evaluated to see if your immune system is functioning well. Disseminated GC can happen in anyone, but is more common in those with compromised immune systems.

I'm not sure I believe those numbers...

We found the movie a bit slow and in need of editing. The acting was good, though.

Ajar A jarjar

I join your skepticism. Septic means something different, by the way... 😉

I'm not fan of Putin's, for sure, but that statement's hyperbole. Russia has a lot of competition, such as Syria, Somalia, North Korea, Uganda, Yemen, and Venezuela. You won't catch me in any of those places.

There is ZERO evidence at this point that masks provide ANY level of protection against SARS-CoV2. The confidence intervals include both harm and help, so it's possible that masks increase the risk. In fact, one of the meta-analyses showed a relative risk of 1.01. Comparisons with casino gambling do not support your argument. Gambling against the casino with the expectation to come ahead is irrational. Coming out ahead is possible but unlikely. Comparisons with cancer chemotherapy are also irrational. While chemo provides no guarantees, those medications have been been proven to extend life in large studies. The alternative is usually certain death. People frequently take actions just to allay fears without proven benefit. Rhinoceroses may be going extinct because of the myth that their horns, taken in powdered form, may help with erections. This is despite the fact that rhino horns are simply made of keratin, the same material as fingernails or hair. One cannot prove something which isn't true by using irrational "arguments." Facts are discovered through scientific scrutiny, not sophistry. The fact that people can and do at times act irrationally doesn't prove anything.

For a shorter excursion, I would recommend Rhinefalls over Luzern. Luzern deserves a few days, as the main sights are going up and down the mountains around the lake and other cities around Luzern, as well as boat trips on the lake. When you take the train from Zurich to Rheinfalls, you go through a German exclave (Büsingen am Hochrhein), and your phone will say "Welcome to Germany" when you enter the town and then again "Welcome to Switzerland" when you pass the town.

Well, I met one young Mexican physician whom I hired to come travel with me in the US in 2021. He did contract the virus a couple of times (he had to work inside the hospital, as a resident physician), and yes, he wore masks and protective gear assiduously. One physician who responded to this thread said he worked in the ER during 2020 and didn't contract it then. One cannot be certain why the difference, but a rational explanation could be the difference in the work settings' ventilation designs. I'm not aware of any study which compares healthcare workers' infection rates in different countries. Such a study might provide clues.

Russians pride themselves on how many of them die in conflicts (the only country that I know of which prides itself in its own citizens' deaths). And they don't mind eating each other like cannibals if needed.

And you're happy for OJ as well? A bit sociopathic, perhaps? While agree that the amount awarded was rather over-the-top, Rudy did very maliciously ruin these women's lives with his outrageous lies. Not murder, but still vicious and malicious. What kind of a sick person would cheer for Rudy (or OJ)?

The meta-analysis looked at various studies, some of them in tightly-controlled medical settings. Most certainly, it did not back any contention that masks work. That study did include observers to assess compliance. Even with incomplete compliance, one might expect to see some difference. In any case, this is what can be said about our knowledge so far: Yes, it is the case that there is no proof masks have no effect. No, there is no evidence of any effect (beneficial or otherwise). Our current state of knowledge strongly suggests that if there is an effect, the effect is modest--almost certainly no more than 30% (and even that's unlikely). Within the range of most probable efficacy (which seem to center near 0%), maximal efficacy is almost not going to be meaningful. I doubt men would wear condoms if their efficacy were around 30% (optimistically), nor would the FDA approve a vaccine that only decreased transmission by 30%. Yes, some people do it just because it makes them feel better, but that's not any evidence of efficacy.

If you're going to quote a study, it would be wise to read it. First of all, there were interventions other than mask-wearing between the two communities (i.e. distancing). However, even if we were to incorrectly assume that masking was the only intervention, the experimental group showed only a 9.5% drop in transmission, with a 95% confidence interval which approached unity. Even with that (again, incorrect) assumption, few people would say that an efficacy of less than 1 in 10 is significant. Randomized clinical trials, especially in healthcare settings, in which only one variable is changed are more instructive. And meta-analyses (joining together) of these RCT's even more instructive.

If it makes you feel better, that's wonderful. Some people get comfort from rosary beads or prayer. I'm sure you understand that this is not evidence of efficacy.

Some people find it helps them sleep 😉

Well, of course it would always be correct to say that it hasn't been proven that masks have NO effect. No researcher or health care professional would ever make a blanket statement such as "Masks don't work." Do you think any scientist would say "My study shows masks don't work!"? One cannot prove a negative. There has been a fairly large number of studies done under controlled conditions, however, and they all come to a similar conclusion. What can be stated, with a high degree of confidence, is that if there is any effect, that effect is small (since the confidence intervals of the relative risks are generally near 1, the effect might be that masking increases risk of infection). Most certainly, unless there are real-life randomized controlled trials of which I'm unaware, what can be unequivocally stated is that studies so far have shown no evidence of a protective effect of masking. It's interesting that for the last year, there don't seem to be more studies on this matter. I suspect it may be because most people in this field consider the matter settled (that any effect, if present, is too small to be considered helpful), or maybe because no one wants to fund such further research. To summarize: (1) No real-life study has suggested masking has ANY efficacy at reducing spread of either influenza or SARS-CoV2. (2) No study has or ever will prove that masking has no effect on transmission. (3) When combining the multiple randomized controlled trials which have examined the effect of masking, either with surgical masks or N95's, one can say with 95% confidence that any effect either way is small (if present). This is the language of science.