unicorn

It's not as well known to the general public, but birth control pills carry a 1 in 10,000 risk of blood clots in non-smoking women, and in smoking women it's much higher. I wonder if the women who got the clots (and they've all been women) were smokers. It hasn't been discussed. Smoking alone carries a huge risk of blood clotting. Of course, the risk for the illness is much higher than the risk of clotting from the vaccine, but if the risk is only for smoking women, maybe smoking women can be steered to the other vaccines, unless they really don't want the 2nd shot that the other two manufacturers' vaccines recommend.

It looks as though whatever vaccine Chile's using, it's not as effective as Pfizer, Moderna, A-Z, or J&J.

Am I considered newbie with the merger?

Not just that, but I'm sure some of the photographers (credited) and models got business due to the postings. Sometimes I even publicized the OnlyFans sites for these people. It was a win-win for everyone.

Well, I'm obviously not happy that years of work collecting photos into categories has gone down the toilet with a click of a button--especially when all of those photos are readily available to anyone on the internet, just not categorized. I would clearly have preferred to see the 40 questionable photos removed, rather than throwing away the baby with the bathwater. I'm not sure how Daddy's avoids trouble, but I guess I'll have to go back there. I feel a bit like an artist whose work has been vandalized....

Did you actually read the article, or just the headline? "It is not known if adults are as likely to carry the virus and the antibodies at the same time. Also not clear from the study is whether children who have developed antibodies are still able to pass the virus to others." Sorry, but the studies have been done by the South Korean CDC. Once people have antibodies, viral particles can still be detected for quite some time in the nasopharynx. But these particles are not contagious.

Pretty ridiculous. If you're that close for that long, a mask won't help you.

All I can say is "Wow." Someone resurrected at the M4M foums a 5 year-old string (What's Your Earliest "I'm Queer" memory?) in which people were asked to recall when they first realized they were gay (in my case it when I was a 12 year-old in my gym class, admiring the 14 year-old who led us into calisthenics, which I discussed in my 2015 response). The string was locked with the following message: "Thread Closed. It is against the rules to discuss children; even ourselves." So discussing our past is child porn?? I don't think even Justice Thomas or Justice Alito would go that far. I can certainly understand and wholly support banning child pornography. But if the mere mention of children in a non-sexual way is child pornography, so is Mary Poppins. Am I the only person who feels this way, or is the leadership at M4M completely off its rocker?

No, I did not sit through the entire trial, obviously. But I would love to hear about what you heard about the jurors' logic. Why was there essentially no doubt in their minds that the sex couldn't have been consensual and/or used for personal gain of the women involved? I haven't heard those interviews. What did they say?

Well, juries are often cherry-picked and not necessarily the brightest people. I certainly feel there was reasonable doubt as to whether rape occurred or whether these women (repeatedly) used sex for personal gain, then later (after having reaped the rewards) regretted it. Weinstein is obviously a creep, but could it not be possible that these women consented to sex, if only for nefarious purposes? I don't think most jurors understand the meaning of the words "reasonable doubt," but rather just go by their guts, and what they feel is more likely than not to be the case. It's the reason there are so many innocent people languishing in prison.

Well, if you're not having side-effects, you might as well take it. Dutasteride doesn't actually lower testosterone levels, but rather, it blocks the testosterone receptors in the prostate, if that makes sense. All men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough, so when you say that prostate cancer runs in the family, it's important to differentiate whether prostate cancer has killed members of your family, or whether just it's been discovered through screening tests (most prostate cancers never affect the life of the person who has it). In the US, autopsy results on men who die for other reasons show that the chance of having an undiagnosed prostate cancer roughly equals your age (i.e. 30% at age 30, 80% at age 80).

It's an anti-testosterone medication. Dutasteride may be a bit more specific for certain testosterone receptors. Finasteride and dutasteride will both reduce the amount of cum you produce first by blocking testosterone directly (immediate effect), and secondly by shrinking the prostate, which is the organ that produces most of your cum (long-term effect which may last years). It's extremely safe in men over 40. In fact, if you're ever to get prostate cancer, it will delay the onset of your getting prostate cancer, possibly for as long as you take it.

Sounds like a loon. Maybe I'm missing something, but how does one have sexual relationships with inmates in correctional facilities (especially if one isn't an inmate there)?

https://www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/zombie-snails

His death is very convenient for a number of people...

The only time I send someone to the ER is when they need something done there that I can't do myself (such as immediate labs, Chest X-ray, etc.). When patients go to the ER themselves, they almost always seem to end up with a CT scan and get sent home on a Z-pak. Documented are crazy exams which they never actually do (i.e. a person comes in complaining of ear pain, and an abdominal and neurological exam are documented, but not an ear exam), and differentials written by computers which are both ridiculous and never really explored (like, no, elephantiasis is not in the differential of that 80 year-old who came in with swollen feet, and if you really considered a DVT or PE, why didn't you even order a D-dimer??). When I ask patients "Did he actually check your reflexes when you came in for an earache?", they usually say no even when the exam is documented. And why order a strep test in the dude with a sore throat and a cough who clearly has a simple cold, if you're going to ignore the negative strep test and send the patient home with a Z-pack anyway?

There are three hospitals within easy driving distance from my office. Some are better than others, but I often roll my eyes regardless of which ER it is. Similarly in other places I've worked with other hospitals. Skilled ER doctors are few and far between. ER medicine attracts physicians who lack commitment. That's the nature of the specialty. FWIW, most of my colleagues are of the same opinion. We talk about this often. Emergency medicine is a specialty in which nothing is really done other than passing the problem to someone else--for the most part.

Is an assisted living facility an option for you?

There is far too little information in your posting to be able to advise you regarding home health. ER physicians are usually the bottom of the barrel within the physician community (for the most part), and I take little stock in what they say. Their job is mainly just figuring out which doctor can actually take care of the patient's problem (and they don't always even get that right). Your primary care physician is in the best position to determine whether you'll benefit from home health care. If you can't make it to your physician's office, then a home visiting RN would probably be appropriate.

Did it reveal that RH has a good 6th sense?