SirBillybob

Signed: HothungXXXL Notarized by Flimflam Bamboozle & Associates I’m dying here.

That of limitless limitations and the inevitable aggravation of unfiltered obnoxious townhall hecklers? But wait for it: your ballot will be shredded, unable to bear the weight of validation ticks coming your way. 😘 There could be XX chromosomes in the crowd. Will you be OK? Venues here and worldwide want to be sure to bend over backwards in accommodation but you’ll need to give advance notice. Help us to help you! I possess robust antimicrobial capacity for it.

Chuckling over this. The profile descriptors seem so constricted and boilerplate to me. It’s as if most providers plagiarize what they already see from others. The caveat of lack of desire for drama is too universal to warrant specification, as if a provider expressing the necessity of being spared drama believes that a subset of peers tolerates or seeks such aggravation. Pass. But that is far from my pet peeve. What gets my eyes rolling up into their orbital cavities is the superfluous descriptor “hot” that accompanies images or is embedded in pseudonym. There is absolutely no justification for attempting to lead the viewer to make such an assessment, as if ambivalence or reticence on the viewer’s part is open to influence by whatever wording the advertiser appends. (Well, I was hedging on whether those pics are appealing enough to me to run to the nearest ATM, but I’ll buy into it if you say so, … as if ambivalence about a photo of a main course eatery menu looks iffy but the server asserts: “Don’t get to wrapped up in the image; that offering is unimaginably delish and you should commit to overriding any ambivalence getting in your own way. Take it from me …” … “I agree the perfume bottle lacks the design finesse befitting the price-tag, Madame, but I can assure you that it has no obvious flatus notes”) You know who you are. And we already know you must be hot, hunbun,or why else would you be charging an arm leg tit and toenail for a basic life function.

In case you missed the slide on Human Papilloma Virus and it’s non-wimpy transmissibility nature including within lower-level vanilla-grade interaction, notwithstanding your viral subtype exposures already possibly on board to date, assuming your age puts you outside the window of younger persons’ vaccine uptake campaigns having been employed this century, it is strongly advised to seek and acquire a course of Gardasil9 vaccination.

A sheep could be rural. The question is does he have any wool and how many full bags can he exchange for the transient husbandry he seeks. However, as Mary emphasized with her little lamb, heed the clinical advice and dynamics in which you figure as but a complex transactional algorithm component including where humanism may be integral, but be wary of candy and provider recommendations from strangers. My biggest personal takeaway over decades: one story’s prince is another’s frog.

Blink once and it could be one plot line, twice and could be another. Maybe nepo baby Kravitz didn’t clearly write in nepo-baby Hawke for a reason. Ambiguity ensued. He wears the perfume intended to wipe memory yet castigated by Slater for standing by when the females were victimized. All characters’ knowledge of enacted reality is transient. Yet he could be called out for paralytic inaction over which no recollection could be accessible other than that implied by Slater; how could he actually interpret that indictment? Can’t really. Yet you can’t blink at all or you’d miss why Slater had transient non-redaction of recall. The flower extract nullifies recall and snake venom from a random bite or that is curated as antidote to perfume reverses erasure. That’s the cartoon plot device that pushes the otherwise non-credible narrative along. Binary victim-perp categorization is confounded all round. At first glance it appears gender-stratified yet Stacy (Davis, a known face of #metoo anti-misogyny in real life) is perp adjacent and perfumed, and the old woman (the sole undrugged) is allied with Frida. Lucas may have been a token option for victimization but could have remained in a neutral zone according to whether he was a desirable for those cast as predatorial or whether he had a similar predilection for exploitive cruelty as most of the males. Similarly, it is unclear whether perps paid for the privilege or were all simply pawns of Slater and his Machiavellian shrink. Whoever saw dead people didn’t later. My take is that Lucas simply didn’t fit in due to mostly decent majority membership and most on the island had not been selected via vetting anyway. At the risk of plot-spoiling, Lucas’ outcome was unrelated to any particular intentionality of any type directed his way. In a consensual context I wouldn’t have particularly deemed him fuckable.

I would never need to fire a physician involved in my care … knock on wood so far … because I would have had the necessary and sufficient read on them within the first five minutes of interaction to determine buy-in that two ringmasters, each bringing their particular contributions, yields optimal co-existence in any health system circus.

Would that all writing were as consistent as frivolous whining.

The divide between pro- and anti- vax ideology narrows with the ongoing slow-walked progression of elaboration regarding the potential toxicities of mRNA vaccine platforms and their novel delivery systems. A quick search will reveal that these papers are emerging from reputable sources peer-reviewed in reputable periodicals, and not foaming at the mouth regarding the atrocities of arbitrary vaccine admin. While genuine adverse events have not been dismissed for obvious reasons not the least of which is that rapidly produced vaccination slashed back morbidity and mortality as far back as initial vaccine research in which SARS-CoV infection was equivalent in vaxx and placebo sub-cohorts, their type, breadth, and the occurrence ratios by administration are criticized by some clinicians as being well beyond conventional thresholds for which regulatory bodies withhold authorization on other products. Expansion of mRNA/LNPdelivery into other domains is sometimes met with early failure due to toxicity. That takes some of the shine off as well. The trend is that the naysaying regarding coronavirus vaccination remains based on some degree of evidentiary cherry-picking yet gradually departs from the realm of outright quackery. In this context, why would it be so unusual for a growing minority of physicians to question the validity of ongoing sequential (eg, seasonal) uptake? The vax skeptic crowd is getting more of what they need while devotees are prone to partial or complete turncoat rotation, are well over the honeymoon, cozying up to the protein subunit vaccine option that itself implies a ‘sommelier’ stance where the concept of toxicity evasion stands in for vintage preference, recognize the vast and growing quantity of mRNA individual or class action suits, or are getting behind the legitimate yet impractical suggestion that much more research be conducted on adverse event susceptibility factors that the Immunology field asserts is technically doable for eventually reducing primary and secondary mRNA platform adverse events by population denominator. Just go to another doctor? It’s likely that the next in line will promote the prevalent vaccine on hand. Nothing egregiously wrong with an overly simplistic suggestion in which a deleterious outcome specific to a single prophylaxis event is remote. The original physician is spared the anxiety of a possible clinical occurrence that remains quantifiably if not qualitatively less possible than the complication of coronavirus infection. His or her primary blunder was in not conceding legitimate uncertainty about the costs-benefits and not placing the decision conundrum squarely on the shoulders of the patient. That would be the reason for me to submit his/her walking papers. … Time flies. I just hit 8 seasons since my last SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose.

Armchairs are always in style.

The good news about the Mayo study is that for parents promoting childhood obesity, early life antibiotic uptake does not significantly militate against the goal of having a population consisting of a majority of overweight offspring. The graph colours are inexplicably non-contrasting. With eye strain, the females are the slightly more green hue and males blue hue, hence boys a bit higher probability irrespective of antibiotic uptake. The broken lines represent early antibiotic uptake (binary yes-no not stratified for number of prescription courses) Many families override medical dogma, so there’s that.

I had merely indicated in a post (Aug 30) regarding the topic of who has ever had COVID that the assertion of having ever had COVID compared to the assertion of ever having had a cold was not the same considering there would be more additional time needed going forward to move the COVID dial from roughly 85% population lifetime incidence to closer to 100%. At that point the discussion would be moot, similar to the question of who has actually ever had the common cold. Your spontaneous response was that COVID for some people is worse in the long term compared to the common cold. While that is not untrue, I did not see the point of adding what is irrefutable but was unrelated to the discussion around assumptions of having ever had COVID. A shortfall of 10-15% of the population having yet been infected, that is escaped exposure, sheds no light on the clinical phenomenon of longstanding COVID health consequences, particularly as I add at the end here … Happy now? But I can see after a two-week hiatus that the thread has meandered all over the place. Surprising.😉 … By the way, there are several reviews on “long COVID” that put its prevalence from 5% to 50%. They are termed meta-analysis reviews because they merge several actual surveillance studies in combination. In spite of meta-analyses being of higher scientific standard, it is obvious that consensus on what it is and how many have it is sorely lacking. COVID conveniently explains the inexplicable in deteriorating health that could be, usually is, attributable to the less than fully explicable yet naturalistic. I will soon have a nuclear test for new onset cardiac symptoms. In 2019 I would never have mused about whether such symptoms were related to (confirmed) viral exposure or vaccination. Now who can help it, it’s all so front of mind. I am retired but there are likely a lot of folks unhappy with their employment that pursue secondary gain simply by presenting or believing in a clinical syndrome about which relatively little is known or agreed upon. It’s a bonanza for those that missed out on chronic fatigue syndrome because there is, in contrast, a true CoV pathogen and a remedy that mimics the pathogen. Hello disability claim, bye occupational drudgery.

The Canadian delay is administrative, not regulatory. NACI underscored importance of timely adjudication this year due to unnecessary cases last year as a result of late rollout. There is no clinical reason for PHAC to lag on approval. They insist all old formulations be destroyed first due to drug identification numbers common coding and some provinces’ pharmacies refuse to go weeks with zero stock. A “top doc” said a few people will get sick due to the delay but it is a small minority. Smells like a stalemate. Also lack of clinical agreement on integrating products for respiratory illness season versus getting a jump on COVID that seems first out the gate re: incidence seasonally. It’s a cluster fcuk. It appears that they could clinically approve right now but don’t want to be criticized for delay in dose administration because organizing staffing and appointments etc means additional weeks. And then the same for flu, and so on. They are holding out for concomitant dosing various diseases and dicking around with the hope that one or more vaccines will be in the same syringe eventually. This year the USA FDA got it right. I will likely get a ride to Plattsburgh soon and pay for a shot. But then I am born in Canada and pay for most of my health care out of pocket including testing, MRIs, colonoscopy, lab work etc, because my province permits physicians to bill privately.

If you had read me correctly you would realize that I was referring to the relevance of CoV pandemic incidence compared to the epidemiology of common cold incidence. 85% nucleocapsid seroconversion versus 100% cold occurrence (assuming most have had a lifetime cold virus) on a lifetime basis is not a morbidity comparison. By now, everybody is aware that COVID sequelae are unique.

Follow current vaccine guidance. Gone fishing.

Getting somewhere, maybe. It’s conceivable based on these metrics that many folks have accurately assessed their infection history. The basis of information for known yes/no infection incidence to date is based on lab measurable markers among subpopulations tested for those markers within immunity task force projects, eg blood donors, and extrapolated to genpop. Isolation is relative as its own state as well as in a context of other protective measures. It is one component of exposure risk. Pure chance is a major determinant. For a population single-infection history of 850,000 within one million persons over 4 years the estimate of 2-week contagion within interaction is 1%, 8500. You can estimate exposure risk from that. Non-exposure is 99%, as it is the pool from which infection could not occur. Over 4 years, a single-infection transmission potential from an infected person to a virus-free person is roughly 1%. Let’s assess the interaction exposure that yields a 15% chance of infection evasion. The number of unprotected single-event person interactions irrespective of closeness, intimacy level, etc, that nevertheless results in a 15% probability of non-exposure simply because infection and its transmission is impossible due to no pathogen present is approximately 189, minimally, a higher number in fact when accounting for one in seven persons within the total pool having not been capable of transmission because they never acquired infection. A lot of random or planned encounters could occur in Ozarks or wherever without incurring infection. That is why some of us were spared infection for a lengthy or total period of pandemic time while retired from lighthouse-keeping and canoodling with objects of affection.

At some point in the future the claim that most people from 2020 on caught SARS-CoV-2 will be an assertion more valid than currently. Perhaps the non-infected to date gap will close more rapidly if incidence patterns surge going forward. It will be as relevant as the question of how many folks have had a common cold.

I have referred to both the population proportions having caught the virus and the science that grounds the reality that a substantial minority, irrespective of regional population density and breadth of human interaction, did not catch it. There was never a good reason to suggest that the few older persons upthread misconstrued their history of not having been infected. They are not particularly outlier cases. The virus does leave measurable biological footprints; in fact, that has been central to related vaccine research that excluded volunteers based on such a scientific marker in order to eliminate outcome bias. I fail to understand why you insist on refuting that reality.

Well, no. Asymptomatic infection and whatever natural immunity results is an occurrence in a minority of the total infected population. The only reason it is of clinical significance is that protective measures within a background of higher community incidence should account for exposure risk that is not overtly manifest. And a proportion of non-vaccinated persons with an inaccurate assumption of previous natural immunity will incur greater morbidity as a result of previously held false belief. There is otherwise little significance at the level of disease immunity because the vast majority have natural, artificial, or hybrid immunity, all of which are unsustainable in the longterm because the virus mutates and re-infects. There exist clinical markers of infection that is symptomatic or not. There exist clinical markers that differentiate both infection immunity and hybrid immunity from vaccine induced artificial immunity alone. There is understandably a relation between having had asymptomatic infection and assuming historical non-infection. Of the approximately 20% with historical asymptomatic infection that have second-guessed infection history (and natural but likely timing-out immunity if infected), according to a combination of spidey-sense and the factor of actual community rates of historical infection to date that have been estimated at 80-85%, then a percentage inevitably less than 20% have misidentified their infection history one way or another. OK, let’s say then, favouring an overestimate of population infection to date, in keeping with your assertion of a vast majority having been infected, that 100,000 with asymptomatic infection history within a community of one million have incorrectly discounted the reality of true infection history. Why actually bother to attempt to disabuse them of a false notion, as in “Oh, you don’t know it but you have actually been infected”? Other possibilities exist, including “You don’t it but you think you were infected but weren’t”, or “Your assumption of non-infection is correct”. The subgroup absolute numbers for each scenario are quite high and no assumption can legitimately take precedence. At this higher estimate of genpop infection history there will still be a proportion, in the thousands, that could be swayed into falsely assuming a history of infection because the science has been misrepresented. How do the implications of such a narrative lean? How avoid the unforced error of unintended maleficence? The best theoretical assumption scenario is for everybody to believe that they are vulnerable to infection. If you had to choose an assumption binary, such as nobody was infected versus everybody was infected, the former would be more responsible. Because past infection is not durably protective, there is no point asserting to your neighbour their infection history actually occurred yet is denied, the reason being that a person falsely assuming infection history is potentially vulnerable in a particular way, for example, bypassing vaccination. In contrast, a person assuming that infection was evaded when it actually occurred is not subject to the same level of harmful consequences in the longer term; the liability was transmission during unknown contagion. In fact, older persons are less inclined to have asymptomatic infection. Therefore, the coherence between their assumption of non-infection history and actual genpop infection rates to date, with measurable nucleocapsid antibody seroprevalence, and with transient natural immunity is much greater. In sum, there is often no discernible benefit for one to assert that they are on to something that might be of interest to another for whom the idea didn’t occur and it suffers from misguided logic deficiency in the first place.

Ha. Authorized as of today. Novavax 2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine Now Authorized and Recommended for Use in the U.S. - Aug 30, 2024 IR.NOVAVAX.COM Novavax expects pre-filled syringes will be broadly available in thousands of locations across the U.S. Novavax's...

Actually reasonably likely (about 20% across all our regions) no exposure as it would elicit nucleocapsid antibodies. Canada continues statistically representative infection seroprevalence surveillance through an immunity task force. It’s a common misconception that only a small minority have escaped infection. Contagion is but one factor. I myself did suck and fuck for 40 months with Lady Luck 🍀 hovering but acquired infection with incidence at a nadir.

It’s likely your history is exclusively mRNA uptake: homologous dosing. Mine is heterologous as I’ve had both mRNA and protein subunit formulations, reverse order compared to most. Non-mRNA from the outset. However, I always want to know if there’s a bit of an edge, though don’t get too wrapped up in it, and now possess the added factor of capital H hybrid immunity having caught moderately severe COVID prior to my next upcoming vaccine dose. The latest meta-analysis available suggests no benefit either way across key outcomes. Temporality/duration of protection is virtually impossible to compare for logistic reasons. Novavax’ Nuvaxovid formulations are mostly a subjective preference. My protein subunit intake was associated with bedridden level reaction no less than with Comirnaty or Spikevax. I’m not adamant currently about cross-platform vaccine consumption. I’ll shoulder first one out of the gate. I think at this point the FDA (and Health Canada also dragging, etc) review's Nuvaxovid, albeit slowly, and approves it to accommodate mRNA refuseniks, or recipients that may have a true or anticipated contraindication. Products are now reviewed according to preclinical and indirect clinical data with efficacy metrics relatively absent and resting on laurels. Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccinations for adults: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials | BMC Medicine | Full Text BMCMEDICINE.BIOMEDCENTRAL.COM Background To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important...

It’s only duplicitous if the insinuation to all johnsons wilton is not grasped.

That had better not be rushed, but be accompanied by approximately 25%, or 3-4 additional post-inflation denouement pelvic contractions.

In which case you or he more than likely were vigorously sloshing around and spraying fine queefy droplet mists of contaminants up into your face ping-pong stage show-grade that otherwise would have eventually ended up in wastewater pathogen surveillance lab test tubes. The average doggie knows there’s no bargaining with a virus or worm. Pass him the hazmat suit either side of the glory hole.