Commsvet11
-
Posts
496 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Commsvet11
-
-
6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
Yeah. Pneumocystis pneumonia, fulminant toxoplasmosis, cryptococcal meningitis, Kaposi's sarcoma, cryptosporidiosis, HIV-related encephalopathy...none of those kill you.
None of those kill you with a healthy immune system. Those are what we call opportunistic pathogens.
That is my point the actual HIV virus isn’t what kills a person, it’s an opportunist pathogen after the immune system has been weakened.
In fact Kaposi Sarcoma was an indicator that HIV was an immunosuppressive disease, elderly usually are the patients due to a weakened immune system, but young men that seemed healthy had this skin lesion. Which in turn asked the question why does a young person show an elderly patient disease.
-
1 minute ago, joesixpack said:
Well the complications do, and will, assiuming you don’t have the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a lifetime’s worth of treatment
Well hopefully we continue to research it, but prevention is the best option either way.
-
28 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
The explicit reason given for the change (from a felony carrying a 3-8 year sentence) was " societal and medical understanding of HIV has greatly improved. Effective treatments dramatically lengthen and improve the quality of life for people living with HIV — treatments that also nearly eliminate the possibility of transmission."
Direct quote. Literally, "if you get it these days, it's not so bad."
It would probably blow some folks minds that HIV/AIDS doesn’t actually
kill you.
-
26 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
You are a Trumpster, far worse than the good Democrats
Did you know--ha ha ha--that West Virginia, Trump's best state, also has one of the highest smoking rates?
In fact, look at the map, they are all Trump states with the highest rates of smoking!
You did know Obama was a smoker, right?
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
An East Asian tick that can kill humans in 48 hours was found in the woods of New Jersey, according to Fox 29. The ticks were found in Hunterdon County, and some researchers think that the tick “can clone itself” and carry “a deadly disease.” The ones found in the U.S. have not been disease carriers. The bugs can now “move into new climates and new places where originally they would have never survived because of warmer temps and increased food supply,” Drexel researcher Kayla Socarras told the local news station. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that the number of people “getting sick from ticks, mosquitos and fleas tripled over the past 12 years.” The agency also claims that the bugs “may be carrying nine new germs,” some of which have been lethal.
So this isn’t really a thing with global warming, as it is introduction of a species where it isn’t usually endemic. Now I see your trying to go with rising temperatures but East Asia is a temperante zone, so it’s not a stretch to see a tick survive in similar conditions even if it’s not endemic to that area.
-
18 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:
NY medical cannabis dispensary Pharmacannis currently offers vaporizor cartridges as well as cannabis concentrate capsules and tinctures. While things appear to be changing, NY does not currently offer raw cannabis in dispensaries
http://www.pharmacannis.com/sites/default/files/ProductList_4.24.2018-01.pdf
Very interesting, looks like they are on their way medically.
-
6 minutes ago, m_w_hunter said:
idk if this is right but i think because pots a schedule 1 drug it cant be studied in the ways your asking. if it were to be rescheduled companies could be free to study things like strains and doses
You would have to have FDA approval, along with the DEA
It would be hard, but I’m sure somebody is willing to do it.
-
2 minutes ago, row_33 said:
When you have a conflict with two sides, you have to set boundaries and see what both sides are considering "already 100% proven fact with 0% doubt"
libs hold about 10,000,000 things in that category that make conservatives laugh and fear they will die from laughing
pot is a 100% safe and non-addictive drug that makes all things magically go away that bother you
that isn't even negotiable.
It may not possess addictives, but it sure does seem hard for people to just quit, for example football players that get paid millions of dollars and still can’t pass a drug test.
-
1 minute ago, DC Tom said:
An even more basic point: for it to be a drug, you have to isolate the active compound and study it to figure out effect, dosage, risks, side-effects.
It's the difference between chewing on willow bark and taking an aspirin.
This is such a good point.
When they say it’s natural, so is tobacco, poppy plants, foxglove plant.
When they do these studies for medical use, are they keeping track of the genetic strains of these plants?
Will the effective doses really be more theuraputic when it’s all said and done?
I almost hate to say it but every time I see a study it reminds me of reading a homeopathic article
-
For a drug to be used in a medical treatment to be effective it has to have maximum theauraputic benefits with minimum adverse side effects.
A route of administration is another factor the fastest being IV administration.
Oral in particular pill form is a popular one.
So if the FDA one day wants to approve marijuana for medical treatment, you all realize you won’t be smoking it right? It would be probably be in pill form.
My point is if you want legalize it for recreational drug use go for it, but if all you want to do is smoke it, medical angle might backfire.
-
So let’s say Mr. Barnett does dismisses his negative writers. He hires new ones, would the message change?
Is is it the writer or is it your bias as a fan?
Does a fan ever want to hear the negativity of their favorite team?
I live in Pittsburgh, you would think there wouldn’t be any criticism or negative vibes because of their success, but you would be wrong, especially after a loss.
We have a unique situation where someone has reached out and included fan columns, you want to voice your positive angle do so. Or is it just easier to complain about writers?
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:
It's not worth making your point to these people. I don't even know why they are arguing it like they are offended.
"Kids game? I don't watch a kids game, these are grown men. Tough and masculinity, earn every inch! I'm watching war out there in the trenches every Sunday"
It's just a dumb game people, get a grip. Basketball, hockey, soccer, baseball, golf, are all just games at the end of the day.
Comparing it to cops, and politicians because people played tag as a child or engaged in academic pursuits as a kid is just stupid. The point is the stadium and the game don't need to be treated with such sanctimony. It's a distorted view of reality and values of what's important.
That's pretty sad.
The poster had a good point that football wasn’t invented for children, I see their point and it makes sense.
We we have adopted it as part of our culture, and their view is children play football as they would playing doctor.
To some people football is more than a game and I can respect that view.
I also get the annoyance of drunk rowdy fans, but rowdy fans are part of the live game experience, Could you imagine watching a steeler game without seeing those terrible towels?
-
21 minutes ago, stony said:
Yes Chutes and Ladders was invented for kids. Football was not.
Thats a good point,
I just always associated football as a kids game because of backyard football when I was 10, or a kid receiving a football for a Christmas present.
But it thinking it through, I also had an archery set and .22 when I was 12 and those things are not really for kids either.
-
Just now, stony said:
By this logic, being a stockbroker or politician is a kids job they can join DECA or Model UN in High School?
If I get paid to play chutes in ladders with a bunch of other guys in their 20’s and 30’s in a highly competitive environment does chutes and ladders stop being a kids game?
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, stony said:
It's not a kids game. It's why there's an age limit post high-school. The rule literally screams "mans game, your body ain't ready for the pounding."
So peewee football doesn’t exist?
And your age limit pretty much proved my point, your considered old past your thirties in the NFL, the NFL is nothing but grown men yes, but they are young men and are playing a game they played when they were in single digits in age.
-
2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
Cool then maybe adults need to act like adults and the tailgating will get to stay. But i doubt it everyone looking for their 5 min of fame
Well if we all want to be adults all the time maybe we should get rid of the NFL, it is after a kids game.
-
7 minutes ago, joesixpack said:
so many crotchitty old men in this thread.
Seriously! Mad at grown folks acting juvenile at a venue where grown men get paid millions of dollars to play a..........juvenile game.
-
9 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:
Acting like unqualified football fans?
9 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:Acting like unqualified football fans?
What is a qualified football fan?
I have my phone out to check the other scores and my fantasy, and to take pictures. I stand up and cheer when plays are made, I don’t drink at the stadium, but I know full well if there is alcohol sold at a function there will be those who drink too much.
If if you wish to avoid these things perhaps it’s best you stay home.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, stevewin said:
lol - the Millennial Zone. Filled with patrons who can't hold their alcohol, want to stand the whole game, think the whole game experience is about them (to hell with how their boorishness affects those around them), glued to their phones, with 1 out of 5 males drunkenly spending the entire time turned with their back to the game waving their arms up screaming "C'mon stand up!"
I’m sorry maybe it’s me, but isn’t that part of the fan atmosphere?
-
11 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:
in all seriousness though, IF Russ had a relationship with a woman at PSE is that really such an awful offense?
So Jim and Pam from the office isn't something to cry into your personal Ben and Jerry's pint over then?!
It has to be something more for there to be an investigation into "misconduct" I would think...
Tons of people meet their significant other through work. It doesn't warrant an "internal investigation" into the matter.
Jim and Pam? More like Micheal Scott and Jane-Levinson-Gould!
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:
If there was an effort by a demographic to coalesce around a candidate, I’m not sure that that would be any worse an idea than it would if you changed your money manager based on the direction you’d like to take your portfolio if you feel that that person has your best financial interest in mind.
I guess for that parallel to be exact, the question comes down to are there political issues that advantage people largely along racial lines?
That’s an interesting question that I think can be argued either way.
But if there are certain interests that are endemic to a certain demography, why wouldn’t I want that someone to represent me?
So I guess there is a related question here and that
is: “is identity politics a bad thing?”
I don’t think a republic works without identity politics. We elect representatives to speak for us, so of course these elected representatives have the constitutes best interests in mind. Of course it is never perfect, but if a candidate comes close enough then that candidate will win.
Trump has an interesting case, you have Trump supporters and Trump voters, the latter voting the lesser of two evils, it is just my opinion but that is how Trump won.
-
4 hours ago, Juror#8 said:
1. Straight white male voters were attracted to Trump out of fear that their social significance keeps dwindling.
2. The same voters felt that Trump was their best hope to stop other segments/demographics (blacks, women, gay, everyone else) in society from gradually displacing them.
3. Trump understands the perceived suffering and devolution that is happening in the white male community.
I’m not positing anything. There is no thesis here to discern. This is based on a conversation that I recently had with a republican state legislator and an article that I recently read.
Just want to know if you think that of the three points listed above, the preponderance is mostly true or mostly false.
*This is a question about identity politics and not an appraisal of his current economic record.
Fear of social significance dwindling is not a new issue, for example White Irish immigrants were discriminated against as well as Italians, and even poles, they lived in their ghettos, and assimilated as time went on. The same thing will happen again, if anything the worry is those who won’t assimilate.
What is happening here is an idea old as time, is repackaged and sold to the gullible, to paint trump voters in a bad light. It doesn’t matter the demographic, people will still resist change at first, but eventually assimilation takes hold.
-
Yes, they did their job, now it’s time to evaluate if they did a GOOD job.
That being said
I am strangely comfortable with the pick, and I don’t know why, maybe it’s the optimistism, anybody else have that gut feeling you can’t explain?
-
1 minute ago, Tiberius said:
Seems like these kids make a lot more sense than a lot of you right wingers.
You should probably rethink your ideology if high school teenagers make you think they have more sense than adults who actually live in the real world.
This is is their first experience of the real world. Violence, in particular and so far they are not taking it well.
Jim, Jim, Jim...
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
The nomenclature disease is synonymous to a viral infection, I mean we can split hairs about the terminology, you see it as syndrome and I see it as stage 3 in HIV.