Photos missing:
Joel Grey, Mickey Rooney, (uh...) I'll get back to you (Shirley MacLaine)
 |
| It's all makeup anyway. |
But the midnight train of thought wondered about the Korean actress on Star-trek-Enterprise.
 |
| https://www.difference101.com/chinese-vs-japanese-eyes-10-key-differences-to-know/#korean-vs-chinese-vs-japanese-eyes |
More reserved sites claim all Europeans look similar or that to use words like "Slant" or "pulled" is a biggie insult.
Fine.
Let me not be insulting and talk about your wonderfully small nose that sort of disappears into your head, with those beautifully small very round nostrils.
Nostrils are better than feet, better than (ok nevermind, but (nevermind).
Self editing for the more insanely opinionated is grating. I love Noses! And they didn't mention Filipinos. (Filipinos are very hard to spell.)
If you think my rants are out of place, try managing several blog entries at the same time, and blurting out something in the wrong entry!
I, uhm,
I just did that but I doubt anyone noticed. ↓↓↓
Secondary train, (very-very secondary)
um,
The Tagalog words (that I know of) for "Computer" and "Television" are in your native tongue with an accent for flavor. To prove this factoid, you'd have to speak perfect arizona-type english (so you're not from Alabama.) and Also you'd speak Tagalog like a native-Filipino. I'm not sure its provable, you'd insult anyone by asking.
I can't speak for the zillion other languages out there, but one wonders.
I asked a beautiful woman to repeat a word that she happened to mention in conversation, mispronounced in a slight southern drawl, but when she repeated it, she said it perfectly (She could be on the Nightly News from New York.)
So forget it, nevermind.
A beautiful woman usually knows she is, and/or spends tons on makeup and time in mirrors to make sure she stays that way.
You drooling over her is her way of checking her makeup.
Yes, she's hot, you just proved it, the Esteress Luscious Desire Eye-transforming makeup was worth it.
Marrying someone with no makeup at all might be a mistake, marrying someone with too much makeup might be an error, (it's all so very complicated)
Marrying Jane Seymour is (OK nevermind) (*sigh*)
Only women get sick,
or take decent pictures when sick
(see below), according to internet Lore,
 |
| All these sites have HUGE blocking ads. I'm paranoid that when you click on one (to close it) something happens. OK nevermind. https://nuunutrition.com/blogs/news/causes-and-symptoms-of-vitamin-d-deficiency |
And internet Lore says, 4000IU of Vitamin D is a lot, and anything over that causes consternation to some (it means, they'd worry if you took more.)
But to be Maxed out on D, you'd really need a daily dose of 10,000 IU, assuming maybe that you aren't exactly skinny, And someone monitors your blood levels every once in a while.
Extreme-maxness could cause you to have very high levels of Calcium.
Extreme-maxness (I like that phrase) means that if you stopped taking it tomorrow, it would take a year to go back to wimpy levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5402701/ Dares to go beyond maxness, to that place no one has gone before (15,000 IU.)
I get tested in a month, and last time they checked, *50,000*IU-weekly wasn't doing crap.
So I refused the refill and bought the doctor-recommended "Green Bottle" of daily-10,000 IU
(he recommended the bottle, not the IU)
A completely separate study,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5358080/ starts out saying that maybe the thought is, if you're Too fat, you Vitamin D gets put away for later instead of used.
So...
They got some fat people together, and tested them with 5000IU-a day, and everyone was happy, the end.
So I'm thinking, 10K-pills are fine until I ace my blood test, then drop down to 5 or 6K a day.
But it's lots more depressing and meaningless than that:
But Vitamin D salesmen might disagree.
I was looking (am still looking) for an article stating that the test is flawed beee-cause...(I don't know, which is why I was looking for the article)
But Deep within my swiss-cheesed brain there's a reference to an article that said, some blood tests are time-sensitive. In other words, tests from a large lab, or a smaller very busy lab, might be inaccurate because the blood sat around too long waiting to be tested.
The comments below the (depressing?) article vary widely. Sycophantic or disagreement.
Vitamin D does *something*, they just aren't sure what, and so they launched a biggie test (fish oil vs vitamin D) that should have been out for a while. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/11/vital-researcher-joann-manson-outlines-findings-on-vitamin-d-omega-3/
Which study concluded (and I'm seriously glossing) the results were minimal, unless you're black, and then they were more helpful (fish+D).
*MAYBE* less cancer with D (tiny bit less)
*MAYBE* less strokes with fish (Tiny bit less)
What none of the studies I've seriously glossed ever said is, if you bring a person from near-zero levels into polite-vitamin-enriched society, was their life improved?
The margin for error being what it is, you could conclude,
"Meh.
Couldn't hurt"
 |
| You'll still get cancer but you might die less (Because we're watching you as opposed to you being total strangers in the crowd?) ("Naw, we mathematically accounted for that") (lol) |
They can't (I don't think) factor in unrelated variables besides obvious ones (Like, being black, or smokers).
Suppose a particular vitamin or fish oil helps a person manage stress because they are emotional anyway, and lead stressful lives. Or maybe they're always falling in love.
Or maybe they're dull dry librarians or accountants who go home to watch "Lawrence welk".
Or maybe they skate-board and ski.
If you're in a study, you might subconsciously at least, smoke less, drink less, do a little waiting-room pamphlet reading about diet and exercise.
So the fact the study found almost no difference, but a small amount, could (?) be attributed to diet, exercise, and pretending to take care of yourself.
This next bit is NOT in any article I'm referring to, might be wrong or distorted, and should be read with skepticism: Fish oil (vitamin e) in smokers is way conducive to cancer (the road to cancer in smokers is paved with Vitamin E)
Imagine, that your body is a Kinko's copy-machine place, making thousands of copies a day.
if one of the copiers has lots of ink but some other chemical is lacking, the copies come out faded, dark, different from the original.
And if you make copies of those faded blurred copies, you've got cancer.
On the other hand, a study discredits an earlier study (but it's too dense for me to follow)
And says basically, Vitamin E is shit overrated.
So the doddering article I read eons ago, um,
Nevermind
(I figure scientists gotta eat, pay for their Lexus,
so they keep making up studies that say "Meh.")
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment