Versatile_Hunter

Yeah a bit far...

Manhattan. But like I said, I’m willing to drive a few hours for the right place.

I’m looking for recommendations on a dog boarding facility. I have a high drive hunting dog and I don’t feel like the facilities in the city are adequate. I’m willing to drive some distance for a place with glowing recommendation. Thanks

You think a trans woman presents a greater risk to your daughter than a cisgender straight man? Now that’s a fairytale.

Who gives a crap where they shit?

Yeah, f@ck the professionals. Let’s instead trust the priests/ministers who tell transgender and gay children that they’re going to hell if they come out.

On a Sunday??

Added an Alabama hog hunt to my list of out-of-state hunts for the year!

Let's save the memes for the "Today's chuckle" thread that you police so vigilantly. If this is true, I'd argue it indicates a shrewd marketing move rather than unhappiness with their life...

Correlation. And a beautiful one at that. People tend to feel more comfortable living out who they are in accepting circles. You know, the type of circle that won’t beat them to death for their gender dysphoria.

The NYT wrote a beautiful obituary... https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/us/larry-benoit-babe-ruth-for-hunters-is-dead-at-89.html

Give my regards to the chef

Yeah I wondered whether the “loving” part was more wishful than there actually being a distinctive taste to it

Only in Florida. What do you target?

Yes, it's the same year. I hear they actually taste good. I'd be curious to see if you agree.

Too late to add my 3 deer?

Comparing the 3 series 2.5-8 x 36 and 3.5-10 x 40, what’s your thinking in preferring the second one? You don’t think 10 ft of FOV matters when walking or still hunting? With a 40 vs 36, you’re getting more light I take it. This makes a noticeable difference assuming glass quality is equal? I have the VX-5HD in 3-15x44. I wanted the VX-5HD 2-10x42 since you get an extra 20 ft FOV at low mag but it was out of stock. A larger FOV has to matter when jump shooting deer...

I’ve pretty much narrowed it down to these 3. I’m leaning slightly towards the Leupold but the Diamondback price point is enticing. The Viper HS has a 4x mag and a huge FOV. Also very appealing. Vortex VIPER HS 2.5-10X44 Dead-Hold BDC (MOA) Reticle Weight: 16.5 oz FOV: 47-10.9 ft ~$500 Leupold VX-3HD 2.5-8X36 CDS-ZL DUPLEX Weight: 11.8 oz FOV: 37.5-12.7 ft ~$500 Vortex DIAMONDBACK 3-9X40 V-Plex (MOA) Reticle Weight: 14.4 oz FOV: 44.6-14.8 ft ~$200

Great, thanks for all the input. I mounted a new VX-5HD on my rifle this summer. It’s a great scope. I also like the FOV on the low mag (2-10; 2-12) VX-5HD and VX-6HD but I’m not putting a scope worth 4 times the price of the gun on a muzzleloader. The VX-3HD seems nice and light. But I ask, if I’m going to go low end Leupold am I gaining much more than on a $200 Vortex?

In vitro systems (you grow cells on a dish and you apply drugs directly on them) don’t translate directly to efficacious in vivo therapeutics. There are many things that affect the bioavailability of a drug you take (and their targeted action), and yes, dose is one of them. That’s said, in moments of crisis, we don’t always have the luxury of conducting large double blind trials before recommending a drug for a particular illness. That’s exactly what happened with hydroxychloroquine. There was prior in vitro evidence that the drug may combat similar corona viruses and there was already an established use indication for other disorders (lupus, etc.) that provided “safe” guidance for its use. Thus, its emergency use was authorized for Covid. Outside of the president’s odd public favoritism for the drug, I don’t think authorizing its use for Covid was misguided. Since then, it has conclusively been shown to not be an effective therapeutic for Covid. Furthermore, this drug messes with potassium channels and this can screw with your hearth rhythm so it may in fact be dangerous. If the current consensus is to be overturned, we’ve got to do better than that observational NJ study.

Thanks for the honest, respectful response. I obviously have no scientific background (retired USCG mechanic) and don’t have the time or inclination to go back to school. -Well thank you for your service. You absolutely don't have to go back to school to learn how to find reputable sources. Your assumption, though, is emblematic of the broad scientific community’s communication failure. It is our responsibility to make this stuff accessible to all, but most of us sidestep this responsibility and fail to engage in outreach efforts. Fauci is great, but if you don't like his politics as you perceive them, he becomes easy to dismiss. The Covid taskforce communications efforts have been abysmal. I really hope this changes. I’m being totally honest when I say I don’t understand how so many dr’s with an opposing point of view are completely dismissed, blacklisted, and canceled. My suspicion is because of the money involved. -I suspect that this notion of "completely dismissed, blacklisted, and cancelled" is received wisdom. It's actually rather easy to engage with peddlers of disinformation. Many of these folks would prefer to play the "cancelled" tune because it's easier than substantiating false claims. The 2nd point I want to make is that some of these doctors you speak of are not experts on the subject matter and have no business offering their uninformed opinions. The article you shared of the orthopedists offering a very unscholarly and flawed review of Covid is a prime example of this. It’s very well documented that Covid death numbers are hugely inflated. If someone has Covid but dies of something else, there are instances of the death certificate listing Covid as the cause of death. Hospitals get more money for Covid deaths of Medicare patients, that’s a fact. -Look, if someone gets run over by a truck no one says, "hey, that guy was diabetic so he was less likely to recover." The fact is he died of blunt trauma and internal bleeding. The same is true with Covid. Obesity, heart disease, and old age do not mean that your life is meaningless or that you’re on the precipice of death so Covid infection is irrelevant. No, these people died of Covid. Changing this standard now would be illegitimate.

Full disclosure: I’m a huge fan of chloroquine. My first real science project was when I was 16 years old. I screened combinations of compounds for synergistic antimalarial effects. Chloroquine was one of them That’s said, a lot of shit kills or abrogates (fucks up) bacteria, viruses, and parasites. In vitro studies, like the one you link to, are great at teasing apart certain mechanistic details of function. The more relevant question (as it applies to immediate epidimeogical impact) is how and when do you administer therapeutics such that you render said pathogen harmless and without hurting the host. This is where Trump’s bleach musings fell apart. Bleach kills Covid. It also kills human cells.

As a scientist and someone who’s involved in reviewing scientific papers submitted for publication, I’m tempted to give you a primer on how science publishing works. I will resist for now. I must say I am delighted to see a wide audience reading the primary literature and reviews. Much of this work is funded by taxpayer dollars and ultimately the work is for everyone to learn from. Unfortunately, if you are going to read a paper on a topic in which you’re inexperienced, you much approach the subject matter with the explicit acknowledgement of your relative ignorance. Personally, I do that all the time, especially when I delve outside of my field. We can’t have “science” fall victim to meme culture, where people share a screenshot of an article that bears a title supporting their position. That isn’t how science is supposed to work and it really undermines the whole process. Scientist are often wrong, but that’s not a bug it’s a feature of operating at the boundary of knowledge. Well executed studies work hard to acknowledge and account for potential known and unknown errors and biases. Over time, I truly believe that the truth wins out. Results that can’t be replicated are revealed and disagreements between scientists lead to open discussion (and subsequent experiments) that aim to uncover the cause of misaligned outcomes or interpretations. I won’t go into the specifics (or into the pros and cons) of scientific journal impact factor, but the article you shared isn’t published in a reputable journal. Furthermore, if you look at what the authors have previously published, it’s clear that neither of them is an expert in immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, or even basic human physiology. It turns out that they run an orthopedic clinic where they peddle homeopathic remedies. In the scientific world, such low quality articles will disappear over time or they will be cited as an example of poor science. For these authors, they have no reputational stake in the scientific community so they have very little to lose by having their names attached to such garbage. Rather, the infamy generated by it will make it easier for potential orthopedic patients to find them and they are likely to make even more money as a consequence. Like with news, a certain level of literacy is required when delving into original research. I encourage you to develop said literacy and if you’re interested I’m happy to point you toward reputable sources.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm Quote: "Percent of adults aged 20 and over with overweight, including obesity: 73.6% (2017-2018)" You have heavy expectations for 73.6% of Americans...

I bet the data will soon show that the infectious window is greatly reduced (or eliminated?) in vaccinated folks.