i got a huge amount of grocery shopping done today, and will need to crunch numbers in various ideas i've gone with.

it's similar, but not fully what i expected.

i need a short nap, just right now.

actually, i think ontario will probably see closer to 2,000 cases/day be mid october.

i'll test for antibodies when it's available.

for right now, i actually don't want you to know if i've contracted the virus or not; that's personal data. i certainly don't want the government to know about it.

sorry.

this brings up piles of civil rights issues.

i don't want to enter a room with a device of this sort. i do not consent.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7367826/coronavirus-biocloud-detect-virus-in-air/

i've watched the first two segments of this debate, and trump is just completely demolishing him.

i don't really want to carefully analyze this, as they're both too terrible to really bother with. but, in terms of personality, trump wins the debate, no contest.

so, is my psyche trying to tell me i'm overwhelmingly attracted to noam chomsky?

hardly.

rather, whatever is happening in my body is happening outside of any psychological control, at all. if i can't suppress the male hormones, they're going to run their course - but that doesn't mean i'm going to enjoy it, or really react to it at all.

maybe a better comparison is to an insulin shot. you don't fantasize about proper sugar-regulation; it just happens whether you like it or not. 

and, because i just don't purposefully masturbate at all, or think about sex in much of any way, what's happening - and appears set to continue to happen - is just random, uncontrollable, unwanted spontaneous orgasms.

so, i'll be sitting there reading about ancient history, and just randomly orgasm.

i have a good sense of humour, and i'm sure i'll find a way to be ironic about it. but, i really wish it would just stop.

i was able to pick up my meds today without incidence. it's at the lower dosage of 100 mg/day, at least until i can find an illegal source to supplement with. but, i'm not without - even if this dosage is really barely working.

and, i had a "sex dream" when i got home. and, i'm going to tell you about it to demonstrate the point, which is that i just don't have sexual fantasies, except to completely eliminate my sexuality altogether.

so, the sex dream was a chomsky lecture. really. what i was dreaming about was sitting in a classroom, listening to chomsky speak.

and, then i had to run to the bathroom to stop myself from cumming in my pants.

and, then i woke up.

and then i fell back to sleep. and that is all.

i don't actually ejaculate - i can't produce semen. but, this is just one example of a larger pattern - my body chemistry is changing in ways that i don't like, but i'm not associating those changes with sexual pleasure. rather, i'm interpreting it more like a type of bodily excretion - like urinating, or shitting. you have to shit sometimes, but you don't fantasize about it.

i just won't them cut out asap. ugh.

i need to be clear: i don't want any human contact during this period. please avoid talking to me. 

it seems to be back to not broadcasting posts that include links, which is bizarre. and, i wonder if that has something more to do with some kind of financial thing than anything else.

again: i don't have ads in this space. at all. and, i would resist attempts to force them on me from the top down. i don't make any money from this, in any way. i am not "profiting off of the work of journalists".

rather, what i'm doing is critical analysis of their journalism - i am taking their writing, and deconstructing it. i'm often fact-checking it, debunking it, analyzing it, etc. and, i'm providing it as a public service, with no intent to profit (at least not directly) from it for three reasons: (1) to draw attention to myself, as a musician, (2) as public education and (3) for fun. at the end of the day, i do this because i enjoy it.

so, if there's some claims regarding copyright, i really need to reject them - this isn't a product, to begin with. it's really just the literal definition of free speech, with almost no other point to it. it's a lecture without much of an audience, but should be seen from that filter of analysis more than anything else.

so, to suggest that i'm breaking copyright by sharing links and analyzing them is utterly ridiculous. nor should the writers of the articles have some claim to the right to decide whether i can analyze their writing or not. that's absurd.

but, i ultimately really don't know why some posts are broadcast and others aren't.

that said - and i've been over this a few times - the only reason i even know what's broadcast and what isn't is that i'm trying to archive the writing in my email. i wouldn't even know what they're stopping from broadcasting, otherwise - and i only care because i want as complete a record, for myself, as is possible.

so, i don't know why you won't broadcast outside links, but i need you to reverse that policy. thanks.

i missed this....

while indigenous law in the states may be a little less developed than it is in canada, the basis of the case appears to be rooted in british imperial law. and, gorsuch' ruling is not all that surprising, when put in context - he's simply asserting the supremacy of congress, as you would expect him to, as a staunch conservative.

but, i can't help but observe that the ruling is essentially rooted in an oversight.

there's an opportunity, here, for america to address what chomsky has called the country's "original sin". yes - maybe, the basis of the ruling is that congress forgot to extinguish the treaty. but, that doesn't mean that congress can't embrace that mistake, and seek to build on it as a new beginning.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/mcgirt-case-historic-win-tribes/614071/

due to how weak this virus is, this is probably even a better idea than a vaccine, for the people that need a vaccine the most.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/early-data-shows-promising-results-from-regeneron-s-antibody-cocktail-for-coronavirus-1.5125258

"i am not a...."

(the upset professional, at this point, makes a mild gulp sound)

"...turkey."

right.

sure you're not.

listen: if it talks like a turkey, and gulps like a turkey...

it seems like this turkey may be cooked, himself.

maybe somebody else should answer questions.

https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/09/ontario-chief-medical-officer-health-reminds-not-undercook-turkey-thanksgiving-risks/

it's times like this, though, that i need to remind you that i'm just a dumb primate like the rest of you.

a saviour machine, i am not.

i might, though. careful.

we need them to present a budget before they can have their majority back, dammit.

actually, i think that ford's decision to focus primarily on the senior care facilities is the right decision to make.

i need to call on people with other high risk factors, like diabetes or ms, to be very careful.

but, the logic is crystal clear: what you do outside of these homes doesn't really matter, in terms of affecting death rates. if you want to prevent them from dying, you have no choice but to be strict - and so long as you are strict with the homes, nothing else really matters.

so, they probably overreacted by mandating shutting down the bars early to scapegoat the sinners, and they probably won't undo it. but, at least they're doing the one thing that actually matters, which is doing everything possible to protect the seniors.

calling elizabeth may...

calling..

calling...

we can't have an election until we see a fucking budget. can we make sure everybody gets that? thanks.

the liberals could, of course, just say "fuck it. we're having an election.", but canadians tend to punish sitting governments when they do shit like that.

so, the way this is done in our system of government is that they purposefully present a bill the opposition can't support, then blame it on the opposition when they don't support it.

this particular bill was crafted with large amounts of input from the ndp, so it should pass - unless the liberals change it at the last minute, which is always possible.

but, what they're signalling is that the next one won't be so collaborative, and they're trying to lose support of the ndp.

the ndp has to eat it - for a while, until they get a budget. well, unless it's so bad they can campaign on it, i guess.

coming out and stating "this is a confidence matter" is really putting all their cards on the table, though.

i'm not sure how smart that is - they're not going to be able to play stupid, or be sly, after that.

it's a pretty clear signal that they're trying to trigger an election, and the context they're doing it in is really pretty daft.

i mean, if this bill doesn't pass, a lot of people are going to end up pretty screwed, pretty fast and they're going to have to go out there and explain why they shut down parliament for a month, then triggered an election instead of getting through the proper spending.

they obviously miscalculated and had to scramble to undo it. and, now what? well, that's the hard part. but, coming out and being obvious about it was kind of dumb....

if naive jagmeet singh didn't clearly see what was happening before, he should surely see it clearly, now, and adjust to realize that the liberals actually want these bills to fail, and to trigger an election.

so, as i stated before, the trick seems to be that they want to trigger an election before they present a budget, because it's going to be an austerity budget.

the ndp needs to prop them up until they get there - but the liberals are going to find ways to try and engineer their own defeat.

as increasingly difficult as it may be, they'll have to hold to it.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-declare-confidence-vote-on-new-covid-19-benefits-1.5124677

nobody cares about old people whining on twitter about the corrupted youth.

...especially not the young people.

so, if it's supposed to be some kind of informal social control mechanism, you need to rethink that.

why don't you go to the platforms the kids use and see what they're posting about masks?

and, then there's twitter, right?

don't get me started on the fucking idiots that post on twitter. twits is right - nitwits.

but, why exactly is it that the msm thinks twitter is so fucking important, given that nobody under 40 uses it at all?

do you what twitter actually is? it's a circle jerk for whiny old people, to complain about the nihilism of the younger generation. kids nowadays, huh?

and, that's fine - old people deserve a space to jerk off on each other and complain about the youth, if they want.

i just really wish the msm would stop pretending twitter is relevant, because it isn't.

i don't see anything political about getting body art, and don't see any legal reason why he shouldn't be allowed to teach.

i would argue he should be proactive in ensuring that kids that don't like it are transferred to other classes, though.

https://nationalpost.com/news/teacher-says-his-tattoos-and-surgically-blackened-eyes-cost-him-his-job

and, i mean, there's something to say about ideal female body types here, too.

i'm from the kate moss & paris hilton generation, where women were stick thin and had athletic/muscular builds. that's the kind of body i want - small breasted, strong armed, toned-legged...

i don't want to look like a porn star or be some dude's wet dream, because this isn't about that inverted fantasy, like it is with so many of the transvestite-type transwomen. i want to be fit & strong, with relatively muted curves.

i understand that your stereotypical tranny wants to maximize feminization and minimize demasculinization, and it's largely because what they're really doing is carrying through with their own inverted male fantasies.

that's not me - i'm the opposite of that.

what i want is to maximize my demasculinization while moderating my feminization - or at least for now. and the reason is that, for me, this is more about suppressing my sexuality altogether than it is about carrying through with these inverted fantasies, that i don't actually have.

it's been hard to get that point across, because i'm supposed to be option (a) and am looked down upon as "not really trans" if i'm not all about embracing being a disgusting slut. this is supposed to be about sex, and nobody really likes it or really knows what to do when they bump into people where it isn't about sex.

but, i prefer the older literature that explicitly separated between transvestites (gay or straight men that basically cross-dress to get off) and transwomen (who tend to lean towards asexuality, and don't really demonstrate much of any kind of sexualized behaviour at all). that separation has really broken down, to the point that what used to be called a transvestite is now seen as a transsexual, and what used to be called a transsexual is seen....is just seen as a loser that can't be helped.

the bottom line is that i want my testosterone cut first. that's my prerogative. that's what i'm fighting for. boosting my estrogen isn't going to make me happier, if i can't get my testosterone down - i'm just going to end up crying in my apartment, with carrots rammed up my ass.

i made a very clear, purposeful, conscious decision to never use my penis ever again.

that was a long time ago, now, and i've held to it.

i have no desire, intention or expectation of undoing that decision.

so, i had a slightly frustrating day and it's probably just going to get worse. i need to focus on getting some more t-blockers before noon...

i think i mentioned that i sent a fax to the endocrinologist on thursday asking for him to send a fax to my doctor giving him the ok to boost the cyproterone to 200 mg. the fax was very detailed and very clear, laying out the situation as it exists and clarifying the science as it actually is. he called me on his own time, a little after 16:00 - which just verifies that i'm a good essayist, but i knew that. his response was something not dissimilar to what the doctor himself said, although he filled in the detail that cyproterone may be linked to temporary abscesses in the brain at high doses, which struck me as obscure. but, regardless, if it were up to me entirely, i'd rather die of brain cancer than be forced to exist as a male - that's a risk i'll happily accept. but, he wouldn't do it...

his position was that my testosterone was not too high, as it was in the low end of the normal female reference range, but that my estrogen was perhaps too low, as it was at the bottom of the potential female reference range. really, it's my total hormone level that seemed low. so, he suggested i move to estrogen injections, which i'm not interested in due to the mood swings.

but, it's not the reason i contacted him - i'm not trying to increase my feminization, i'm trying to maximize my demasculinization. and, these are related but different concepts, when you're accepting female hormones and still stuck with an essentially male physiology. they work together, when you want a full transition, as i do. but, they're independent for a lot of trans people, in real life - who do seek to maximize feminization without really fully demasculinizing, as that allows them to continue having sex (which i don't want to do at all).

i don't want that, though, remotely. at all.

really, if i wanted to keep the penis, i'd hit the gym and become a gay man. the whole point of this is to not do that, because it's not really what i want.

so, what's the use of boosting my estrogen if i can't get my testosterone down? the potential outcome - a sexually arousable transsexual person - is a premise i actually find kind of disgusting. if i have to make a choice, i'd rather have low estrogen and zero testosterone than high estrogen and mid-range testosterone. i don't want to be fully passable and still be able to get an erection - i want to get rid of the penis, entirely, first, and then focus on the total feminization.

so, my basic position is that, if i can't get rid of my penis first, i don't really want to transition, anyways - i don't want to exist in this creepy middle point where i'm having sexual arousal concerns in between genders. yuck. i'd rather just be gay.

i don't identify as a transvestite or a drag queen or a transsexual. i'm a straight woman. when i fantasize about having sex, as rare as it is, i fantasize about having vaginal sex with straight men. there is none of this weird, creepy, in-between shit in there at all. there never was.

and, it is at the root cause of why i decided over ten years ago that i would not have sex until after the operation - and why i haven't had sex, at all, since then. 

stated differently, i don't really want to draw too much sexual attention to myself until after i've gotten rid of my penis. i don't want that to be an option for potential sexual partners to request; i want it off the table, so i don't have to deal with it.

so, boosting my estrogen levels is not what i want, at this time. what i want at this time is a complete eradication of any lingering sexual activity in my testes. i don't want a tit job; what i want is castration.

so, he couched it in different language, but my perception was he basically didn't get it, in the same way my family doctor didn't get it. he didn't seem to want to facilitate my desire for total testosterone annihilation, because he seemed to think he knows what i want better than i do, despite having spoken to me for a total of five minutes. he seemed to think i'd be happier in this gross in-between role, and just ignored me when i insisted otherwise.

when i told him that the safety data sheet said the maximum dosage was 300 and i'm only asking for 200, he just said "but, you don't need it.". clearly, i do need it. so, he was full of shit, and just trying to stop me from castrating myself.

and, this is beyond stupid, because when i tell you "i don't want this", i mean it. and, we're just going to frustrate each other until i get what i want, in the end.

there was an upside to this, which is that he was able to direct me to a surgeon in windsor that will do the operation for me. i have funding. so, i sent that fax to my family doctor, and i hope he gets a quick response. i'd rather get the operation than boost the dosage - my initial concern, after all, was the longterm effects of heavy cyproterone use on my liver.

once i get the testicles removed, we can look at boosting estrogen levels, from there - so that i'm not in this weird, gross middle point that i don't want to be in, at all.

for right now, i need to call the pharmacy and see what i can and can't get. i was able to renew the rx over the phone last night, but i don't know if that's legit or not. it may be as easy as picking it up in a few hours. i'll have to call to get clearer information.

Thank you for reaching out to us with your inquiry regarding the Vitamins in our Dempster’s 100% Wholegrains Double Flax bread.  We have been able to verify the following contents for you:

 

 Vitamin E -  0.5 mg (3% Daily Value)

 Vitamin B5 -  0.5 mg (10% Daily Value)

 Vitamin B6 -  0.125  mg (7% Daily Value)

 Vitamin B7 -  1 mcg (3% Daily Value)

 Vitamin K -  0.4 mcg (1% Daily Value)

 Vitamin B12 -  0 mcg (0% Daily Value)

 Vitamin D -  0 mcg (0% Daily Value)

 

We would like to mention that some of these figures could be slightly different as we do not require that our ingredients suppliers provide us with a full nutritional breakdown. 

that would appear to be for two slices, meaning this flax bread is a "whole grain" bread rather than a "whole wheat" bread. well, let's compare then.

ww v flax

b1 - 7.5 v 10.5    

b2 - 3

b3 - 12.5 v 6.5 

b5 - 4 v 5

b6 - 3 v 3.5

b7 - 9 v 3 <----unclear accuracy

b9 - 2.5 v 5

e - 6 v 1.5

f1 - .161 v .5 

f2 - .07 v .75

k - 3 v .5

$ - .125 v .25

the bs are going to come out in the wash.

so, i seem to have made an error with the e, thinking the flax bread was a whole wheat bread, when it's actually a whole grain bread. i don't care about fibre or total calories. so, what's more important, here - a boost in omega-3s or a boost in e? 

i think i can recoup the e elsewhere.

the other thing i'm ignoring is the taste which, at the end of the day, is of course important.

after filling in the data more, i think it's the total 3:6 ratio that i ought to be more concerned about. flax is also supposed to lower testosterone, which is what the next post is about. so, i'm going to stick with the flax to at least try it. but, i'm going to need to pick off the seeds, and i'm kind of expecting to go back to the whole wheat, in the end.

for now, i've updated the chart with the new data.

disclaimer:
i've gone to town with a few things - i'm not making up vitamins but rather filling things in. i mean, there's all these "missing vitamin names". what were they, exactly? it also gives me an excuse to work in a few things like choline that are hard to otherwise define as they are essential in some amount but not technically vitamins.

note that these numbers are scavenged and should be interpreted approximately. that's partly why i'm aiming to overshoot on most of it.

	fruit bowl (08:00)						pasta salad bowl (00:00)								fried eggs (16:00)							coffee
	banana 2*8" 2* 136 g	straw 75 g	kiwi 2* 75 g	soy milk 250 ml	cherry ice cream 200 ml	sum	red pepper 3"x4" 175 g	durum wheat pasta 100 g + water	medium cheddar cheese 60 g	carrot 8" 72 g	hulled hemp seed 10 g	yogurt dress or canola oil caesar (for e)	nut. yeast 1 tsp	sum	fried eggs 2*70g	medium cheddar cheese 30 g	marg. 2 tbsp	whole wheat bread with germ + flax   (1 slice) (37 g)	meat rep. ??	juice type 250 ml	sum	brew coffee 700 ml	soy choc 100 ml	sum	total
a (fat sol)	4	0	2	10	13	29 ret:23 car:6	103	1	30	241	0	-	-	375 ret:30 car:345	21	15	10	0	-	-	46 ret:46 car:0	0	4	4 ret:4 car:0	450 ret:103 car:351
b1 thiamin	6	2	2	8	5	21	6	84	1	3	11	-	106	211	6	.5	0	10.5	-	-	17	8	3	11	260
b2 [g, j] riboflavin	12	1	2	25	10	49	8	41	13	2	2	-	95	161	42	6.5	0	3	-	-	51.5	32	10	42	303.5
b3 niacin	10	2	2	10	1	23 nat:13 fort:10	8	66	0	4	6	-	47	131 nat:18 fort:113	1	0	0	6.5	-	-	7.5 nat:1 fort:6.5	8	4	12 nat:8 fort:4	173.5 nat:40 fort:133.5
b4* adenine (mg)	3.26	0.375	0.6	19.3	0.9735	24.1335	27.825	4	-	-	-	-		-	3.36	-	0	4.27	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
b5 pantothenic acid	10	2	2	15	5	32	5	8.5	2.5	2	1	-	2	21	21	1	0	5	-	-	27	20	4	24	104
b6 pyridoxine	50	2	4	6	1	61	24	7	2.5	5	3.5		80	122	12	1	0	3.5	-	-	16.5	0	2	2	201.5
b7 [aka h] biotin (rdi: 35 mcg)	20	2.5	?	30	1	51	16.5	1	3	12	8	-	-	40.5	65	1.5	13	3	-	-	82.5	?	12	12	186
b8* inositol (mg) (myo or lipid)	20	10	204	25	5	254	99.75	70.27	-	-	-	-	-	-	6.3	-	16	50	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
b9 [m, b11, r] folic acid	14	4.5	12	6	1	33	19	71	3	3	3	-	10	109	18	1.5	0	5	-	-	24.5	4	2	6	172.5
b10* pABA	~0	~0	~0	>0	~0	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
b12 [t] (cyano) cobalamin	0	0	0	50	20	70	0	0	8.5	0	0	20+	22	30.5	33	4	0	0	-	-	37	0	20	20	157.5
b13* orotic acid (mg)	~0	~0	~0	~0	20	20	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
b14* taurine (mg)	~0	~0	~0	~0	2	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
b15* pangamic acid	~0	~0	~0	0?	~0	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
b16* choline	4	1	2	11	5	22	2	2.5	2	1	-	-	-	7.5	68	1	0	2	-	-	71	3	4.5	7.5	108
b20* [aka I] l-carnitine	~0	~0	~0	~0	5	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
c	40	74	234	4	0	278	350	0	0	7	0	-	-	357	0	0	0	0	-	100+	100+	0	0	0	735+
d (fat sol)	0	0	0	45	0	45	0	0	2	0	0	20+	-	2	12	1	30	0	-	-	43	0	18	18	108
e (fat sol)	2	1.5	20	0	2	24	13	1	1	2	7	30+	-	24	9	.5	20	1.5	-	30+	31	0	0	0	79
f1* linoleic acid omega-6 (g)	0.1252	.09	0.374	1.5	.300	2.2992	.0738	.540	.3462	.0828	2.87	-	~0	3.9128	3.23	.1731	1.5	.5	-	-	5.4031	~0	.8	.8	12.4151
f2* alphalinoleic acid omega-3 (g)	0.0734	.065	0.0638	0.2	.200	0.5372	.041	.024	.219	.0014	.93	-	~0	1.2154	.228	.1095	.5	.75	-	-	1.5875	~0	.12	.12	3.4601
f1:f2 ratio	-	-	-	-	-	4.28	-	-	-	-	-	2:1	-	3.22	-	-	-	-	-	-	3.40	-	-	-	3.59
k (fat sol)	2	1	78	5	0	85	10	1	1	12	0	-	-	24	9	.5	10	.5	-	-	20	0	2	2	131
q1* coenzyme q10 (mg)	0.272	.075	0.075	.625	.0308	1.0028	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
q2* pyrrolo quinoline  quinone (mu-g)	3.536	?	4.05	.063	.2101	7.8591	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
s* salicylic acid (mg)	~0	~1	~0.075	~0	~0	~0.75	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

* not really.

complete requirements

fat soluble:

- a: 100% of pre-formed + 300% of convertible, total daily

- d:

- e:

- k should not exceed 100%/meal 

water soluble (bs & c):

- 300+% total w/ 100% for each meal

incomplete requirements legend:

>300% without meeting 100%/meal

+75<=100% each meal    [=+200%<=300% total]

+50<=75% each meal   [=+100<=200% total] 

<=50% each meal    [<100% total]

specific brands used:
- so nice vanilla soy milk
- chapman's black cherry ice cream

- irrestibles brand olive canola oil

- selection brand pasta [metro/food basics]

- dempster's whole grain double flax bread

- black diamond brand medium cheddar cheese

- natura chocolate soy milk

- no specific brand or type of coffee

diet options:

daily:

1) fruit bowl:
- 2 bananas (8")
- 2 kiwis (75 g)
- 200 ml ice cream

- 250 ml soy milk  [but double it?]
+

- strawberries [but, looking for a fruit replacement]
- blueberries
- raspberries

- "meal replacement packets" for a & b & d & e

- special k or vector or cream of wheat cereal for various bs (or something else)

- or maybe even baby food cereal for a total vitamin wash

- banana peel + soy smoothie
- red cherries <------------- a

- ground cherries  <------- a, b1, b3

- rosehips (if locatable)  <------------ a, b2, b3, b5, e

- fresh goji berries (if locatable) <------------ a, b1, b2

2) pasta salad bowl:

- 100 g cooked pasta
- one large red pepper

- one large chopped carrot

- 60 g chopped medium cheddar cheese [12 slices]

- 10 g hulled hemp seeds

- yogurt dressing or canola oil caesar dressing

- 1 tsp nutritional yeast

- glass of pasta water 

+

- tomatoes

- flax seeds (ground!) (probably not) 

- spirulina 

- tahini  

- macademia nuts 

- croutons

- tomato powder 

- caesar dressing (very little b1, 35% e?, some a)

- one tbsp of imitation bacon bits (isoflavones, maybe_

- 5 g chopped crickets [5 crickets]  [b12]

- indoor farmed fish? <----b5, b12

- shittake mushrooms <------b5

- lemon (probably for phytonutrients) 
- garlic cloves (probably for phytonutrients)
- oregano & pepper (probably for phytonutrients)

- kalamata olives (probably not necessary for e) 

- microwaved/chopped broccoli (probably not, due to k and I3C)  <----but, b5

- broccoli leaves or kale or dandelion leaves? (probably not, due to I3C and k) 
- red clover (if locatable or foragable, for phytoestrogens)
- alfafa?

- need 65-85% b5, 50-70% b12

3) eggs:
- 2 jumbo fried eggs
- 1 slice of whole wheat bread (including the germ!) with flax
- 2 tbsp olive oil margarine

- 30 g sliced medium cheddar cheese [6 slices]

+

- salami (45 g) (25% b1, 8% b2, 12% b3, 5% b5, 11.5% b6, 0% b9, 20% b12)

- rice (100 g) (60% b1, 2% b2, 35% b3, 4% b5, 6% b6, 69% b9)

- soy meat (100% b1, 50-70% b2, 100% b3, 15% b5, 60% b6, 45% b9, 90% b12)
- indoor grown salmon? (50 g) (15% b1, 15% b2, 55% b3, 15% b5, 20% b6, 150% b12) <------can't find

- mushroom sauce (some supplemental b2,/b3/b6, substantive b5)
- + apple juice? (1 cup) (100% c)

- carrot juice (1 cup) (18% b1, 8% b2

- orange juice (1 cup) (15% b1, 4% b2, 5% b3, 5% b5, 5% b6, 19% b9, 207% c, added e?)

- cranberry juice (unsweetened. need added c, has e)

- tomato juice (likewise)

- need (85 b1, 50 b2, 95 b3, 75 b5, 85 b6, 75 b9, 65 b12)

4) coffee

~ 700 ml [2 mugs] [strong] 

- with 100 ml chocolate soy [50 ml/mug]

weekly:

1) banana peel smoothie:
- 14 banana peels

- red pepper seeds from 7 peppers [soak? pre-grind? figure this out.]

- chocolate soy

- cherry ice cream

- strawberry tops

==========

the list of everything i need to get.

added are green

13 vitamins:
1) A
2) B1 (thiamine)
3) B2 (riboflavin)
4) B3 (niacin)
5) B5 (pantothenic acid)
6) B6 (pyridoxine)
7) B7 (biotin)

8) B9 (folic acid)
9) B12 (cyano-cobolamin)
10)  C
11) D
12) E
13) K

15 amino acids:
1) histidine
2) isoleucine
3) leucine
4) lysine
5) methionine
6) phenylalanine
7) threonine
8) tryptophan
9) valine
10) arginine
11) cysteine
12) glycine
13) glutamine
14) proline
15) tyrosine
+ measure 6 non-essential

4 fatty acids:
1) linoleic acid
2) ala
3) dha
4) epa

23 minerals:
1) calcium
2) phosphorus
3) potassium
4) sulfur
5) sodium
6) chlorine
7) magnesium
8) iron
9) zinc
10) copper
11) manganese
12) iodine
13) selenium
14) molybdenum
15) chromium
16) fluoride
17) bromine
18) cobalt
19) tin
20) vanadium
21) silicon
22) boron
23) nickel
24) lead?

carotenoids (not including pro-vitamin a)
1) lutein
2) zeaxanthin
3) lycopene
4) phytofluene
5) phytoene
6) astaxanthin
7) capsanthin
8) canthaxanthin
9) cryptoxanthin

chlorophyll:
1) chlorophyll a
2) chlorophyll b

other molecules required for proper metabolic functions:
1) choline (cannot synthesize properly)
2) coQ10
3) lipoic acid
4) glutathione precursors
5) ergothioneine  (cannot synthesize)   <-----mushrooms
6) pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ) (cannot synthesize)   <-----kiwis
7) queuine  (cannot synthesize)    <-----cheese [made in stomach by bacteria]
8) taurine (cannot synthesize properly) <----cheese

9) betaine (more than a choline precursor?)

glucose:
i'm more concerned about diabetes than weight gain, so...
the glycemic index is:
running total...

fiber:
i don't need many different types, i just need some. i'm not worrying about this.

& water

also, let's measure flavonoids:

anthocyanidins:
1) pelargonidin
2) delphinidin
3) cyanidin
4) malvinidin
5) peonidin
6) petunidin
7) rosinidin

flavonols:
1) isorhamnetin
2) kaempferol
3) myricetin
4) quercetin
5) fisetin
6) kaempferide

flavones:
1) luteolin
2) apigenin
3) techtochrysin
4) baicalein (to avoid!)
5) norwogonin
6) wogonin
7) nobiletin

flavanones:
1) eriodictyol
2) hesperetin
3) naringenin
4) hesperidin
5) isosakuranetin
6) pinocembrin
7) sterubin

isoflavones:
1) daidzein
2) genistein
3) glycitein
4) biochanin A
5) formononetin

i should try to measure some further phytoestrogens:
1) matairesinol
2) secoisolariciresinol
3) pinoresinol
4) lariciresinol

5) coumestrol

& finally, let's also measure:
1) saponins
2) ursolic acid (& precursors)
3) cafestol
4) resveratrol
5) ellagic acid
6) coumarin
7) tyrosol
8) hydroxytyrosol
9) oleocanthal
10) oleuropein
11) gingerol
12) phytic acid

how, exactly, it is that we got from "maybe masks will work a little, so you should do the most conservative thing possible, just to be responsible - even though the science suggests minimal to negative efficacy" to "if you don't wear a mask, i'm going to shut down your business and fine you $1000 and send you to jail because the science is 100% clear" is an exercise in ochlocracy, and an implementation of vicious mob rule. 

we went full retard in a matter of weeks, at the smallest incitement.

and, it's frightening, sure. 

but, it needs to be studied, so it doesn't happen again.

no, stop.

really.

this is the truth around what the media and politicians are saying about mask use. it's nothing more than brutal truthiness underlying it. really.

if you actually look beyond the terrible media articles, and the fascist laws that are generating them, you're going to see something kind of unexpected: the public health experts actually don't really recommend mask usage as a solution. they might recommend it as a last gasp hope. but, you'll see statements like this at their websites:

Wearing a mask alone will not prevent the spread of COVID-19.

who said that? alex jones? no:

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks/about-non-medical-masks-face-coverings.html

this is what that site says about homemade masks, which would include most commercially available masks:

These types of masks may not be effective in blocking virus particles that may be transmitted by coughing, sneezing or certain medical procedures. They do not provide complete protection from virus particles because of a potential loose fit and the materials used.

then, they "recommend" the use of these masks anyways, because some protection is better than none, and why not?

but, they all but come out and say "these are basically useless.". and, they certainly don't suggest mandating them. there's a very big difference between saying "yeah, you should probably do that, 'cause why not?" and saying "you'd better fucking do that, or else" - and the experts are not advocating the latter. that's something that politicians are pushing, apparently due to widespread ignorance fueled by shitty media.

this site exists to criticize the media. that's what i'm here to do, and what i'll keep doing. and you'll note that i'm almost always right, even if i'm not infallible.

...12 year-old censors be damned.

hi.

you told me you wouldn't boost the rx unless you got the ok from dr. w. so, i called dr. w...

dr. w suggested looking at injections, and i'm kind of apprehensive about that.

however, he informed me that dr s would be willing to carry through with the orchiectomy.

so, i'm hoping you could send me to dr. s for a referral for the orchiectomy an let me know about it; the snail mail option worked last time.

i fucking nailed the pandemic shape in ontario.

and, you want to shut me down?

you should be taking notes.

dumbass...

this kid is probably sorting through statements given to him directly by the government, and trying to cross-reference them with topics he's never studied formally or informally and in truth has no understanding of, at all. it's a McFactCheck - complete with truthiness sauce.

it's absolutely pathetic. truly.

and, the model is unworkable. it needs to be abolished.

i have ten times your schooling, kid. maybe if you shut up for a minute, you might learn something.

i mean, who the fuck do you think you are, anyways?

go away and leave me alone, you buffoon.

it's making me laugh that some twelve year-old kid in his mom's basement thinks he's smart enough to censor my broadcasts.

why don't you go finish high school first, kid? 

in the mean time, you should defer to experts - like me. 'cause, i'm the one with an education, here. you know that, right?

these were the kind of terrible headlines you saw in the mainstream press when those results were released:

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/health/24brod.html

that garbage remains all over the internet, but it does not reflect the science on the matter.

vitamin e does not increase the risks around cancer and is not bad for your heart - but smoking is bad for both things, and the tobacco industry has successfully confused a lot of people about it.

...including the idiot 12 year old that is trying to censor me.

you can say mean things about these people now, but they're on the right side of history, which will look favourably upon them as taking a courageous stand in a difficult time. this is what free speech is about - saying things that are unpopular, and taking a stance against the herd.

the cheapy masks just don't work and it's ridiculous to mandate them by force or push down fines on people that just don't fucking want to wear them.

https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/09/toronto-anti-mask-protesters-covid-numbers-rise/

so, ontario has recorded it's highest case load today, since the start of the pandemic - not it's highest in the "second wave" (this is not a second wave, but the conclusion of the arrested first), but it's highest ever. we've finally picked up where we left off.

mask use seems to be almost total.

clearly, that's not working. 

so, will we recognize that this is not working and abolish these unconstitutional laws, now?

biden seems to think abortion rights are why the democrats lose. it's a position that continually pops up amongst older, male democrats (sanders was pushing it near the end, too). so, he's going out of his way to reach out to anti-abortion voters (rather than attack them as the savages they are), and now he wants to talk about healthcare, instead.

this is the data on the aca:

https://www.kff.org/interactive/kff-health-tracking-poll-the-publics-views-on-the-aca/#?response=Favorable--Unfavorable&aRange=twoYear

that appears to be national.

while support for the aca may have been decisive in certain key democratic support groups during the primary, opposition to it was likely a key factor in trump's win in certain states, both from the left and the right. as a supporter of single payer, i realize the aca likely needs to be gutted and reversed before more serious progress is possible, even as i (of course) won't support undoing it.

the point is that it's not a very popular legacy of obama at all, especially not in key voting groups.

this is data on abortion:

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

as we can see, support for abortion is actually increasing, and abortion rights are far more popular than the aca is.

but, biden is an out of touch 80 year-old white man, and he has attitudes that demonstrate it clearly enough. he doesn't live in reality; he's yesterday's man.

i need to call on democrats in the house and senate to distance themselves from biden, and campaign against him, if they have to. there's going to need to be legislation for abortion rights introduced in the next four years, and biden is going to have to be forced to sign it. he will need a strong pro-choice caucus banging down his door to get him to do it.

that is, if he wins at all - and his decision to prioritize the wrong concerns could be fatal, truly.

and, let's make something else clear.

linus pauling was one of the most important scientists of the 20th century, as important to the field of chemistry as einstein or bohr were to physics, or godel or hilbert were to mathematics.

he is one of the shoulders we stand on, today.

he made some mistakes, as they all did.

but, calling him a quack demonstrates that you are one, yourself.

nononono, let's be clear.

so, some scientists asked "if vitamin e is such a powerful anti-oxidant, does that mean it can undo the carcinogenic effects of smoking?"

and, what they found was this:

the use of supplemental vitamin E in current but not in former smokers was associated with an 11% increased risk of lung cancer for every 100 mg/day increase, and intakes greater than 215 mg/day were specifically linked to a 29% increase in risk for non-small cell lung cancer.

https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-E

those are very small increases that would be reported as statistically irrelevant in virtually any other scenario, when controlled for other factors. but, the answer is clear enough - vitamin e won't protect you from smoking. or from coal particles. or from car exhaust...

but, we know who runs the world.

so, the headlines read:

VITAMIN E CAUSES CANCER

...when the studies really suggested no such thing; even in former smokers, there was no statistical(ly insignificant) increased risk.

you gotta be careful with this stuff - you need to get somebody to read it for you, because you probably can't read it yourself. again. don't wing it. ask a mathematician...

there's no magic potion to protect yourself.

we need to reduce emissions.

but, in a petro-state dictatorship (with junior partners in the tobacco & marijuana industries), you would expect for a study that demonstrates that supplementation of c & e doesn't undo the effects of exposure to pollution would end up spun around to suggest that c & e are carcinogenic, rather than broadcast the stark truth that there is no way to protect against the health risks of environmental exposure to exhaust fumes and second hand smoke besides reducing emissions at the source.

i mean, the premise that high supplementation of vitamins does anything - good or bad - is deeply flawed, because all your body does with these chemicals is get rid of them. that's the real takeaway, the real thing we learned.

so, yeah - you can not get enough, it is true.

but all your body does if you get too much is flush it out.

the counter-examples are a, d, e & k which can be stored. but, what that means is your body regulates their release, and the idea that you're ending up with high levels of e via any other mechanism than injection doesn't really make any sense - if you have too much e, your liver should pull it out and store it.

the problem is when your liver gets overloaded and you essentially overdose - that is a real potential threat. but, even at levels in multivitamins, it's pretty obscure.

and, what about these weird studies that claim that vitamins cause cancer?

well..

that doesn't seem right, clearly. the science around anti-oxidants is not in question, the question with things like flavonoids is whether you can actually absorb them or not.

here's my hunch about that: if you give people multivitamins, and insist they rely on them for nutrient requirements, what's likely going to happen is that they're going to end up deficient in the vitamin that they're being tested for because they're just going to piss it out.

so, yeah - somebody that relies on a daily multivitamin or chemical supplementation may end up showing increased risk for certain disease, but it could very well be because they're actually deficient due to relying on the multivitamin and not getting enough through the course of the day.

that said, it's worth pointing out that the studies they've done have very explicitly tested whether vitamin e can undo the effects of smoking. the anti-vitamin people forget to tell you that. so, no - vitamin e is not an antidote to smoking. but, that does not mean that high doses of vitamin e will cause cancer, it just means it won't protect against other known risk factors. the real point of these studies was consistently about the dangers of smoking and pollution, not about the dangers of vitamins. but, we know who runs the world, right?

that said, as mentioned, there doesn't seem to be any evidence to overdo it with much of anything except c. c won't cure your cold on it's own, but it will sure help. besides glucose, it's probably the most important chemical in your body. there's no real reason to take a pill when it's so readily available in food, but it's really the only thing you should be looking at extremely high intakes of - just so long as you stagger it. and, if you have to take pills, take smaller ones 2-3x times a day instead of big ones once a day.

what we've learned, what we can say for certain, is that we're not evolved to store vitamins like we once thought we were; we don't store most of them at all, and the ones that we do store are only stored for a few days at a time. what that means is that you need to eat small, frequent meals - or take small, frequent supplements.

i should answer the obvious question - why don't i take a multivitamin?

and the answer is that they don't work, and it goes back to what i was saying about pissing it out.

you might imagine that if you take a vitamin with 500% of your b1 in the morning then you're good for a week, right? a couple of days, anyways, surely?

but, no - what actually seems to happen (and, they've done studies, you can look this up) is that you get high on thiamin for a half hour, piss it out and crash. then, you're deficient for the next week.

we seem to have made a lot of bad assumptions about these sorts of things in the middle part of the last century. we assumed that you just absorb cholesterol in tact; in fact, you don't - it's regulated by your liver. and, we assumed that your body would find some way to manage a ton of vitamins if you administered it all at once; in fact, it can't - it gets overwhelmed and excretes the water soluble vitamins (and potentially even overdoses on fat soluble ones).

so, what multivitamins need to do is package smaller amounts and instruct people to take them 2-3x per day, instead of put together this overwhelming concoction and instruct customers to consume them daily or weekly.

so, i'm googling b5 and they all come in 50 mg, 500 mg or even 1000 mg dosages, and this is really just stupid. your body can't do anything with that except excrete it; it'll be pissed out in an hour.

if i could find a multi that has 5-10 mg of b5 in it (and reasonable amounts of other vitamins), i'd take it with each meal, as a fortification substitute.

but, i don't see the point in overwhelming myself with a chemical that my body is just going to go into overdrive to excrete. that's just likely to be harmful on my organs, in the long run.

i'd rather find a dietary source, it just doesn't seem feasible right now.