so, i got a response about the soy milk and it is, indeed, discontinued - at least in canada.

Dear Jessica,

Thanks for contacting Earth’s Own!

The truth is that people’s tastes have changed in recent years, and as more and more consumers have adopted other types of plant-based milks like our So Nice Organic Soy, our long-loved So Good has seen less and less pickup at shelf. In light of most retailers deciding to stop ordering it and the supply challenges posed by Covid19, we have had to make the difficult decision to discontinue our So Good line. 

Would I be able to get your mailing address? I would love to send you over a coupon so you can give some of our other products a try on us! We have lots of other amazing options (like our organic So Nice Soy or amazing creamy Oat milk!), so I am confident you will find something to your liking. ?

Kind regards,

Juliette

so, they're claiming the product wasn't selling. that's why they bought it a few months ago, right? because it wasn't profitable?

riiiiiight.

this is my response:

i  need to be clear that my decision to move to the natura brand is about nutritional value, and not marketing choices. i don't care if a product is "organic" or not and the fact is that your line of products is mostly just junk food.

the so good had 45% of the daily requirement of vitamin d, which is difficult to find on a nearly vegan diet. the earth's own version only has 13%. but, the natura is still at 45%.

likewise, the so good had 50% of the b12 requirements, something else that is hard to find on a nearly vegan diet. your product only has 42%; the natura is still at 50%.

you've also cut the calcium down, which is a major component of any milk product. the so good and natura have 30% of the calcium dri; your product only has 23%.

the so good was also lower in fat than either your product or the natura, had less salt than either product and had less sugar than either product. 

in terse, blunt terms, you have taken a very healthy product and turned it into junk food. and, i am skeptical of your claim that the product wasn't moving; my experience was that it was often difficult to locate.

i don't want your coupons, i want a healthy milk alternative, and your products simply aren't one. in a rush towards maximizing profit, you have ruined a great product. i would call on you to reconsider, and reformulate your soy milk so that it is a useful milk alternative for diets that have minimal animal products, rather than merely using the environment as a greenwashing capitalist gimmick to steer funds to investors.

j

this is the graph in bc.

this, again, is my model:

do you notice anything?

again: world's gotta start listening to mathematicians. 

stop winging it. stop pretending. you need to let us run things, and you need to listen when we speak.

and, just to react to this directly:

“Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic,” said Tedros, the WHO Director-General. “It is scientifically and ethically problematic.”

this guy has been wrong about everything and said some bizarre things that put his credentials in question. right now, he's making a poor comparison.

have we had previous pandemics that only affect the elderly? diseases like the plague, ebola and even the worst examples of influenza attack the young and healthy; this one doesn't. so, we shouldn't be comparing this to historical pandemics like that, because the situation is unprecedented.

if it was ebola-gone-airborne, i'd agree with him. but, it's not - it's a novel cold virus that old people can't mount an immune response to.

this is a repost:

it's interesting to compare the outcomes in california v the outcomes in new york, now that a sufficient amount of time has passed to measure the different approaches. this is really setting itself up as the classic comparison to make in the united states.

first, note that the virus appeared in these places at about the same time.

new york was unprepared, dithered on shutting down the economy and suffered a swift and vicious attack by the virus, which rendered large amounts of it's population sick very quickly and threatened to overwhelm the system, although i'm not sure the data backs up that actually happening. today, some areas in new york are reporting upwards of 70% infection rates.

california, on the other hand, was quick to act decisively in locking down the economy and initially featured less of an outbreak, although the reality of persistent community spread was in fact apparent the whole time. while no doubt in reality an order of magnitude greater than discovered through testing, infection rates in california would appear to have been kept relatively low.

over the last few weeks, however, new york has opened with few significant problems, while california has seen the number of cases skyrocket, to the point that california is now only about 40,000 cases behind new york, in total number of discovered cases. but, this is an inexact comparison. so, california has had to extend and reinforce a lockdown that ultimately failed to prevent the outbreak that new york got nailed with, by being hit off guard; new york seems to be in the clear, as far as anybody can see.

while it initially seemed like the death rate in california was much lower, there seems to be little reason to think, at this point, that california will, in the end, avoid a loss of life on the same scale as that suffered in new york. so, all of this extended hardship is unlikely to come with any net benefit attached to it.

today, it seems like new york certainly took the less painful path.

so, i want to draw your attention to the model that i posted here many weeks ago that criticized the "flattening the curve" model:

new york end up being red, california ended up being blue.

this isn't a prediction, it's a model. please realize that.

but, the argument is supposed to be that the same number of people will get the virus anyways, so you'd might as well slow it down. one of the key points i'm trying to get across here is that if you slow the virus down then you reduce the speed of immunity, thereby increasing transmission - and you actually get twice as many cases because it takes twice as long to get to herd immunity. that sounds like it doesn't make sense, but there's a difference between developing antibodies and getting sick.

you can tweak this. maybe it takes 1.5x as long. it's a model, it's not a prediction.

the other thing i'm doing here is arguing that you can't really flatten the curve, exactly, but can rather shift it. and, maybe that shift is valuable if it buys time for a vaccine. but, it's going to come with a slow increase in cases over time until immunity is reached.

don't get lost in this in nitpicking the numbers - it's a model, it's a conceptual thing, it's an idea. and, it's a valid critique.

unfortunately, it seems like much of canada (with the exception of quebec) also followed the blue curve.

https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020/07/its-interesting-to-compare-outcomes-in.html

this is the headline i've been waiting for for months, and the idea i've been trying to get across from the start.

i'm not a utilitarian; not exactly. i'm not a nihilist, either. i'm an anarchist, which means i have a particular aversion to theory and rules and a particular attachment to empiricism. 

but, i'm not arguing against these rules and structures because i don't care; i'm presenting a dissenting analysis (and am as qualified as anybody else out there to, fwiw) because i want to do the thing i think will be the most effective and actually save the most lives.

if they locked everybody down to start and then staggered a release, starting with the youngest, and slowly let immunity build up, they'd maximize immunity and minimize death. telling everybody to stay inside until...when?...is just a stupid waste of time and a foolish waste of resources.

and, you can tell me things like "but, that's hard to control", and all i can do is look you in the eye and tell you that the status quo isn't working.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/strict-covid-19-lockdowns-could-lead-to-more-waves-and-more-deaths-u-k-study-finds

while i enjoyed the lengthy bike rides this weekend (eight hours, total) in the very unseasonably warm weather, it seems like the temperature outside has finally started falling, but that the disgusting pig is also back at it upstairs. she had stopped for a while, but she's back.

i wanted to wait for the temperature to fall before i did a comprehensive cleaning down here, but there's no use in cleaning if she's smoking.

i had no interest in smoking at all when i was out bicycling and now expect that i entered what will be a lengthy period of absolute cold turkey in mid-september, after requitting in mid-august, after catching myself accidentally falling back into it as a consequence of heightened marijuana use, due to being bored during the pandemic. so, i cut the pot out entirely to cut out the tobacco, accepting the fact that i can't smoke pot at all if i want to actually, really quit tobacco, in seriousness (which i did at the beginning of 2016), and finally prioritizing the goal of zero tobacco over any lingering marijuana use. i have not consumed the edibles yet, either. at least this is going according to plan, for right now.

so, i expect, at this point, to remain entirely cold turkey on the cigarettes until at least the spring. further, if the edibles work out as hoped for (remember: i've been waiting for the pot to clear from my system entirely before i try them, which would be coming up sooner, if it weren't for the disgusting pig up there ruining my detox), there's really no reason to go back to social smoking at concerts in the spring, if there are even any concerts to go to. i'll just stick with edibles and avoid the smoking of anything, entirely. 

that means i'm going to be pissy and irritable about this until it stops, which is what i didn't want to do all summer. but, here we are.

i want to clean in here. that's my aim. and, it means eradicating the smoke (or the smoker) via whatever tactics are necessary.

for right now, i'm going to be focusing on trying to turn the air over down here over the next few days, possibly the next week or longer. that means keeping the window open to get some cooler air in, while creating sources of heat and humidity inside - the shower, the washing machine, the dishes, etc. the aim is to push the inside air out and pull the outside air in. and, that will carry on as long as is necessary, until the smoking stops.

while that is happening, i'll be finalizing research on my diet plan.

so, that's the next week, at least, maybe longer.

to the extent that this is true (and i think this is stretching reality), i'm actually on the side of getting tougher on international criminals, not looking the other way, and would call on the trump administration - and other governments - to normalize their treatment of this suspect, in how they deal with other corporate criminals.

there's a wide variety of legislation that could be used to go after big executives, who tend to get away with whatever they want because they're rich and powerful. that needs to change.

the argument "some other bankers got away with it" is pretty horrendous - those bankers should have been prosecuted, and i would call on the government to prosecute more bankers in the future.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-meng-wanzhou-extradition-1.5744799

i know i suggested i wanted to update the soy numbers, but i'll wait to let them come in line by line. for a & b1-->b7, there is no difference between brands. but, note that i've updated the brand name at the bottom.

rather, this update will simply be to correct the weighting for strawberries in the matrix, which i've weighed at 150 g, and not 75 g. 75 g was just a guess, and it's wrong.

as these numbers were largely arrived at by multiplying the amount in 100 g by 0.75, simply multiplying them by two will be enough in most cases. but, i'll need to recalculate the percentages.

vitamin a:

1*1.5 = 1.5 μg. but, these numbers are very small;

( 4.08 + 1.5+ 10.5 + 3)/900 = 2%

the chart will not update.

vitamin b1:

0.024*1.5 = 0.036 mg

(.042+.036 +.1+.02025+.0528+.115)/1.2 = 30.5%

so, that's a 1.5% boost in the table.

vitamin b2:

0.022*1.5 = 0.033 mg

(.099+.033+.195+.01875+.253+.011)/1.3 = 46.9% ---> 47%

so, that's also a 1.5% boost in the table.

vitamin b3:

0.386*1.5 = 0.579

(.904 + 0.579 + 2.61 + 0.25575 + 0.1276 + 0.216)/16 = 29%

that is also a 1.5% boost.

vitamin b4:

.5*1.5 = 0.75 mg

(1.632 + .75 + 15.9 + .339 + 19.25 + .9735 + 49.38)/75 = 1.17632666667 = 117.5%.

so, that's just a .5% boost.

vitamin b5:

0.125*1.5 = 0.1875 mg

(0.454 + 0.1875 + 2.08 + .13725 + .6391 + .069)/5 = 71%

that's a larger 2% boost, and where i need it, too. hrmmn.

note that there was a typo in the previous chart; i calculated 232.5 and then entered it as 233. oops. so, the 2% boost goes to 234.5 and not to 235.

vitamin b6:

.047*1.5 = .0705

(.499+.0705+.386+.04725+.0528+.033)/2 = 0.544275 ---> 54%

we're back to 1.5%, across the chart.

vitamin b7:

1.58*(150/144) = 1.64583333333 ~ 1.646

(3.21169230769 + 1.64583333333 + 5.4 + 10.0693333333  + 2.86)/35 = 0.66248168498 = 66%

that's 2%.

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
	ban ana 1 136 g	straw ber ies 5-6 150 g	avo cado 2* 75 g	kiwi 1 75 g	soy milk 250 ml	cher ry ice cre am 200 ml	nut. ye ast  1 med tsp 3 g	fort cer eal 55 g	grd flax seed 1 tbsp (7 g)	sum	red pep per 1 200 g	dur um wht fet 55 g + h20	med ched chse 60 g	car rot 1  110 g	hul led hemp seed 1 tbsp 10 g	dre ssi ng	nut. ye ast 1 med tsp 3 g	sum	fried eggs 2*70g	med ched cheese 30 g	marg. 2 tbsp	whole wheat bread with germ + flax   (1 slice) (37 g)	nut. yeast 1  small tsp 2 g	juice type 250 ml	sum	brew coffee 700 ml	soy choc 100 ml	sum	total
raison  d'etre	b5 b9 b16	b5 b16 c	b3,4 b5,7 b9, o-6 k,b16	b9 c k,b16	a,d b3,4 b5,7	a b5	b1,2 b3,4 b6,7	a,e b3 b5 b7	o-3 b16		b3,4 c	b3	a	a b3	b3 o-3		b1,2 b3,4 b6		a b2,7	a	d	o-3	b2,7	c		caf	feine
a (fat sol) (900 μg rae)	4.08 μg	1.5 μg	10.5 μg	3 μg	10 %	13 %	0	15 %	0	40 r:38 c:2	314  μg	1.04 μg	30 %	918 μg	0	-	0	167 r:30 c:137	r:29 c:6.9 μg	15 %	10 %	0	0	-	55 r:54 c:1	0	4 %	4 r:4 c:0	266 r:126 c:140
b1 thiamin (1.2 mg)	.042 mg	.036 mg	0.1 mg	.02025 mg	8 %	.0528 mg	155 %	20 %	.115 mg	213.5 u:30.5	.108 mg	46 %	.0174 mg	.0726 mg	.1275 mg	-	155 %	228 u:27	0.06 mg	.0087 mg	0	10.5 %	103 %	-	119 u: 5.5	0.1 mg	3 %	11 u:8	571.5
b2 [g, j] riboflavin (1.3 mg)	.099 mg	.033 mg	0.195 mg	.01875 mg	25 %	.253 mg	144 %	24 %	.011 mg	240 u:47	.17 mg	22.5 %	.2568 mg	.0638 mg	.0285 mg	-	144 %	206.5 u:40	.684 mg	.1284 mg	0	3 %	96 %	-	161.5 u:62.5	.54 mg	10 %	51.5 u:41.5	659.5
b3 niacin (16 mg)	.904 mg	.579 mg	2.61 mg	.25575 mg	10 %	.1276 mg	65 %	36 %	.216 mg	140 n:29 f:111	1.958 mg	36 %	.0354 mg	1.0813 mg	0.92 mg	-	65 %	126 n:25 f:101	.114 mg	.0177 mg	0	6.5 %	43 %	-	50.5 n:1 f:49.5	1.36 mg	4 %	12.5 n:8.5 f:4	329 n:63.5 f:265.5
b4* adenine (75 mg)	1.632 mg	0.75 mg	15.9 mg	.339 mg	19.25 mg	.9735 mg	49.38 mg	?	?	117.5	31.8 mg	2.2 mg	4.92 mg	0.77 mg	?	-	49.38 mg	119	2.24 mg	2.46 mg	0	4.514 mg	32.92 g	-	56	?	7.7 mg	10	302.5
b5 pantothenic acid (5 mg)	.454 mg	.1875 mg	2.08 mg	.13725 mg	15 %	.6391 mg	2.25 %	19 %	.069 mg	107 u:71	.634 mg	.2371 mg	.246 mg	.3003 mg	.056 mg	yog urt sub	2.25 %	31% u:29	2.292 mg	0.123 mg	0	5 %	1.5 %	-	54.5 u:48	1.808 mg	6 %	42 u:36	234.5
b6 pyridoxine (1.7 mg)	.499 mg	.0705 mg	.386 mg	.04725 mg	6 %	.0528 mg	133 %	25 %	.033 mg	218 u:54	.582 mg	.0781 mg	.0396 mg	.1518 mg	.06 mg		133 %	178.5 u:45.5	.255 mg	.0198 mg	0	3.5 %	88 %	-	105 u:13.5	0	2 %	2	503.5
b7 [h] biotin (35 μg)	3.212 μg	1.646 μg	5.4 μg	?	10.069 μg	2.86 μg	45 %	86 %	?	197 u:66	6.6 μg	.2 μg	1.038 μg	5.5 μg	2.73 μg	-	45 %	91 u:46	58.33 μg	.519 μg	4.547 μg	3 %	30 %	-	214 u:181	0	11 %	11	513
b8* inositol (myo or lipid) (1000 mg)	20	10	-	102	25	5	10	-	-	172	99.75	70.27	-	-	-	-	10	-	6.3	-	16	50	10	-	-	-	-	-	-
b9 [m, b11, r] folic acid (400 μg)	12	4.5	30	6	6	1	23	34	2	118.5	19	71	3	3	3	-	23	122	18	1.5	0	5	23	-	47.5	4	2	6	294
b10* pABA (100 mg)	~0	~0	-	~0	>0	~0	-	-	-	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
b12 [t] (cyano) cobalamin (2.4 μg)	0	0	0	0	50	20	125	0	0	195	0	0	8.5	0	0	20+	125	133.5	33	4	0	0	125	-	162	0	20	20	490.5
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 (fat sol) (550 mg)	4	1	4	1	11	5	1.5	1	1	29.5	2	2.5	2	1	-	-	1.5	9	68	1	0	2	1.5	-	73.5	3	4.5	7.5	119.5
b20* [aka I] l-carnitine (25 mg)	~0	~0	-	~0	~0	5	-	-	-	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
c (90 mg)	34	74	25	117	4	0	0	25	~0	279	350	0	0	7	0	-	0	357	0	0	0	0	0	100+	100+	0	0	0	736+
d (fat sol) (15 μg)	0	0	0	0	45	0	0	6	0	51	0	0	2	0	0	20+	0	2	12	1	30	0	0	-	43	0	18	18	114
e (fat sol) (15 mg)	2	1.5	16	10	0	2	0	36	0	67.5	13	1	1	2	7	30+	0	24	9	.5	20	1.5	0	30+	31	0	0	0	122.5
f1* linoleic acid omega-6 (g) (17 mg)	0.1086	0.09	2.534	0.187	1.5	.300	0	1.2	.414	6.3336	.0738	.540	.3462	.0828	2.87	-	0	3.9128	3.23	.1731	1.5	.5	0	-	5.4031	~0	.8	.8	16.45
f2* alpha linolenic acid omega-3 (g) (1.6 mg)	0.0638	0.065	0.165	0.0319	0.2	.200	0	0.2	1.597	2.5227	.041	.024	.219	.0014	.93	-	0	1.2154	.228	.1095	.5	.75	0	-	1.5875	~0	.12	.12	5.45
f1:f2 ratio	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	2.51	-	-	-	-	-	2:1	-	3.22	-	-	-	-	-	-	3.40	-	-	-	3.02
k (fat sol) (138 μg)	2	1	39	38	5	0	0	-	-	85	10	1	1	12	0	-	0	24	9	.5	10	.5	0	-	20	0	2	2	131
q1* coenzyme q10 (mg) (30 mg)	0.272	0.075	-	0.0375	.625	.0308	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
q2* pyrrolo quinoline  quinone (mu-g)	3.536	-	-	2.025	.063	.2101	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
s* salicylic acid (mg)	~0	~1	-	~0.375	~0	~0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

* not really.

complete requirements

fat soluble:

- a: 120% of pre-formed + 100% of convertible rae, total daily. 30% + pre-formed per meal.

- choline: 30% + per meal, 120% total

- d: 30% + per meal, 120% total

- e: 30% + per meal, 120% total

- k: 30% + per meal, should not exceed 100%/meal, >120% & <200% total

water soluble (bs & c):

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

- b1: 125% w/ each meal

- b2: 131% w/ each meal

- b3: 125% w/ each meal, but not more than 200% in fortified sources.

- b4: 75 mg w/ each meal

- b5: 100% w/ each meal

- b6: 118% w/ each meal

- b7: 171% w/ each meal, with 857% total as a goal.

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 (product is superior, but discontinued) 

- natura vanilla soy milk

- chapman's black cherry ice cream

- bulk barn nutritional yeast

- vector cereal

- black diamond brand medium cheddar cheese

- selection brand pasta [metro/food basics]

- bulk barn nutritional yeast

- irrestibles brand olive canola oil [metro/food basics]

- dempster's whole grain double flax bread

- black diamond brand medium cheddar cheese

- bulk barn nutritional yeast

- natura chocolate soy milk

- no specific brand or type of coffee

diet options:

daily:

2) pasta salad bowl:

- 100 g cooked pasta ----> reduce
- 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

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)

==========

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

no.

i don't want to hear your whiny princess bullshit.

suck it up.

"but i should be able to do what i want!"

well, sure, within reason.

the argument regarding free speech is that, sure, you can say what you want - but you have to accept the consequences stemming from what you say. so, if people hate you for what you say, that's what you get - you can't cry you're being excluded.

i think an analogy with free expression is pertinent; i don't exactly want to tell you what to do. but, i must insist that you need to accept the ramifications of your actions, too, even if the error is due to oversight rather than intent.

i just want to chime in a little on the nonsense in bc around some comments made by a female mp, which were construed as "sexist" by the media.

while the woman has apologized, i'm not following the critique.

her comments seemed to be less about the female ndp member and more about the male liberal member, and if there's a valid criticism in context, it may be more along the lines of trivializing unwarranted male reactions to relatively normal female behaviour. but, if the question at hand is the veracity of the observation that this old guy was getting off on the interaction, i see little reason to question it. there doesn't seem to have been an attempt to insult the female mla, so much as there was an attempt to mock the old guy for enjoying a young woman in his midst in ways she was clearly oblivious to - and i'd say that was trivializing something that should maybe have not been seen as particularly comical.

the fact that everybody on the call agreed with the premise of the old guy enjoying his good fortune, and that nobody pushed back and said "no, it wasn't like that", suggests that it wasn't a particularly outlandish thing to observe, whether the perception was intentional or not.

i would consequently suggest to ms. ma that intentions and outcomes can at times be a little different, and that maybe people perceived her behaviour differently than she intended. there's nothing wrong with that. but, if she's hypersensitive to those misperceptions, perhaps she should be a little bit more careful about how she conducts herself in the presence of aging straight men.

so, i took a nap this morning and woke up to a response from the pharmacy in amherstburg, which actually gave me a fairly steep refund; i only ended up paying $18 for 200 pills, which was a massive refund (about a $50 gift, really), in the end. it meant i had to go back there this afternoon, but that was fine - i like biking, so i was happy to get paid for it.

thankfully, it was unexpectedly humid today, so it was actually a very pleasant ride. two hours both ways is actually on the order of something i could do daily, but, i mean, i have better things to do...

right now, i'm hungry, and that's good, because i'm a little behind on the schedule. it should hopefully be back in order by the morning.

as i now have a full slate of meds until early december, i have no reason to leave the house again until i run out of salad dressing and have to make some kind of choice about the yogurt. that should be 7-8 days. so, i'm really hoping that i get my diet sorted out before then.

for now, i feel good and hope to get back to this for the next several days.

fwiw, i'd actually rather abolish daylight savings time than get rid of it.

if anything, i'd rather move the clocks back another hour so that the sun comes up earlier in the winter.

jessica murray <koala.central.command@gmail.com>

5:37 AM (0 minutes ago)

to consumer <consumer@earthsown.com>

hi.

i'm a longterm consumer of so good products, and have noticed them be replaced by earth's own products at my grocery store. the fortification decisions in the earth's own soy products do not fit my dietary requirements, and i am not interested in purchasing them. yet, i notice that you still have the so good on your website as a separate product.

is your intent to replace the so good with nature's own and phase out the so good, or do you intend to continue selling the so good? if the latter, do you happen to have a list of resellers in windsor, ontario? 

i'm going to end up moving to your competitor, natura, if i can't find the so good. but, what i really want is the so good...

j

although...

when i go to the website, they have the two things listed separately: an earth's own product and a so good product. i went to two stores, and they both carried the earth's own exclusively, where they used to have the so good on the shelf. 

but, i wonder...can i still find the so good, somewhere?

i'm going to send them an email.

i do need to point something else out, though, and that's the catastrophe regarding the soy milk.

for years now, i've been buying so good soy milk - it's the central staple of my diet. this formulation was by far superior to anything else on the market in terms of heavy fortification and good decisions regarding preservatives. that meant it had a shorter shelf life, and was sometimes hard to locate, but was by far the best thing on the market, when you could. i used to walk for miles to find this stuff.

i started noticing it clear out of stores a few months ago, and realized that was ominous. it seems to have been bought by a company called "nature's own" "earth's own" fairly recently, and they finally switched over the marketing, in the newest batch on the shelf - complete with decreased levels of fortification.

this couldn't have come at a worse time. i took one look at it and rejected it flat out. so, the next update will be to remove data from the so good brand and enter data from the more expensive natura brand. and, this is a giant shame, too.

as far as i can tell, nature's own earth's own (which makes junk food products like almond milk) bought up so good so it would have a monopoly on the shelf. now, when you go to that section at food basics, it's one company selling all of the "milk alternatives" - oat, almond, rice, soy, etc. the problem is that, in the process, they've standardized their fortification levels, and the result is just no longer useful to me. frankly, it's easy to see why nature's own earth's own wanted to stamp out so good - no discerning consumer would have purchased a nature's own earth's own product when the so good product is right there beside it.

if you take a look through my matrix, you'll see that the b vitamins in the soy are mostly excess and the thing i really need to care about is vitamin d, which, as an ovo-lacto-vegetarian, i get minimal amounts of in my diet. d is like b12 - i need it fortified, period. so, you can imagine that i was heartbroken to see my so good cut the d from 45% to 13% - and the calcium from 30% to 23%. this standardizes their soy with their other (junk food) products, and also with their major competitor (silk). i was also disappointed to see increases in the number of calories, amount of saturated fat and amounts of sugar. it seemed to have more minerals, though.

if soy is supposed to be a milk replacement, cutting the d out defeats the point. and, they also cut the b12 from a nice 50% to a lower 42%. 

together, these things are the reason people drink soy milk instead of cow's milk. they may save a few cents per carton, but such a victory is pyrrhic if their customers abandon them, and they will. this product won awards for heart health. it was probably the single healthiest thing on the market - and now it's ruined, because it was competing with almond milk, which is literally junk food.

the natura is not as good as the so good was - it's more expensive, it has more calories, it has more monounsaturated fat, it has more salt & it has less omega-3s because it uses sunflower oil as an additive. it doesn't taste as good, either. but, the vitamin fortification is identical, so i can plug it in and keep going.

i'm heartbroken, really. and, i'd call for somebody to enter the market and produce a so good replica. 

capitalism ruins everything, and governments just help it destroy.

so, posts have been light. i had to do some running around...

with my trip to amhersburg on saturday morning, i've now been to the county limits in all three directions. this was a much shorter ride than the treks to leamington or tilbury:

further, unlike the previous treks, there was really no exit from urban sprawl on this ride. lasalle is straight suburbia all the way to an old town called "river canard", and that main highway, county rd 20, is suburban almost right from the split. i went through maybe five farms in between, before i got to a community called edgewater beach and then went through to amherstburg. in fact, it was sidewalk for 90% of the way.

when i got there to pick up my estrace, the pharmacist had 200 pills ready and tried to charge me $156.00. i told him that wasn't right. then, he said it was $36 - and i said that sounds more like it. then, he said it was $110, and i stormed out....but came back. we agreed that it should say $70.00 or so (given that this was more than i usually get), but he couldn't make the computer work. i told him i'd pay for it, then figure it out when i got home.

i think what happened is he charged me past my coverage limit, which is defined by the government. i'm very poor, so i qualify for the ontario drug benefit, which pays the difference between the generic (which doesn't work.) and the brand name (which is weak, as it is). but, the odb is only chargeable up to the rx limit. my rx was for 120 pills, so the added costs were for the extra 80.

or, that's what i think, anyways. i've sent an email & a fax, and will follow up in the morning.

i decided to get some grocery shopping done yesterday, and have stocked up on everything except yogurt - in fact, maybe a bit too much. i've run out of tupperware, and space in the fridge. the problem is that they had these giant 300 g peppers on sale again and they don't even fit into containers. but, i'm good for most of the month, i think, and then some. i really stocked up on stuff, for the winter.

what that means is i'm going to have to go back to amherstburg for a refund once i get this guy's boss on the phone and have him explain it.

i think i should probably be able to get my doctor to fax them an rx for a larger quantity. but, because this is a mistake by the pharmacist, i'm going to expect them to eat the cost - and maybe even compensate me for the bike ride.

it's very difficult to understand how a virus could survive on something like a bank note for more than a few hours, let alone weeks, at room temperature, in dry air. that is really so difficult to understand that it opens up a lot of very profound questions.

what is this thing, really?

it's almost acting more like a spore than a virus.

if you tell me you're absolutely certain that a virus can survive a month on a piece of plastic, i'm going to tell you it was designed in a lab.

"The truth of the matter is, when you look at some of my policies, in a lot of ways Richard Nixon was more liberal than I was" - barack obama

well, face it.

trump is the most liberal president since nixon.

that was bound to generate a reaction on the right of the gop, eventually.