Posts by placidsurfer86

Sam Hughes5 said:you basically have to take those plants for a long time before you even notice anything happening

Kind of like most of those useless antibiotics our doctors push on us😬

I honestly don't think herbs alone can pull off a total cure for chronic illnesses. You might be able to manage the symptoms or keep things under control, but a complete fix? I’m skeptical about that.
What we *can* do, though, is lean into herbal remedies for prevention. For me, that mostly means sipping on different teas—nothing too crazy, just consistent stuff. Your body has a way of remembering how you treat it—kind of like karma, really—and I'm convinced it'll pay you back in kind, whether that's good or bad, sooner or later.

👋 👋

Here's my update: hit up the Walmart over in Des Moines yesterday and—get this—they actually had basically every flavor of Cevitin tea in stock. Finally got my hands on that Pin Colad cherry and banana combo. Definitely going back for more in a few days🙂

Megan Peterson87 said:I’m not really a tea drinker myself—but honestly, I love sniffing essential oils whenever I’ve got a headache or just feeling super stressed out.😁

Thanks.
There's actually another site that breaks down how different herbs work if you want to check it out:

hana said:@ placidsurfer86 - check out ExxonMobil

We haven't even heard of ExxonMobil over here in Des Moines...

So, has anyone actually tried lavender tea? What’s the deal with it—does it actually do anything?

x-type said:Man, that stuff is just brutal! I have this buddy who drinks it all the time—sometimes when he offers me some, I blank out and say sure, and then I feel like an idiot having to backtrack and say "actually, no thanks"... honestly, they should probably ban that stuff by law! And then they have the nerve to label it "exotic"🙄

You aren't kidding. About two years back, I tried (literally just once) an Apple chamomile tea—that Polish variety—to help with some hemorrhoid issues. Let me tell you, if I hadn't made it through, I wouldn't have! It felt like pouring acid directly onto the wound. The Reagan was absolutely horrific. Since then, Apple teas are off the table for me.

polly said:you can find them all over at Walmart, Kroger, or local grocery stores
I’ve actually seen them everywhere

Man, I checked out Walmart and Kroger and didn't see a single one—but hey, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm from way out in the sticks near Savannah, so I might be missing out.😬

Buggy said:How good is the tea selection at $3.25 actually?

The tea at $3.25 is decent—if you stick to the local American brands. Those Polish ones wrapped in that sketchy Clever branding? Total garbage. They’re priced at $3.99, but I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. I usually just stick to the big household names like Frank, Kraft Heinz, or Starbucks—it's just a bummer that the big shopping malls never seem to carry the fun flavors, like Piña Colada or Grape.

Nice. I’m knocking back about two liters of tea a day—mostly unsweetened green tea, which I basically use as my water source. Toss in a few cups of fruit tea throughout the day and that's me set. Might actually put in some effort and walk over to Walmart later.
I think I spotted a Hershey cherry tea the other day. Seems like a new addition to the shelves, or am I just tripping?
It sucks how limited our selection is lately. I can never find any Nescafe stuff, like those Piña Colada or grapefruit flavors.

Sandra King86 said:This primitive way of calculating BMI doesn't account for your actual body composition. You should go see a doctor or an occupational/sports medicine specialist to get your numbers checked properly.
Because those pros use much more sophisticated methods—they aren't just looking at weight vs. height, they’re factoring in three or four other body fat measurements too.

That's how you end up with someone who's 5'5" and 100 lbs but actually has way too much body fat compared to muscle mass and stuff like that.

Preach!

Spot on. From what I've seen, nothing else really touches marshmallow root tea—it’s basically in a league of its own. Just don't go running to the doctor for some chemical cocktail; nature's little miracles actually work.😉

rapidwalker7 said:Regarding all the online ads and classifieds stuff... have you even thought about how we’re supposed to actually find partners? Using sites and the web is just the path of least resistance—that's why most people end up here. If we tried walking up to someone at a bar or a club—you know, like those guys who try their luck in person—we'd basically just be asking for a punch in the face. 😬

👍 👍

Ryan Wood98 said:Last year, there was this stat floating around in the news saying that for the first time, the percentage of heterosexual people living with HIV actually surpassed the percentage of homosexual people. Can't remember where I saw it—just some headline I scrolled past.

Yeah, that’s entirely possible.

Regarding those percentages—honestly, I think it’s pretty wrong to throw stats around just to stigmatize specific groups without a good reason. At the end of the day, it really comes down to the individual making their own choices. Sex is sex, whether you're gay or straight. It isn't some weird or abnormal thing; it's just about how much care each person puts into being responsible. Using protection is the real key to staying safe.

But anyway, we're talking about blood donation.
I feel like the doctors or the folks who drafted these stupid laws are basically admitting something pretty bad about themselves. Think about it—if you take these legal rules at face value regarding whose blood can be used, they aren't even testing the donated blood itself. I mean, if the blood is healthy, why does it matter if it came from a gay guy or a straight guy? Healthy blood is healthy blood, regardless of who it comes from. It feels like they’re just preemptively banning "higher risk" groups to cover up their own laziness and inconsistency in testing.

nimblemarlin17 said:If you're gay, sex basically comes to you—you don't even have to try that hard.

You really think it's that simple?

rapidwalker7 said:I think they’re overhyping things too, but apparently, they’re sticking to those CDC stats.

Maybe there's some truth to those numbers, though. It feels to me like the gay community is way more dialed-in regarding HIV/AIDS specifically because they know they're considered a high-risk group. So—they get tested more often, which means infections get caught much earlier. My boyfriend and I actually went to get tested even though we've always been safe since the day we met. Honestly, half my best friends have gone in for testing just this past year.
On the flip side, you've got the straight crowd acting like AIDS is just some "gay disease," so they figure they don't need to bother with testing—which just makes it harder to catch the virus in them.

And man, how does someone even get reckless enough to contract HIV?!? That's what I'm wondering too... But I guess there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who are just promiscuous or careless. It sucks that the whole community gets stigmatized just because of them...

You hit the nail on the head. I'm with you on all of that.
That 40% figure has to be wrong, no matter how they crunched the numbers.
Really hoping things start looking up soon.

rapidwalker7 said:Last year's stats...
http://www.cdc.gov/index.php?option...id=100&Itemid=

I’ve got my doubts about these numbers—that 40% figure feels way too inflated to me. Looks like this comes from an advocacy group's report. Honestly, I'd much rather see the official data straight from the CDC.
But man, if those numbers actually hold up, things are looking pretty grim for the male population.
Something just doesn't sit right with me here: how can someone be so reckless that they end up with HIV??!! It's frustrating, honestly. Because of sheer negligence, an entire group ends up facing a public outcry. Like they haven't got enough problems of their own without being targeted by the masses. It's sad.

Risov said:it’s only partially....
numbers are numbers!

Man, I’d really love to see the actual data on this. Even if we're talking about a higher-risk group, that percentage isn't nearly as massive as some people want it to be. From what I've gathered, the HIV infection rates are pretty much the same between gay and hetero populations—and look, I'm not saying that just because I'm gay and trying to sugarcoat things, but I think it's important to realize that even a "negative" trait can be handled effectively if you actually take it seriously and address it head-on. I actually saw a doctor on TV the other day talking about these stats, and she confirmed that the gay community doesn't deviate from the average. Again, I'm not comparing us to places like sub-Saharan Africa—that wouldn't even be a fair fight, because if you used those same metrics there, the hetero population's numbers would look way worse.

Anthony Kim18 said:Look, let's be real—the LGBTQ+ community is definitely a critical group to consider.

Yeah, unfortunately—I gotta tell ya, you hit the nail on the head. But only halfway.Honestly, they only have themselves to blame. Prevention isn't some secret code anymore—it's common knowledge. Everyone knows exactly how it's done; if you drop the ball, that's on you.

Nah, I still think those negative stats regarding the ratio of HIV infections between gay and straight populations mostly stem from less developed areas in Eastern Europe and especially Africa. As far as I know, in developed countries like the US, the infection rates are pretty much proportional to the population size itself.
Condoms save lives—plain and simple. And honestly, we in the West know that better than anyone.
👍

Honestly, I should probably just go out and yell "I want to be an organ donor!" at the top of my lungs at least 20 times a day—maybe then it’ll actually sink in. Who knows? Maybe people will hear me and decide to just tear me apart right here in line instead.🙂 😂 😂 😂 😂