Posts by Joseph Watson3

northerncobra27 said:I honestly have no clue if dairy is actually driving the allergy surge, but I can't help but wonder—humans have been drinking milk since we first started farming, which is a ridiculously long time. So why is the frequency of allergies suddenly spiking right now? I'm pretty skeptical that milk is the primary culprit here.

If I had to bet, I'd say it's simply because nobody used to pay attention to these minor details—let alone get tested for fifty different allergens like people do today. It’s not that there were fewer allergies back then; it's just that life expectancy was much shorter. People were dying from routine illnesses that we easily fix now, so nobody was really overanalyzing the link between milk and allergies (they were just happy to have a meal). It's basically just a byproduct of a higher standard of living and a better healthcare system—the classic "prosperity paradox" effect again. 😁

northerncobra27 said:And then there’s her whole lecture about cow's milk and calves 🤣... I mean, at least one species actually drinks cow's milk—soy milk? I'm pretty sure nothing touches that stuff. It just makes me wonder what fuels these massive waves of hysteria where everyone suddenly becomes an expert, only for you to dig a little deeper and realize they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.

Like someone else already pointed out, it's all driven by the "Empty Heads, Full Asses" syndrome—which, let's face it, is a common affliction among today's self-proclaimed intellectuals.😁

Susan Bishop92 said:Who exactly is milk intended for, and at what stage of life?
Milk exists to nourish a species' young. Naturally, all mammals rely on their mother's milk during those initial stages—but eventually, that phase ends. Humans are pretty much the only species out there still drinking milk as adults.
It isn't natural for animals to be consuming milk once they've matured, just like it wouldn't be natural for them to drink milk from a different species. And yet, humans are the only ones doing exactly that.

Humans are also the only species that cooks their food and eats it with forks and spoons. Apparently, it’s "unnatural"—so we should all go back to eating everything raw with our hands since that's supposedly more "natural," right? 🤣 🤣

Besides, cats—and a few other lucky animals—will drink milk if they happen to stumble upon it. And yes, even as adults.😲

Susan Bishop92 said:Why would the argument be stupid?!
It’s common knowledge that basically any livestock raised for food is loaded with antibiotics. So, naturally, the milk ends up being full of all sorts of junk, too.
Beyond those antibiotics—which are hardly harmless, by the way—milk goes through homogenization and pasteurization. By the time it hits the shelf, it doesn't have even a tenth of the beneficial nutrients found in raw milk.

Well, it's "common knowledge" because people like you keep repeating it as if it were true, even though it isn't. You can't just take milk from a cow that's currently on antibiotics. The dairy industry and veterinary inspectors monitor this strictly—if a supplier tried to sneak that kind of milk into a company like Ferrero, they'd lose their contract in a heartbeat. Consequently, farmers actually try to minimize antibiotic use because a cow on medication is nothing but a drain on their bottom line.

Another one from Haneke—the seventh continent.

silvercobra682 said:👎

Honey is essentially nature's little masterpiece from hardworking bees, packed with useful components like fructose, glucose, maltose, sucrose, various minerals (Na, K, Ca, Mg, Co, Ni, Fe), vitamins (A, vitamin C, D, K, and the B complex), enzymes, and more. Of course, the exact composition shifts depending on which flower the bees visited. It serves as a natural energy booster; because it's so easy to digest, it provides an immediate pick-me-up, while regular consumption can help support physical stamina and mental clarity over time.

Like I said before—it's basically just a pile of sugar with a tiny sprinkle of minerals and vitamins. You can find the exact same profile in almost any mass-produced box of corn flakes or granola you grab at a grocery store. So, what exactly makes this stuff "medicinal"? As for that whole "vitality" pitch... you could probably sell that to some elderly ladies while you're busy swindling them with overpriced honey jars.😉

mistyjackal842 said:I’ve noticed quite a few people praising King for their eyewear, so I assume they carry high-quality lenses. What kind of soft contacts do you all usually pick up there? Their website mentions that exams are done by an optometrist—it even lists a specific professional title—but he isn't actually a specialized ophthalmologist. I guess I'm just not sure how reliable that really is; he can determine my prescription, sure, but he might not be qualified to perform a full, comprehensive eye exam.

Lately, I’ve been getting my lenses at the Mayo Clinic over by Central Park. I was using these annual soft Johnson & Johnson lenses with 42% water content, which cost $173 for the pair. Those were honestly great. When I went back about a year and a half later, I asked for the exact same ones, but they didn't have them in stock. Instead, they tried to give me these six-month lenses as a substitute for the same price. They were different Johnson & Johnson lenses with 56% water content. I really didn't like them; they felt much thinner than the first pair, they kept sticking, and they were so much harder to get into my eyes. To make matters worse, I think one of the lenses was actually the wrong prescription because my vision was blurry in one eye. I didn't even realize it until I got home, and I didn't bother trying to return them because, well, I didn't think I'd actually get anywhere with it.

I feel like they probably should have just told me to wait for a new shipment to arrive. I mean, if anyone is planning to go there, just watch out. I honestly got the impression they were just trying to offload whatever they had on hand just to clear out inventory. When I first went in for my original lenses, they gave me plenty of options to choose from, so I'm not sure why there wasn't any variety the second time around, other than that one specific type.

Does anyone know where I can find annual soft lenses with 42% water content in Chicago, somewhere that also offers a complete, thorough eye exam?

King has a pretty solid selection and the prices are low (compared to some of the other crooks out there). They even give you a trial pair if you're buying monthly or bi-weekly ones, which makes them better than most optical shops in Chicago. As for those annual soft lenses? You might want to skip them. For the health of your eyes, silicone hydrogels are much better because they have significantly higher oxygen permeability—though you'll mostly find those in monthly or even more frequent replacements...

This is just a pile of absolute nonsense 😁

You can toss vitamin C into boiling water all you want—it doesn't become thermolabile until you hit temperatures way north of 150°C. This whole idea that it gets destroyed by a hot cup of tea is nothing more than an urban legend. Here’s the proof: http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/AS/ascorbic_acid.html

As for honey? We’d actually need to prove it’s "medicinal" first before we could even argue that high heat might strip away its healing properties 😁 But let's be real—proving that a heap of sugar mixed with some pollen and trace minerals is actually medicinal is a bit of a tall order, isn't it? 🙂

driftingraven53 said:Honestly, all of this is starting to give me a massive headache.😵
Yesterday, I headed over to Bank of America to open a foreign currency account, and I made sure to get a Visa debit card linked directly to it.🙂 As usual, the lady at the branch was perfectly polite and sweet, but she clearly didn't have a clue what she was talking about. I asked her if that Visa card had a CVV code, and she just gave me this blank, confused look.😕I tried explaining that it’s just that three-digit number on the back of the card, but she looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language! She insisted the number was four digits long and located on the front of the card—which was my "aha!" moment where I realized she had absolutely no idea what a CVV even was. I just nodded and said "okay" because there was really no point in arguing with her. Once I got home, I called the Bank of America customer service line to ask about the code, and the operator told me she didn't know either.🤷I had to scramble to come up with an excuse to hang up quickly, but seriously, if you can't get basic information from your own bank, who on earth can you turn to? I see that some people here have dealt with this before, so I have a few questions:
1. From what I’ve been reading in this thread regarding CVV codes, am I correct in thinking that both Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase offer these Visa debit cards for foreign currency accounts that include a CVV, and that I need to maintain a minimum balance of $33 or roughly $15 depending on the account currency? (True/False)

2. Can I receive transfers from various online companies into these accounts (using SWIFT and IBAN) and then withdraw my cash via ATMs or at a bank teller? (True/False)

3. Is PayPal something similar to PayPal? What kind of experiences have you guys had with it, and what exactly does it allow me to do?

4. I read a post once where someone had issues depositing funds into PayPal using a debit card because when they signed up, they entered their name without any special characters (like accents or diacritics)—for example, typing "Stipe Mason" instead of "Stipe Mason." Is that actually a possibility?

I would be incredibly grateful if anyone could give me some straight answers, even if you can only help me out with just one or two of these questions.🙂

Regarding that specific Bank of America card, you don't actually need any extra cushion—everything goes through fine for me even if the balance hits zero. As for JPMorgan Chase, though, judging by the comments here...

Maria Murphy76 Asks:
I honestly don't get why everyone is losing their minds and making jokes at her expense—even if she is just trolling and messing around in here. What's the big deal?🙂
So, if she happened to stumble upon the right pack of birth control pills—let's assume she actually grabbed the correct ones—it's not like she committed some massive, life-altering crime, right? Nothing catastrophic.

Most countries across the European Union use mifepristone—commonly known as RU486—as an abortion pill. If I recall correctly, it’s used up to the eight-week mark to terminate a pregnancy. Usually, it’s paired with misoprostol to get the job done.

Just a quick reminder—mifepristone is essentially the same thing as standard contraception, just delivered in a much higher dose.

If our doctors actually did their jobs properly, we wouldn't have women coming on here with all these phobias—they’d just go to a clinic, grab a prescription, and there wouldn't be half these forum threads to deal with. 😉

Look, Tuko, endocrinology isn't baking cookies—you can't just tweak the doses whenever you feel like it. Honestly, some people are just absolute morons...

1. No Country for Old Men
2. Zodiac
3. Children of Men
4. The Lives of Others
5. Notes on a Scandal

placidfox55 said:Fresh water naturally contains oxygen. The longer it sits, the more that oxygen "escapes" via tiny bubbles—just like any other gas dissolved in water. There is absolutely zero benefit to pumping extra oxygen into your drink. For what purpose? So you can increase the oxidative load on your digestive organs? Or so you can spend the rest of the day dealing with gas and burping? 😁

Those oxygen bars are just a completely useless gimmick.

It contributes to the economy, the government collects taxes, and money just shifts from one pocket to another—if some fool doesn't know how to manage their cash, they might as well hand it over to someone who does. 👍

Raymond Ward3 said:I’m just stating facts here—abortion is a cruel act that takes a massive toll on the mother, mostly because ending an existing life is inherently unnatural. Or do you honestly believe a one-month-old embryo isn't alive? If it is alive, then abortion is murder; if it isn't, when exactly does it "come to life"?

Did you seriously sign up just to lecture everyone and spout off-topic nonsense? ☕

Kyle Moore55 said:Let’s face it—even when people aren't actually discussing artificial sweeteners, aspartame somehow manages to drift into the conversation. It's everywhere online. Why does it always seem to pop up?

So, here we go—why are they doing this now, for instance? The recent news about aspartame—or rather, the lack thereof in certain products—is finally catching up to the mainstream conversation. It turns out that the "sugar-free" craze might have been built on a foundation of questionable science all along. Is anyone actually surprised? We’ve spent decades being told that swapping out sugar for synthetic sweeteners was the ultimate health hack—only to find out that the regulatory bodies might have been looking the other way while we swallowed chemicals by the spoonful. It’s almost impressive, in a dark sort of way, how much we’re willing to trust a label just because it says "zero calories." The debate isn't just about whether these additives are safe; it's about the sheer audacity of the industry. How many times can a company claim they are prioritizing consumer wellness while simultaneously lobbying to keep cheap, artificial substitutes on the shelves? It feels like a repetitive cycle at this point—scientific study comes out, public outcry follows, and then... nothing. Just more colorful packaging and more fine print. At the end of the day, if you want to avoid the chemical cocktail, you basically have to go back to basics—which, let’s be honest, most people aren't prepared to do. Are we really ready to trade convenience for actual ingredients? Probably not. But it's worth asking why it took this long for the cracks in the narrative to start showing. Do they actually go out of their way to highlight "aspartame-free" on labels for stuff like this?

There’s a growing number of people coming forward now—victims, really—testifying to just how much of a danger aspartame actually is. Is anyone else starting to notice this?
For instance. Is anyone actually looking at what’s going on with aspartame? I was digging through some documentation regarding the fallout from its use—specifically looking at the long lists of people claiming to be victims of its side effects—and it makes you wonder how much we really know about what's in our soda. We see these massive corporations like Coca-Cola pushing these sweeteners everywhere, acting like they're the gold standard for "diet" options, while the actual health implications seem to stay buried under layers of PR. Is it just a coincidence that so many people report similar neurological issues after consuming these products? Or are we all just supposed to ignore the data because it doesn't fit the corporate narrative? It feels like we're living in a giant, uncontrolled experiment where the subjects—that's us—didn't even sign a consent form. Does anyone else find the lack of transparency here a little unsettling, or am I just being overly cynical?

It’s just a shame that the victims are often the ones chugging diet Coca-Cola—specifically the stuff where the aspartame levels sit north of 350 mg/L—and doing it in massive quantities, like a liter a day. Honestly, every time I see one of those trucks driving by with "Zero Sugar" emblazoned on the side in big letters, I just want to facepalm.
Those levels are actually lower than the daily 40 mg/kg limit—based on body weight—that everyone claims won't cause any health issues whatsoever. I could potentially run into all sorts of trouble at an intake of just 10 mg/kg per day..

Look, let’s be real for a second—one single Natreen tablet, or even a piece of sugar-free gum, isn't going to pack nearly as much aspartame as a full liter of Diet Coca-Cola. So, does that mean one little Natreen tablet is perfectly safe? Is there actually anything to worry about there?

There isn’t a single, easy answer here—it really all comes down to the specifics. We’re talking about dosage, frequency, and the individual involved. Does the cumulative effect of consuming artificial sweeteners actually trigger health issues over several decades, even if you're only taking in small amounts? Is one or two Natreen tablets a day enough to tip the scales after years of habit? It’s hard to say without looking at the long-term data. Once upon a time—or so they tell us—everything was different. I mean, it’s probably best not to go looking for trouble, right?

A much better question to be asking would be whether sugar is actually the monster everyone makes it out to be—is it really something we all need to go out of our way to avoid? Is swapping out sugar for artificial sweeteners actually the silver bullet for weight loss? Or are we just trading one set of problems for another?

It looks like we’ve got another one of those "breakthrough" headlines to digest—this time about how certain microbes might actually be doing some heavy lifting in our gut. According to this ScienceDaily piece, researchers are digging deeper into the complex relationship between our microbiome and how we process nutrients. It’s the same old dance, isn't it? We spend billions on probiotics and specialized diets, while the actual microscopic pilots navigating our digestive tracts are still a bit of a mystery to science. The study suggests that these tiny organisms aren't just passive passengers; they’re actively influencing metabolic pathways in ways we’re only just starting to map out. Is it revolutionary? Maybe. Or is it just another incremental step in a field that's been promising a "gut health revolution" for at least a decade? Probably a bit of both. It’s fascinating, sure—but I can’t help but wonder when this moves from high-level academic theory to something a regular person in Chicago or Austin can actually use without needing a PhD to interpret the results. Still, worth a read if you have the patience for the technical jargon.
Turns out, they aren't exactly bringing much to the table after all.

Where exactly is the causality in all this? Most of these people probably flew on a plane once or twice, and if they happen to have certain psychological fixations—much like the ones you clearly possess—they could just as easily claim that air travel caused their cancer, panic attacks, or whatever else. Or maybe they’ll decide milk is the culprit behind everything. For instance... So, I stumbled upon www.notmilk.com. It’s one of those "is this actually happening?" kind of websites. They aren't just making another almond milk alternative—they're trying to replicate the actual experience of dairy without, well, the cow. Interesting? Maybe. Weird? Definitely. Is it going to change my morning coffee routine? We'll see. It’s the same old pile of "evidence" and "testimonials" from those hardcore vegans claiming milk causes tumors, allergies, or any other random ailment under the sun. Honestly? You could use those testimonials to wipe your backside.

Jerry Phillips2 said:The issue lies in the buildup of substances—specifically, formaldehydes from aspartame (Natreen).

One sentence, two complete nonsense claims. 😂

First off, Natreen doesn't even contain aspartame. Second, formaldehyde doesn't actually "accumulate" in your system; if anything, it's metabolized incredibly quickly. Besides, there are plenty of other sources in a typical American household that provide far more formaldehyde than any sweetener ever could.

Amy Hill92 said:this seems like the clearest explanation

Let's be real—despite everything being said here, whenever I decide to sweeten a drink, I’m sticking with artificial sweeteners. I figure a stroke brought on by obesity will probably take me out long before I ever have to worry about getting cancer from Natreen. 🤣

Despite? I read the same thing above and reached the exact same conclusion: sweeteners aren't exactly a risk worth losing sleep over.
🙂

Raymond Gray2 said:I think we’re talking past each other here. I wasn't referring to additives or anything like that—which seems to be where you went with this—but rather the fact that people simply eat the wrong things and eat far too much of them. To me, that's the real root of modern ailments... and I'm not even talking about emulsifiers, preservatives, or junk stuff.
We're overdoing it on meat and protein in general, which, let's face it, isn't great in massive quantities and often isn't even necessary. An adult really only needs a few grams a day, yet people are slamming 200 grams or more! And it's not just from meat; you've got milk, cheese, and all that too.

A few grams? Please. A person needs roughly 1g of protein per kilogram of body weight—specifically complete proteins, ideally sourced from quality stuff like meat, dairy, or eggs.

Besides, the main "cause" of modern diseases is just longevity. Back in the day, people were dropping like flies from infectious diseases at a young age, so they never even lived long enough to develop things like cancer or heart disease.

jadesailor14 said:Don't get all defensive
You mentioned having some background in chemistry? Or biology? Something along those lines?
So, I’m assuming you actually know what you're talking about here.
Nobody has definitively proven that artificial sweeteners are safe to use.
And, conversely, nobody has funded enough research to prove they're actually harmful.
I already noted that neurologists recommend avoiding them.

And what exactly counts as "clear proof" of safety to you? By that logic, half the other stuff we eat hasn't been subjected to nearly as many studies as sweeteners—so are you suggesting brown sugar or baking soda are also "unproven"?

As for the neurology bit, I assume you're referring to aspartame and aspartic acid, which can be neurotoxic in massive doses? But we're talking about concentrations that are incomparably higher than anything anyone actually consumes.

Look, I'm not claiming sweeteners are perfectly safe—I didn't say that. But given the lack of correlations found in any major human studies involving high sweetener intake, the risk for someone sticking to recommended doses is negligible. It's maybe comparable to the risk of getting cancer from walking into a smoky bar once in a while, and it's certainly lower than the risk of skin cancer from wearing a T-shirt out in the sun. Yet, the media loves to drone on about this being the greatest evil on Earth.

quietpilot87 said:Honestly, I rarely bother with Wikipedia—I’ve been burned by it more than a few times.
The internet is just a massive, chaotic mess of facts and total nonsense.

So, why are you getting so worked up about it?

Did she even ask for an opinion? Did I offer mine? You’re out here using Nature vs. Fine. Go ahead, keep at it; I don't have a problem with it. I’m really not interested in getting dragged into some ridiculous battle of Nature vs. Stevie.

Look, when you try to claim I used Wikipedia as my primary source when the actual source was the European Commission, that isn't exactly a fair way to debate. At least Wikipedia—unlike most of the garbage sites out there—actually provides citations for its claims (since it isn't meant to be an authoritative source) or uses a [citation needed] tag. If you got burned, maybe it's because you didn't use it correctly.

quietpilot87 said:Well, I guess we’re down to individual choices then. 🙂
Personally, I think Natreen is total garbage. 🙂
Wikipedia is pretty unreliable—honestly, more so than most other decent sites out there.

Don't start making things up now. Wikipedia isn't some definitive source, because all those claims about harmful effects actually include links to legitimate sources. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#_note-EC