If anyone reading here has any experience on the end-of-life transition, please send me a private message if you're happy to share.

41 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I prefer actual degrees in health science to YouTube degrees. 

ABOUT REVIEW ARTICLES

Not even scientists take review articles literally. They are written by individuals who often have their own biases and perspectives (usually influenced by their backer's demands). Think Big Food and Big Pharma.  Now, let's take a look at the casually dropped links from a previous post.

 #1 https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-try-the-keto-diet 

This is a review article or summary piece about the ketogenic diet, but it proves nothing. It's based on existing bits of research and opinions, but the results are all over the place. Whenever you read a so-called scientific study like this, there are three words to look out for, linked, associated, and may. Stop reading the moment you see any of those words because it's scaremongering junk science funded by bad actors (see above). Those who unequivocally disagree are most likely from the pro-booster camp, if you know what I mean ;)

And BTW, don't let the word HARVARD suck you in. Seriously, some of the most harmful dietary guidelines ever published have come out of that dangerous institution.

#2 https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/dangers-of-keto-diet 

Oh, look, another review article. The text here is a synthesis of findings from multiple studies, clinical observations and potential associations. It does not present any new research or prove anything. The evidence it spouts comes from a mishmash of shallow clinical studies, epidemiological research, and a handful of biased reports. Thus, the review relies on secondary sources and research trends but fails to provide any substantive conclusions.

#3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7480775/

Whoops a daisy! This is yet another review study that's trying to fool the layperson. Its findings on the KD's effects are inconclusive due to limitations in study design, sample size, and duration (like most of the junk dietary science fed into the public domain). It even states that larger studies with longer follow-ups are needed to determine accurate outcomes, therefore making its conclusion opinion-based trash, not facts.

A wise man once said, believe nothing you hear, only half of what you read. He was right. Question everything folks. Empower yourself with critical thinking and a healthy does of skepticism.

I wonder what happened to the OP (roger101). Looks like the thread was totally hijacked from the second response. Eeee, it's hard to keep track sometimes . I blame ADHD and its variants!

Oh, go on then, here's a little something to chew over. The data is easy to fact check for anyone who doubts it.

 

On 4/26/2024 at 5:29 PM, Danderman123 said:

 

Look, I get it. Science was not your strongest subject in school. But just because you don't understand the science doesn't make it wrong.

1979? That's not even a nanosecond. You need to go a lot further back than that if you're compare global temperatures. How about providing some chart data from before the industrial revolution. That's when the human muck really started to hit the proverbial climate fan, right?

Most of the "WARNING! Meat May/Might/Could…."  studies with attention-grabbing headlines are funded by billionaires. They are the people heavily invested in plant-based food production, especially synthetic, heavily processed fake meat made from vegan pea protein granules.  All these so-called studies are epidemiological (observational) and do not show causation. Observational data in and of itself is junk research and has no place in the public domain. Scientists are supposed to use it to potentially generate hypothesis, not pass on weak associations as potential dangers to media outlets. But they do!
 

AVOID REAL FOOD!
 

It's ironic that—according to researchers—certain real foods have become harmful to human health, such as meats, eggs, fish, poultry, etc. Well, look what happened to the peoples of the world after the dietary guidelines suggested low-fat, low-cholesterol, as the way forward. How's that working out for your waistline?
 

WHO CONTROLS THE NARRATIVE?
 

What most people don't realize is that the the powerful plant-based lobbyist control what you see, hear, and read. Studies that disagree with their vested interests are buried so deep that they never see the light of day. For example, how many of you reading here know anything about the study below? Not many, that's for sure, but it deserves as much publicity as sensational headlines controlled by those invested in and pushing the vegan and vegetarian lifestyle.

THE HARVARD CARNIVORE DIET STUDY
 

In 2020, a team of researchers at Harvard University conducted the first mainstream study on the carnivore diet. The study surveyed over 2000 carnivore dieters. And the findings were published on 2 November 2021 in Current Developments in Nutrition.

NATIONALITY
 

64% of participants were from the United States and Canada, 11% from Europe, and 8% from Australia.
 

SEX
 

Two-thirds of the participants were male. One-third were female.
 

AGE
 

Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 85. The median age was 44.
 

WEIGHT
 

Participant body weight ranged from 38 kg to 176 kg (84 lb to 388 lb). The median weight was 76 kg (168 lb.)
 

CHANGES IN HEALTH STATUS
 

• 95% improved overall health
• 91% improved hunger/food cravings
• 89% improved energy
• 85% improved mental clarity
• 83% improved focus
• 78% improved strength
• 76% improved endurance
• 69% improved sleep
• 69% improved chronic disease
• 66% improved memory

HOW CHRONIC CONDITIONS CHANGED
 

• 98% improved or resolved diabetes and insulin resistance
• 97% improved or resolved gastrointestinal conditions
• 96% improved or resolved musculoskeletal issues
• 96% improved or resolved psychiatric symptoms
• 93% improved or resolved overweight/obesity
• 93% improved or resolved hypertension
• 92% improved or resolved urologic issues
• 92% improved or resolved dermatologic issues
• 89% improved or resolved autoimmune conditions
• 84% improved or resolved cardiovascular issues

HOW MEDICATION USE CHANGED

• 100% discontinued other diabetes injectables
• 92% discontinued insulin for type 2 diabetes altogether
• 90% discontinued or decreased insulin
• 84% discontinued oral diabetes medications.

IN CONCLUSION

Shhhhhhh! There's no big money in a proper human diet or profits for big pharama who treat your factory food-born obesity and associated illnesses.

6 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

Actually I don't think said poster is consumed by fear and panic, but rather by an evangelistic zeal to 'spread the word' and, through (in his eyes) calm reason and a bucketful of stats, show the misguided majority just how foolish they (we) are. 

Well, some might argue that it's time to change the narrative and start spreading NEW information. It's just a thought. Only this time, the information is based on a "bucketful of stats" that oppose the notion.

TAKE IT AWAY PROF….

As Professor Homburg argues in the video above (published only a few days ago), COVID-19 was not a serious public health threat. Thus, the government's response was based on fear-mongering and total misinformation. I think that applies to all governments that followed the advice of the non-elected elite organizations. I'm referring to the bodies telling world governments how best to control their populace.

YOU CAN'T ALL BE RIGHT…. RIGHT?

Professor Homburg produces his findings based on HARD EVIDENCE. He cites data showing that hospital admissions, deaths, and other metrics were not significantly higher than normal during the pandemic. I know the UK hospitals were turned into ghost towns—you know, just in case! There was no room at the inn unless your illness was C19-related. Anyway, the Professor also criticizes his government's response to the pandemic, saying it was based on fear-mongering and misinformation. Many of the AN critical thinkers suspected the same of their respective governments.

Specifically, Homburg makes the following claims:

FACT: Hospital admissions in Germany fell to a historic low in 2020.

FACT: There were no more severe respiratory illnesses in 2020 and 2021 than in previous years.

FACT: Deaths in 2020 were not higher than normal, and the increase in deaths in 2021 was due to other factors, such as an influenza pandemic.

FACT: People who died with or from COVID-19 were, on average, 83 years old, which is the same age as the average death rate in Germany.

FACT: Sweden, which did not implement strict lockdown measures, fared better than Germany during the pandemic.

Homburg goes on to say that the pandemic would not have even been noticed without the PCR tests.

In summary, these are all things the COVID Skeptics on AN have been saying for the past few years, only to be ridiculed, suspended, and laughed at. 

THE TRANSNATIONAL ELITE RULE ROCK

I wonder how many pro-everything COVID remain adamant and believe the above findings are a load of old b*llocks. And if yes, perhaps they could partake in an intelligent and good-natured debate to explain to the COVID skeptics why they think they're right. But to do that, they must also explain why they feel Professor Homburg (and others like him) are still wrong.

Duplicate post in error.

Here are a few pics for those of you who are interested.
 

Nat Motors did a fantastic job, but it cost more than I'd initially planned. That's because I kept suggesting we swap even more new parts. Anyway, the engine seems to have a bit more torque than before. The fuel economy seems better as well.
 

I reckon this ol' gal will be around long after I pop my socks.
 

First, here's how she looked at the start of the tart-up 

And here is how my revamped 17-year-old Honda Wave looks now.

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

The purpose of the vacinnes was preventing deaths and reducing hospitalisations.

They did and are doing the job.

The original message was that the vaccine would stop you contracting and spreading the virus. Some might say that was misleading information to get folks jabbed. Other might see it as fake news. 

On 10/25/2022 at 4:17 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

Had a few too many beers , didn't use a condom, got a bar girl pregnant , don't want to pay for the kid , kill the foetus and same again the next night 

It doesn't have to be like that.
 

There would be fewer unwanted pregnancies if the religious flocks followed common sense instead of the man upstairs. Yes or no? Even that bloke in Rome told the Filipinos to stop breeding like rabbits. Yet, woe betide anyone who dares to use contraception as a sensible precaution.

Scientists refer to humans as the Great Apes, though I would remove the adjective.
 

Credible source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30890989 

The question people need to ask themselves is this: Are boosters in the public interest or is the real boost here to BIG PHARMA profits? Only those who study all sides of the conversation are qualified to respond, of course. Unless I'm being naive, in which case you must correct me.

So, why is Pfizer going to QUADRUPLE the price of its COVID vaccines next year after already making insane profits?

Well, it's probably because the ethical, caring company needs more money to invest in research. After all, a slight increase of just $2.5 billion to $3 billion in annual revenue is sure to be great for shareholders those desperate to get the latest life-saving jab.
 

Thank you, BIG PHARMA, we love you, and our life depends on you and your devotion to our wellbeing, which we know you place ahead of profits. And we appreciated it. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
 

Highly credible source: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-covid-vaccine-price-hike-seen-giving-revenue-boost-years-2022-10-21/ 

Expect others to follow shortly. 

On 10/22/2022 at 3:15 PM, BritManToo said:

What if you don't want any of them to get in? For example Hillary Vs Trump, Boris Vs Teresa, Cameron Vs Corbyn, Macron Vs Le Pen .......

Simple, BM2. You Spoil your ballot. That's akin to saying, 'NONE OF THE ABOVE.' One shouldn't really complain about a government unless they participated in the election process. There are plenty of non-voters bitching about the Brexit disaster. Well, if they'd got off their big fat flabby backsides and made their mark on the day, then perhaps it would never have happened.

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Valid point. I have found most medications prescribed for me by the medical profession are unnecessary and harmful.

Ain't that the truth! 
 

The award-winning British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, is on the record for saying too much medicine is killing us. He said, and I quote... 
 

"We have an overmedicated population with a total lack of transparency in the prescription of drugs." 
 

I believe the situation is even worse in the US, where some would say the drug companies are killing for profit. Indeed, a 2018 report published in the peer-reviewed medical trade journal, The BMJ, has this to say: 
 

"Drug companies are incentivized to profit, not to improve health."

But umm... most people don't want to know the truth.
 

Credible source #1: https://doctoraseem.com/too-much-medicine/ 
Credible source #2: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4351 2 

13 hours ago, roo860 said:

This is my Z650, with ABS, bought it this year from a Canadian guy, its 2018, 14,000km on the clock,  150,000bt, if your budget can go to that maybe the way to go. Changed the tyres, this pick is with IRC rubber, went with Pirelli Diabalo Rosso, stick like s@!t to a blanket. 

That's another beauty, roo860. Looks super comfortable, too. 
 

I want to stay under 100,000 for an older model, if I can as I already have two smaller bikes to care for. I'm prepared to wait for the right one to come along. That said, it would be nice to have something beefy now that the high season has begun.
 

I agree about the Pirelli Diabalo Rossos. I even put them on my cheap Chinese bike ????

 

13 hours ago, roo860 said:

My mate from the UK who has a motorbike tour business here in Thailand for 20yrs had 6 ER6N's, he couldn't fault them, but due to COVID, no customers and financial pressure he sold them all last year. He found them an excellent all round touring bike.

Yes, this is what I've been hearing a lot, roo860.

14 hours ago, Agusts said:

I never owned this bike, but test driven a few of these, Ninja 650, Z650 and Versys 650..., the only advice I have is don't buy any of these unless you do a good test drive, take it up to 6000 or 7000rpm, and see how it feels....

 

For some reason some of them are very rough, loud and vibrate like hell, and some are okay. It maybe maintenance not done to the engine on time and ruined it, or I read some front-end panels issue etc., but when you test ride a few you instantly notice it ..., stay well away from vibey ones, hard to get rid of it...

 

Of course some people actually love the loud and vibrating engine, call it "character", but you might have different preferences like me, who knows.... ! ????

 

Thank you, Agusts ????

4 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

I'd absolutely second that.  My bike seemed to be behaving slightly badly - resisting tipping in to corners etc.  That would normally point to a front end problem but couldn't find anything wrong there.  Shortly after that I found a slit in the rear tyre which was probably half way through its life - ordered a new Pirelli, fitted it and it was like riding a different bike, totally transformed.  I still can't work out why a worn rear would cause those problems though.

 

They seem quite sensitive to tyres and settings.  My old ZX9 seemed to be fine with whatever - of course it would 'let go' when the tyres were on their way out but the ER seems sensitive to everything. Not that its a problem, just make sure that your tyres, pressures and suspension settings are good and you'll be fine. It depends on your weight but I find the suspension set on the slightly soft side works for me (75kg)

 

I'd guess a lot of riders wouldn't notice the above so much but as a fellow 'ragger' you almost certainly will.

 

Someone mentioned vibrations - its a twin. They are never going to be as smooth as a 4 but its not something I've taken much notice of.

I agree, too. Maintenance and personal care are critical. I even put Pirelli Diablo Rosso tires on my cheap Chinese bike, which made a world of difference. Never miss an oil change, either. Even my 17-year-old Honda Wave is immaculate both in appearance and running. Only a biker would understand this love for two wheels ????

If any other Kawasaki ER6N 650 owners can add to KhaoYai's observations, please let me know. For example, what should I look for—or look out for—when I go to view these bikes? Asking the seller it it's as good as it looks in the photos is a bit shallow. 
 

Thanks, in advance.