This really intrigues me because it never struck me that this could be a mechanism for antibiotic resistance. It is even more interesting to me knowing the first CRE (Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae)
clearly arose in India [source]
but the reasons weren't clear to me and I just naively assumed it was a random mutation. India, also according to to that same paper has quite a problem with antibiotic resistance which one wouldn't expect as there isn't so much of a problem with antibiotic overuse as there seems to be in the West. So, maybe not so random and maybe we have honed in on a legit reason for growing resistance.
This is the same excuse many people use about eating out in a restaurant or having a drink in a pub. Yes, at home it will be cheaper, but this is often not about just the money. It should be about social contact.
I like the sentiment of OP's post, and for sure bars, restaurants there is a social element. But for movies? The most social they get is a glance to your buddy/SO in a "did you just see that" kind of way.
Clearly they have upset the G.O.P.
We've got ourselves a thinker.....
That was my angle when I first read this piece. They know it is going to take buckets of time and more importantly, just a sick amount of money.
Like mentioned before "driving under the influence" and "driving while intoxicated" are two separate issues. If you want to have a hard limit for driving under the influence, which doesn't represent your physical ability to drive well or not, that is fine and it is an arbitrary number. It should be a fine, and it should trigger road-side testing. If you are "impaired" through a series of road-side test you are driving while intoxicated. Conversely, if you are under the limit, but seem intoxicated, it doesn't matter what your BAC is, the same road-side tests should be involved.
I work in the ER, I have seen people with surprisingly high BAC who are quite functional. Those people are chronically intoxicated, and have adjusted appropriately. Same goes true with the current narcotic epidemic. I have seen people on chronic narcotics who are quite functional and seem surprised when I tell them they shouldn't be driving on their 80 mg twice daily of long acting narcotic and 15 mg every 4 hours of a short acting narcotic.
Decision-making skills play a significant role, but there are plenty of other factors that help to reduce recidivism rates, such as anti-social belief systems, mental health, criminal companions, etc
which according to the article were controlled for.......Doesn't mean it is perfect, but it is less of a confounding variable then you may think.
Saying that Safari on MacOS "was not hacked" is slightly misleading. Nobody attempted to hack it, so contrary to some reports (and posts) it didn't survive anything.
As it was slightly misleading in the previous few years when it was "the first browser" hacked (or some variation thereof). Someone found an exploit and they were first up.
5 minutes on google will tell me that.....
Will tell you what? Not as much as you think, apparently.Thank you for illustrating this. ~2 grams/day (some say more, but 2 is solid) of acetaminophen/paracetamol/tylenol/etc have been studied and accepted as safe in chronic liver disease. 500 mg PO QID if you are so inclined.
The Doctors have been colluding with government to fuck over patients well and good for a long time. There'd be some justice in seeing them take the shaft in their turn, but I'd rather just end the power of their guild to control may access to health care services and treatments.
How are "we" (yes I am a doctor" colluding with the government? The government programs - medicare/medicaid pay pennies on the dollar.