ChezGiven

Wireless taser nets are the future. Some 19 yr old was sitting in the bar a bit later, proper drenched and shaking. It fucking hurts that jet. Really didn't see the need to water cannon a whole road for the sake of 30 or so nutters. Fire water at a high enough pressure and it'll cut through steel. But some of the things they are looking at for "crowd control" are disturbing. The sound thing and the microwave thing? Force you to listen to Cliff Richard's greatest hits and serve up ready meals. It works best on pensioners apparently.

4am. Remove this if its too dodgy Tom.

I dont know how you dare call that journalist gormless, then post that heap of incoherent nonsense.

The experts can't agree. So it will work? Don't play with my emotions. I've got a runny nose. They only work on certain strains and are only useful if you take it early enough, as Rents said. The article above is fair to an extent as the old adage is true, there aint no cure for the common cold. Or piglet sneezes.

Shame it wasnt Polmont Wigan Newcastle Edinburgh Darlington.

Iced coffee with vanilla ice float cream ftw. Iced coffee's canny nice actually. First tried it in Greece. Same here, used to have it every morning when i lived there (Crete 96).

Were you out on Monday night btw? Been in London over the weekend, travelled back to Paris on sunday night. Stayed in on monday night, then got up really early on tueday for an 8am meeting start. Did fuck loads of ching on the friday and saturday which may mor may not be relevant

Read "Almost like a Whale'.

Last tuesday i fell ill for 2/3 days. My symptoms were bizarre. I had serious chills for about 4 hours then started to burn up, my temperature soared during the night, couldnt sleep and was sweating like a rapist under the duvet, freezing if i kicked it off. At the same time i had weird body aches, in my hips and knees particularly. My throat was a little sore the next day but no 'cold-like' symptoms really. Felt knackered until friday. Basically i reckon i've already had it.

That's the one I'm using. Blatantly ran out of milk and was searching the cupboard...

Mongtician? Magician more like, he just disappeared into thin air.

Does the coconut cream you use for Thai curries etc work?

Not sure what you do for a living Danny but am guessing its not an optician.

clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back So if the world economy is shrinking by 1.3% and the world's population is growing, how do you feed everyone? What has the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands got to say on the matter? We aren't feeding everyone now and we wont do until restrictions on GM crops are raised. How much faster is the economy going to shrink if a pandemic does hit? Or is it only going to target those who aren't contributing to economic growth? Pathetic argument TBH What is pathetic? The supposition that the world is over-populated or that a pandemic wont affect long-run economic performance. Those were the premises of the statement, so please explain how either of those general views is wrong. I tell you what is pathetic, using statements like 'clueless' when discussing economics with an economist. If i interpret your contrary position correctly, i presume you think increased population growth would be beneficial for the world as that is the antithesis to my statement above? For the record, any loss of human life is a bad thing and from a moral point of view we should trade-off longer term implications for the short-term priority of saving lives. I was just introducing another point of view into the thread. Surely a more productive way would be to slow population growth through less blunt methods than a pandemic. Surely long term education, and a movement towards sustainable energy and GM crops would be more beneficial to the world as a whole? Economist I didnt say it was the most productive way, i just said that it might be beneficial in the long-run to have less population, a position you have just agreed with. Yes, well done there are other development policies too. I wasnt arguing that it was the best way forward. Failed to set the straw-man up, failed to argue a contrary position and failed to shift the debate to controversial topics like GM crops.

clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back So if the world economy is shrinking by 1.3% and the world's population is growing, how do you feed everyone? What has the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands got to say on the matter? We aren't feeding everyone now and we wont do until restrictions on GM crops are raised. How much faster is the economy going to shrink if a pandemic does hit? Or is it only going to target those who aren't contributing to economic growth? Pathetic argument TBH What is pathetic? The supposition that the world is over-populated or that a pandemic wont affect long-run economic performance. Those were the premises of the statement, so please explain how either of those general views is wrong. I tell you what is pathetic, using statements like 'clueless' when discussing economics with an economist. If i interpret your contrary position correctly, i presume you think increased population growth would be beneficial for the world as that is the antithesis to my statement above? For the record, any loss of human life is a bad thing and from a moral point of view we should trade-off longer term implications for the short-term priority of saving lives. I was just introducing another point of view into the thread.

clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend. Yeah very highbrow. Give the RIFR a read mate, a little more detailed and a little less sensationalist. Wasn't it the economist that advocated legalising all narcotics a couple of months back So if the world economy is shrinking by 1.3% and the world's population is growing, how do you feed everyone? What has the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands got to say on the matter?

clueless, just about every expert I have heard has said this pandemic could have even worse effects on the world economy. clueless, in the short-run of course it does, restricted movement of resources across international boundaries will exacerbate short-term economic issues. I was thinking bigger picture than that having just read the Leader for this weeks Economist, a publication i doubt you are able to comprehend.

As i said, its cellular, not receptor site targets. Pfizer and GSK have just announced (2 weeks ago) that they are joining their HIV divisions to form an independent new company. Anyway, back to flu. The global recession requires a population cull, can only be a good thing in the long-run.

Canny tits tbf.

Gemmill.

A double bluff, no one would suspect it. Actually, maybe they didnt want to divert promotional headcount so cooked up the H1N1 soup to stave off the lawsuit. Its an angle. Plans within plans within plans.... Certainly benefitted from the 'fear' of the pandemic, as they have already made their sales. The UK, France etc have already stockpiled (and therefore paid) for the inventories. Hilariously, neither tamiflu or relenza actually work. Just ask Rents. As it happens and by complete coincidence I'm updating some guidelines on seasonal influenza right now. Depends on what you mean by 'works' I suppose, but their benefit is certainly quite limited in healthy people, and you have to take them early on (within 48 hours) to have any useful effect. Mind, NICE seem to think they're cost effective when used appropriately (which in reality is not often). I've no idea how efficacious these drugs are for pandemics as that's beyond my scope. I doubt there is any trial evidence actually for obvious reasons. The HPA seem confident in their efficacy though, is this not true? Have you got an evil pile of unpublished Glaxo-sponsored studies hiding the truth? I was more referring to the fact that they only work on certain strains of the virus. Dont think there are hidden studies, the ones i've seen say what you have summarised.

It gets inside the DNA, there isnt really a receptor 'site'. You block the HIV virus by inhibiting 'reverse transcriptase' or 'nucleii integration'. The HIV virus, hits the blood cell, integrates through the RNA and pops out the other side with a new blood cell which is HIV infected. Or something like that. The cellular biology of HIV vaccines is a bit beyond me today, had a few too many wee drams last night.

A double bluff, no one would suspect it. Actually, maybe they didnt want to divert promotional headcount so cooked up the H1N1 soup to stave off the lawsuit. Its an angle. Plans within plans within plans.... Certainly benefitted from the 'fear' of the pandemic, as they have already made their sales. The UK, France etc have already stockpiled (and therefore paid) for the inventories. Hilariously, neither tamiflu or relenza actually work. Just ask Rents.

They developed eye-drops too iirc, made you look hard.