SirBillybob

I think that the chance of free HPV vaccination access in UK is slim to none if you are age 46 or older. If not immunosuppressed you would receive the two-dose Gardasil-9 vaccination according to national guidelines. However, each dose costs about 182 pounds and the second dose is administered 6 to 24 months later, so after ponying up the initial charge you have ample time (up to 2 years) to save up for the second dose if money is scarce. In fact, do ensure that you don’t receive the second dose before at least 6 months has elapsed because getting the second dose too early (example 5 months later) apparently negates the legitimacy of the first dose, then relegating the second dose to prime dose status such that you could end up paying for three doses because a third dose would be considered the boost dose. Immunocompromised adults receive three doses by the 6-month point and I imagine less experienced surgeries may mess up the regimen by providing your second dose too soon compared to those that are immunosuppressed. In the UK some eligible subgroups are considered adequately vaccinated with a single dose. If this determination extends eventually, sooner than later, to immunocompetent gay/bi men age 25-45 that have sex with men, then men age 46 and older can probably extend this cost-sparing guidance to their own regimen because vaccination of older age groups is off-label and generally follows the closest logical adjacent recommendations.

Or 99% are evolved and fit the profile of a customer capable of satisfaction with the 50-Euro-a-pop brothel playbook. Sexually mature and flexible homophiles equally open to insertive and receptive pleasure, not hampered by constrictive specifications, unencumbered by puerile notions of sexual position hierarchy. Trading off choice, perhaps optimal standards and preference, for convenience and the general life benefits of adaptation. The average new parent will quickly realize that their toddler is a douche, insufficiently developed to be successfully cajoled regarding its laundry list. The best approach is to simply convey that you get what you get and you don’t get upset.

Binged Ripley on Netflix yesterday and today. 8 episodes. Couldn’t stop, but nice way to wait out a nasty Spring snowstorm in front of the fireplace. Some Fargo-like elements added for humour, one in particular very funny. If you can get past Flynn at age 41 and Scott at age 47, though. Law and Damon were late 20’s. I don’t know how much Ripley ages thru Highsmith’s sequels. I do believe the plan is further adaptation.

Just find somebody with a skilful sensitive tongue to tally an estimate of the number of rings accumulated at point of consistent nocturnal tumescence cessation and that reveals age.

It means little IMHO. If it’s going to be worthwhile in May it will already be good currently. I rarely bother to walk over even though when at home in Montreal I certainly don’t lack the time or financial resources.

Like-with-like vaccination mixing affects infection breakthrough attack rates. Obviously, if vaccinated person A has 80% reduction in infection risk then the risk to vaccinated person B similarly possessing the benefit of 80% efficacy is less than if A is unvaccinated and had had zero risk reduction at point of A-B contact. Same with HIV PrEP, etc.

It’s a loose guideline. Even if all true (not wilfully distorted) to the best of lister’s knowledge, the sole unequivocal “status” delineation is ‘positive’, unless you deem the not listed option as equivocal in terms of a binary: inquire further, or … accept a range of equivocal along with the one unequivocal and optionally inquire further. If you require absolute specificity upfront, go with the HIV poz provider. The more ambiguous the listing the greater the justification for cracking open a dyadic conversation. The alternative is to second-guess, depending on the context of activity, and be subject to overthinking and fretting about it. The drop-down menu MO is more to stimulate and encourage dialogue than to completely assuage health concerns at point of attention to ad. You may be essentially paying to undertake a complex task. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. The outcome of the exercise further separates the wheat from the chaff.

Suboptimally staffed due to wide spread anabolic steroid use.

No worries. It is urban myth and the investigators themselves state that their findings need to be substantiated. I wouldn’t run out to invest in large-size condom manufacturing just yet.😉 It is much easier and faster to dismiss these research findings as specious than to undertake the onerous task of a similar investigation.

One specific mean length difference within the data set across the dozens of studies in the analysis is 11.1 cm (4.4 inches)!! The much higher value is situated within a later decade research project. This difference is equivalent to 5.9 standard deviations from the widely accepted global mean. 98% of adult men fall within 2 standard deviations. No sexologist or researcher with basic analytical skills would accept the legitimacy of such a vast difference. It is bullshit. Moreover, that particular computed difference is over 4 times the estimated temporal increase put forward by the investigators. There is something to be said for face validity and simple logic. Anybody with critical appraisal skills can see that this one methodological measurement flaw alone would skew results. There have been other convincing criticisms of the study methods, including the effect of greater prevalence of pubic bone press penis length measurement technique in more recent times. That approach is associated with greater length values, up to almost the temporal length difference reported in this study. It was not mentioned as a relevant factor and not controlled for in multivariate analysis. The investigators did not describe testing a null hypothesis of no difference. The most interesting finding would be a change that garnered attention; that bias ran through the article. What is also unknown is the breadth of manuscript peer review submissions and rejections prior to publication of a Stanford/Emory piece of work in the more obscure Korean educational entity journal. There are many high caliber periodicals within the field.

Some of us reside in metriculated regions. Otherwise, unmitigated growth will yield a newly emerging STD, foot-in-mouth disease.

Addendum: In sum, not buying it. I’d put a sock in it. The dynamics of differential between flaccid and erect length and girth, principly smooth muscle tissue relaxation, are not even a footnote. The potential for increased qualitative [sic] efficacy of penile injections, given they were evidently employed for clinical setting measurement, is not mentioned. Artificial tumescence does not translate to real world.

Overall average flaccid length decreased proportionally considerably more than erection length increased when comparing past 3 decades. Therefore, counterintuitive large changes in the differential between flaccid and erect call into question the accuracy of measurement, notwithstanding that the cohorts for flaccid and erect measurement do not overlap entirely. Statistical measurement artefacts such as regression to the mean may explain this anomaly better than the hypotheses put forward. In the same way that flaccid length measurement may have naturalistically self-adjusting outlier values showing reduced difference between true and observed amounts over time, the more recent erect length values could similarly adjust downward going forward from current higher means, subsequently trending towards the earlier lower mean values, nullifying the observation of increase over the last decade compared to previous ones. It also appears that erection length was predominantly measured by intracavernosal injection and, if not, the variation that would be expected by spontaneously solicited erections in a clinical as opposed to naturalistic arousal context could have been a factor.