The author is listed as "anonymous," and the two "editors" are vehement anti-vaxers spreading the usual misinformation all over social media, including that covid shots cause cancer. They claim vaccines had nothing to do with eradication of childhood diseases, and instead blame pretty much all modern illnesses, including SIDS, autism, and the high rates of maternal and infant mortality in the US, on childhood vaccines. If you look at the reviews that the publisher includes, they are all by other antivaxers and authors of books like Outsmarting Autism, A Compromised Generation, and Brain Under Attack. The fact that this was recommended to you by someone who is "generally sane" shows just how insidious the spread of antivax propaganda has become.

I hope the meds work really well in every positive way that they're supposed to, with minimal side effects, and you get through the next two weeks as easily and comfortably as possible. Sending lots of (((hugs))) and good juju!

The word "rights" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. "It protects every one of us to avoid taking rights away from people" is predicated on the assumption that the people getting screwed in this scenario have no rights to begin with, so the only "right" we need to be concerned about is the right of some people to hoard scarce resources in order to increase personal profit. Why should we prioritize the "right" of a small minority of people to own as many houses as they can snap up, and rent them for as much as they can get, while other people have zero "right" to even the most basic level of housing security, let alone the right to ever own a modest home of their own? Why should we prioritize the "right" of temporary tourists to stay in a single family home instead of a hotel, over the right of local workers to have an affordable place to live and raise their families? This is not a system that "protects us all," this is a system that protects the "rights" of the Haves to continually profit from the poverty of the Have Nots — while blaming the Have Nots for not pulling their bootstraps hard enough.

Replacing 6 small starter homes with 3 large luxury homes is even worse than buying two modest 1500 sq' homes and using one for STR, because at least the home being used for STR could eventually be returned to the market as a home for a small family.

This argument basically boils down to "the rights of the wealthy to hoard desperately needed resources should not be infringed upon." I think everyone agrees that hoarding toilet paper during the pandemic was morally wrong. But how is that any different from hoarding housing, to the point that people cannot afford to have a roof over their heads without spending an untenable percentage of their income and/or living so far from their jobs that they have long commutes (and therefore spend another significant % of their income on gas and car maintenance, because the US also totally sucks at public transport)? "Just build more affordable housing." Except that the same people who already own property — especially multiple properties — don't want their taxes increased to pay for that, and often object to having "the poor" in their area, so it's really just lip service. One way some cities are dealing with the housing crisis is relaxing density regulations and allowing people to add an ADU on their property that they can rent out. That allows people to "make money off their property" without taking affordable housing options away from other people. And if they do long term rentals, then it increases affordable options as well.

"This thing that is happening all over the country and contributing to a severe shortage of affordable housing is no worse than this theoretical thing that doesn't actually happen" is not a strong argument. Who is buying two homes, building a very large new home across two lots, and then "renting out a spare room" to make money? No one. But people buying up affordable starter homes and converting them to STRs is a serious problem all over the country. I watch a lot of remodeling and house flipping shows, and one YT channel I've followed for a long time is Austin Flipsters. When I first started watching them, they were buying wrecked houses, fixing them up and selling them. Now they are buying houses in good condition and redoing them specifically as STRs, plus they have set up a second business helping other people buy and convert homes to STRs. So most of the houses they are doing now involve taking good basic starter homes and converting to VRBO and AirBNB properties, exacerbating what is already a severe shortage of affordable housing. I think that sucks, and I wish that STRs would be subject to enough taxes and regulation that it would be a much less appealing and less profitable way for people who are well off and are already on the property ladder to increase their own wealth by screwing young people and lower-paid workers out of affordable housing options. Young people who are stuck paying 50% of their income on rent and having long commutes are not going to be able to afford to have children, or save for retirement, or even have decent emergency funds, and the long term effects of that are being ignored while the wealthy are increasingly allowed to screw everyone else for short term gain.

Yes, it's very different, because buying the second 1500 sq' house to use as a STR removes a relatively affordable starter home from the market and contributes to the current housing shortage.

Bob's Red Mill is 100% employee owned. The founder, Bob Moore (who recently passed away at 94), turned down multiple very lucrative offers to buy the company and instead transferred ownership to the workers. They sell lots of different varieties of oatmeal, muesli, granola, and multigrain hot cereal mixes — and it's so much healthier than Kelloggs junk.

I'm mostly shopping and cooking for myself, and I average ~$100/week for food (which also includes a few things for DD, either to eat when she's here or take back to her boyfriend's house). The biggest expense is just lots of organic produce, but it also includes a pretty wide variety of spices, sauces/specialty ingredients, fresh herbs, olive and avocado oils, good balsamic vinegar, nuts, seeds (pumpkin, chia, flax, hemp), "heirloom" beans, different types of rice (red, black, wild, brown), organic sprouted tofu, various chai teas, soy and oat milks, etc. I'm sure I could get it down to ~$50/wk or less, if I had to, but I also think that when you're eating a fairly simple WFPB diet, having high quality ingredients makes a much bigger impact than it would in a diet with a lot of hyper-palatable sugary/salty/fatty foods. Breakfast is usually overnight oats with hemp and chia seeds, cinnamon, vanilla soy milk, fresh or frozen berries, and pecans. Sometimes I'll do a tofu scramble with nutritional yeast and lots of veg. Lunch is usually a big salad with lots of different vegetables and some kind of beans or lentils. Or if I just made a loaf of bread and DD hasn't walked off with it, it might be hummus, avocado, tomato, and micro greens on grilled whole grain sourdough. Dinner is always some combination of veggies with a whole grain and a legume. So it could be stir-fried tofu and veggies with buckwheat soba noodles; Buddha bowl of roasted veg, spiced chickpeas, and garlicky greens, over quinoa with lemon-tahini dressing; black bean chili with corn bread or tortilla chips; red lentil and vegetable curry with brown basmati; minestrone with 2-3 types of beans and garlic-rosemary focaccia, etc. (I cook the same things for dinner when one or both kids are here; they can eat it or make themselves something else.) Snacks = fresh fruit, nuts, dates, popcorn with nutritional yeast, dark chocolate, frozen cherries, and an occasional nondairy ice cream treat (like TJ's Calamansi & Mango Sorbet or Yuzu Ripple).

I wouldn't pay $9 for bread, but I get your point about different people prioritizing different things within their budget. Even if the person who made that comment doesn't spend money on movies and Starbucks, they may be buying lots of packaged snacks and sodas, processed foods and ready-meals that could be made much cheaper from scratch, etc., but they think of those things as "normal" rather than "splurges." I spend way more on organic fresh fruit and veg than most people, but I make my own bread (costs me ~$4 for a huge loaf of homemade organic sourdough), I don't buy processed foods, I don't buy meat or dairy, etc. I'm sure there are people who think spending $15/lb for roast beef from the deli is normal, but paying $14/lb for wild mushrooms is totally nuts. Or they'll pay $6 for a 12 oz bag of potato chips, but think $8 for a 2 lb bag of organic grapes is crazy. (Side note: I can't stand Bobby Parrish and it blows my mind that millions of people take nutrition advice from a stockbroker with a degree in Finance and Investment Banking and zero background in health or nutrition. Some of his advice is really bad and not evidence based.)

I already don't do or have a lot of the things that people typically cut out to save money — I never eat out, I go to the movies maybe once a year, I don't drink alcohol or get Starbucks, I cook from scratch, I don't have cable, and I always combine errands and drive less than 1K miles/year (and I drive a Subaru so insurance is cheap and I only spend ~$130/yr on gas). I have a cheap prepaid cell service and only one streaming service. My Costco membership more than pays for itself, and Amazon Prime probably pays for itself, too, because the Prime Visa gives 5% back on all Amazon and Whole Foods, plus additional discounts at Whole Foods, plus saves gas since I need to run fewer errands. If I really had to cut back on expenses temporarily, I could stop buying lots of fresh organic fruit every week and just get cheap bananas and frozen fruit, and I could buy generic dried beans instead of the nice dried beans from Rancho Gorda. I don't eat meat or dairy, but I could probably make my own oat milk instead of buying Oatly Barista. I could plant more veggies in the summer, in addition to the tomatoes, cucumbers, and zucchini I usually grow. But I don't know how much of a dent those would really make — if I really needed to save a lot of money, or for a long period of time, I would just sell my house and downsize to a much smaller one. My biggest expenses involve having two kids in college, but they should both be finishing this summer and should be (mostly) self-supporting after that.

I moved to another state when my kids were 12 and 16. The move was 100% positive (life changing really) for one kid, and mixed for the other. But we moved in the middle of a really difficult divorce, so it's hard to separate out the effects of one from the other. I agree with @mmasc that the key to making it work is to thoroughly research the homeschool groups/coops and availability of extracurriculars, especially sports. We visited the area a few times before moving, so my kids already had some connections with kids in their extracurricular activities as well as at the homeschool coop, and I purposely chose a house within 10 minutes of all of those to ensure that the kids could easily get together with new friends.

Awww, what a sweet story, thanks for linking it!

Best update ever!!! So happy for you and DH ❤️

Thinking of you (((hugs)))

There's decent, but not extensive, research in favor of both, and they are very well tolerated with few side effects at the doses normally taken, so IMO they won't hurt and may very well help. Personally, I take both. (If you take berberine, the dihydroberberine form is 5x more bioavailable, although it is also more expensive.) Unfortunately, most of the RTCs on NAC have been done on hospitalized patients, and results were mixed, with some studies showing improvement and others finding no significant difference in mortality, ICU stay, and intubation rates. But I'm not sure how relevant studies on severely ill ICU patients are in assessing the effect of NAC in mild to moderate cases, especially as there is good data on it's effect on mild to moderate cases of flu, for example. Some of the studies on NAC: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10390689/ "Recent clinical studies suggest that oxidative stress is one of the key players in the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a potent antioxidant, has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. ... Pooled analysis showed that NAC was associated with lower mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared with the placebo group [RR, 0.65; (95% CI: 0.56 to 0.75); p < 0.0001]. Similarly, C-reactive protein (CRP) [SMD, −0.32; (95% CI: −56 to −0.09); p = 0.0070] and D-dimer [SMD, −0.35, (95% CI: −0.59 to −0.10; p = 0.0062] levels were significantly decreased, and the oxygenation marker, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, was increased in the NAC-treated group compared with the placebo group [SMD, 0.76; (95% CI: 0.48 to 1.03); p < 0.0001]. .... NAC has been widely available, inexpensive, safe, and routinely used in clinical practice for many years. NAC administered orally or intravenously can suppress SARS-CoV-2 replication and improve outcomes when used immediately after the onset of signs and symptoms of COVID-19 [35,61]. Recommendations are that oral administration of NAC, as a prophylactic measure, can prevent a mild form of COVID-19 and that IV administration in the hospital can prevent severe morbidity, ICU admission, and mortality." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9651994/ "The potential mechanisms of NAC's beneficial actions have been investigated in several in vitro and in vivo studies. Treatment with this drug has shown a positive impact on health outcomes in patients with respiratory conditions such as community-acquired pneumonia, COPD, ARDS and, more recently, its potential suppressive action on the progression of COVID-19 makes it a very promising therapy against COVID-19. It is hypothesized that the mechanism of action of NAC may consisted of blocking the viral infection and the consequent cytokine storm. Although the level of evidence is limited and data from controlled clinical trials is needed, the information currently available supports the use of NAC in symptomatic patients with COVID-19 at a minimum dose of 1200 mg per day. In patients with severe disease and respiratory compromise, the use of intravenous NAC at a dose of 100 mg/kg for a minimum of three days may be indicated." The lack of RCTs on the effect of NAC in non-hospitalized patients is really unfortunate, but there is research on its efficacy against other respiratory illness. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9230243/ "NAC treatment was well tolerated and resulted in a significant decrease in the frequency of influenza-like episodes, severity, and length of time confined to bed. Both local and systemic symptoms were sharply and significantly reduced in the NAC group. Frequency of seroconversion towards A/H1N1 Singapore 6/86 influenza virus was similar in the two groups, but only 25% of virus-infected subjects under NAC treatment developed a symptomatic form, versus 79% in the placebo group. ... N-acetylcysteine did not prevent A/H1N1 virus influenza infection but significantly reduced the incidence of clinically apparent disease." There is even less data on berberine and covid, but this article explains in detail the mechanisms and pathways by which it may be effective: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9526677/ "BBR has potent anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antiviral effects. Therefore, it can be used as a possible anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent. BBR inhibits the proliferation of SARS-CoV-2 and attenuates the associated inflammatory disorders linked by the activation of inflammatory signaling pathways. BBR has the ability to inhibit the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines through the inhibition of NF-κB and p38MAPK signaling pathways, which are highly activated during SARS-CoV-2 infection." This paper summarizes a bunch of mostly in vitro and in vivo (rodent) studies: https://www.imrpress.com/journal/FBL/27/5/10.31083/j.fbl2705166/htm "[T]reating SARS-CoV-2-infected Calu-3 cells with an immunotherapeutic berberine nanomedicine molecule named NIT-X (20 and 40 μg/mL) successfully inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication and suppressed ACE2 and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPSS2) gene expression, the latter of which promotes SARS-CoV-2 infection and spread throughout the host via facilitating spike protein fusion with the host cellular-membrane. Further analysis from another in vitro investigation found that berberine (4.7–150 μM) suppressed SARS-CoV-2 viral replication process in African green monkey Vero E6 kidney cells via reducing infectious viral titer, indicating reduced production of infectious viral particles [79]. ... The same study also reported promising antiviral effects for berberine against SARS-CoV-2 in human nasal epithelial cells, which are believed to be more representative of the natural target cells (i.e., host cells). In particular, berberine was found to be effective at inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels in the supernatant of the human nasal epithelial cell line with an EC50 value of 10.7 μM, suggesting its potency at low concentrations. .... [B]erberine may help dampen cytokine storm, restore Th1/Th2 balance, and enhance cell-mediated immunity, [as well as] modulating the levels of various other inflammatory mediators implicated in respiratory infections. Moreover, evidence from in silico and in vitro studies suggests berberine as a promising candidate for exerting inhibitory effects on three main SARS-CoV-2 targets, namely Mpro, ACE2 receptor, and S protein. As it stands, there is ample evidence supporting the role berberine may play in alleviating immune dysregulations and excessive inflammation in COVID-19."

Interesting podcast, thanks for linking it! For those who don't have time to listen, most of it is about a specific type of brain cancer that this Stanford neurologist, Michelle Monje, works on, but she also researches covid's effect on the brain because there is some overlap in the mechanisms. This is a short summary of what she has to say about covid, which I cleaned up from the transcript (eliminated lots of "you know," ummm," repetition, etc.) "Microglial reactivity triggered by even relatively mild Covid occurring in the respiratory system, not directly infecting the brain or other kinds of immune challenges, can trigger this reactivity of microglia and consequently dysregulate the normal interactions between cells in the brain that are so important for optimal nervous system function. And the end product of that is dysfunction in cognition, brain fog, impairment in attention, memory, ability to multitask, impaired speed of information processing. But there are other ways that COVID can influence the nervous system. Of course, there can be direct infection; it may not happen commonly, but it certainly can happen. There is [also] clear dysregulation of the neurovasculature. The immune response and the reaction to the spike protein of Covid in particular can have very important effects on the vessels in the nervous system and that can trigger a cascade of effects that can cause nervous system dysregulation and may feed directly into that reactivity of the microglia. There also can be reactivation of previous infections, for example herpes virus infections or EBV can be reactivated and trigger a new immune challenge in the context of the immune dysregulation that Covid can induce. And then there's autoimmunity. We're learning all the different ways Covid can affect the nervous system, but with autoimmunity there can be mimicry of some of the antigens that Covid presents and unfortunate autoimmunity against nervous system targets. And then finally, in severe Covid, where there is cardiopulmonary compromise, there is hypoxia and multi-organ failure. It is certainly not a mutually excusive list. Many of these interactions can happen at the same time in the same individual and in different combinations."

Sending you lots of love and hugs, Panda

I have 5 wood cutting boards in various shapes and sizes: a tiny one I use if I just need to slice a tomato or apple or something, a large rectangular one I use if I'm cutting up a watermelon or chopping lots of veg, two others I mostly use for homemade bread (long skinny one for long loaves and a round one for round loaves), and the 5th is an oddly shaped one that was cut from a solid slab of beautiful olive wood that I use more as a serving board. The other four are acacia and also have really nice wood grain, and they all live on the counter leaning against the wall so they're also decorative. I just wash and dry the cutting surface after use and lean them back against the wall, and once in a while I oil them. (I don't eat meat, so I don't keep separate boards for different foods.)

DS (grad student) has lived in Columbus without a car for several years. He can easily walk to 90% of the places he needs to go, and for the remaining 10% he either uses Uber/Lyft, rides with a friend, or takes the bus. If the weather is crummy and he doesn't feel like walking, he can order most things (including groceries) from Amazon Prime with next-day delivery. That's pretty common among his friends, because when you add up the cost of registration, insurance, maintenance, gas, and the (very expensive!) parking permits (not to mention the cost of a car payment), it's generally more convenient and cost effective for young people to just use Uber a few times a month if they need to go somewhere beyond walking distance. I lived without a car for several years as a grad student in Los Angeles; I just walked or took the bus or occasionally caught a ride with a friend. In theory I could get by without a car where I live now, as I live within a mile of a grocery store, pharmacy, doctor's office (including urgent care), and a little further from the dentist and a few other stores, and there is a decent bus system here. I don't even drive that much (my 2019 Subaru only has about 3000 miles on it), but I like the convenience of being able to do a big shop at Costco or fill the car with plants from the nursery, or whatever, without having to bum a ride from someone or get an Uber (with a driver who doesn't mind getting dirt in his car, lol). One thing I really miss about Europe is how easy it is to get around by train and tram.

I really wish the FDA would require manufacturers to actually do these studies, or at least require them to update expiration dates when such data exists. That study showed both of those drugs retain full potency for more than 15 years!

As that chart shows, there was a huge difference between Norway and Sweden in excess deaths in 2020 and early 2021, when Norway took a much stricter approach to covid. And then that big spike in Norway's excess deaths in late 2021/early 2022 occurs after Norway dropped all covid restrictions. They had a higher death rate from Omicron than Sweden did, but at that point neither had any mitigation measures in place. Norway had a large drop in deaths from non-covid respiratory infections in 2020 and 2021, and then an increase in deaths from the usual illnesses that old people die of, like heart disease and cancer (e.g. 22% higher than normal deaths from cardio-vascular disease in 2022). One of the articles that was pushing the Sweden-was-right narrative said that since excess deaths worked out about the same in the long run, Norway just "postponed deaths" rather than preventing them. But isn't that entirely the point of medical care for the elderly??? Do doctors tell anyone over 65 "There's a treatment available that can likely extend your life by 2-3 years, but you're old and you're going to die anyway, so you might as well die now"? My stepmother had cancer treatment in her 80s and enjoyed another four years of life, during which she got to meet two more great-grandchildren. Those years were most definitely worth it to her. One article stated that Norway spent more money on the pandemic than Sweden did, so were those extra years of life really worth the extra millions that Norway spent? That gets closer to what the real issue is, but it's also a bit deceptive, because Norway and Sweden also took very different economic approaches, with Norway opting for upfront payments to businesses and workers, while Sweden's approach involved more things like deferring taxes. And in the end, "GDP dropped by approximately the same amount in 2020 in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, and had recovered to pre-pandemic levels by the second quarter of 2021." (source) So what it basically comes down to is: "Is it worth letting a bunch of mostly old people die a few years early so that others are not inconvenienced by the measures taken to protect them?" Of course, the people who happily answer yes to that question generally assume they are not part of the group that gets sacrificed. And Americans who point to what they see as the "success" of the Swedish approach ignore the fact that a much higher percentage of the US population is at risk through obesity, diabetes, CVD, etc., and are far less willing than Swedes to take voluntary measures. Sweden and other Nordic countries were also in a far better position to move work and education online with existing systems, while the US scrambled to throw things together and ended up with a huge dysfunctional mess. And Sweden has a very different healthcare system — they never had totally overwhelmed hospitals and refrigerated trucks full of dead bodies, which the US had even with restrictions. Sweden and the US are just not remotely comparable, and anyone who thinks that telling Americans to just "do the right thing" voluntarily would have worked as well here as in Sweden is just delusional. The valuable lessons we can learn from Sweden and apply to future pandemics aren't about "letting it rip," they're about universal healthcare, universal access to high speed internet, an education system that can easily transition to online as needed, job flexibility to work from home, and a population that actually cares about the common good instead of only caring about themselves. Without those things, letting it rip in the US would have left us looking more like Peru than Sweden.

That's a really frustrating article, because so many critical details have been left out. He admits that Sweden's covid death rate was higher than Norway's, without mentioning that it was actually more than double Norway's (and nearly double Denmark's), and then says that the total excess death rates were the same for both countries, as if that proves Sweden's so-called "no lockdown" policy (which in itself is kind of deceptive) was the superior approach. But he doesn't provide any information at all about the causes of non-covid excess deaths in either country — what caused the "excess deaths" among Norwegians who didn't die of covid? What were their ages and what year did they die? What other causes of death went down as well as up, and how did those parameters change over the course of the last 4 years? If Sweden killed off a higher percentage of their elderly in 2020, then you'd expect that deaths from illnesses that normally kill old people would go down in subsequent years, because there were fewer people left to die of those. Protecting the elderly from covid also tends to protect them from flu, RSV, and other contagious diseases — did rates of those also go down in Norway in 2020, which would be expected to lead to an increase in elderly deaths in 2021-2023? There's no question that Sweden's approach led to higher covid death rates compared to other Scandinavian countries, and trying to disguise that by averaging together four years of total deaths from all causes, in a way that implies they all "even out" in the end — while failing to disclose who was dying, when, and of what — seems purposely deceptive. I suspect that if you drill down into details here, it would become apparent that the conclusion is less "lockdowns don't work" and more "you can avoid lockdowns if you're willing to shorten the lives of a lot of old people by 2-3 years." I wonder if the families of all the people who died in Swedish nursing homes in 2020, who might otherwise have lived for a few more years, think that was a worthwhile trade-off? Especially since it turned out that this sacrifice had no real economic benefit — in the end, Sweden was no better off economically than Norway. Also, as KSera mentioned, portraying the Swedish response as if it was a no lockdown, no holds barred free-for-all really distorts the situation there. For example, although they kept elementary schools open, they did close secondary schools and colleges, and many people voluntarily stayed home, masked, distanced, etc. But I have no doubt that articles like this will end up all over social media as proof that the Great Barrington supporters were right all along and this would have worked just as well in the US, without any acknowledgment of the VAST differences in culture, demographics, overall population health, rates of masking and vaccination, etc.