partington
-
Posts
2195 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by partington
-
-
2 hours ago, ChaiyaTH said:
There is various theories of course, but the interesting thing about the recent netflix series with pyramids is, that it reveals that the established people in these worlds (scientists), do not want to know about the undiscovered things in that direction.
This is because their entire truth and foundation goes to shambles, aside that they risk losing to be funded. Or simply won't be allowed to do such projects, Indonesia they also prevented digging until today, even they now know there is tunnels under.
It actually is very ironic, I mean you would think that someone doing this job would want nothing more but the opposite is true, obviously there are many more things to discover and study within the profession, that is where all the time and attention goes.
This while they are of equal if not more importance, and then to add they exist worldwide, there is more to it for sure. I feel sad for people being so scared to even open up to it, as if the amazing structures that exist, do not exist.
It is a bit like the emperor without clothes. Watch the netflix series, it is very cool to see, even i could not binge it as it is a lot of info, i am still only at chapter 4 with that one.
----And BTW, you see the same thing now happening with astrology, they come to conclude that many things they said was 'science' is totally untrue. Even we still keep using those old rules, as the world runs on it, they know they are wrong, they just not know enough yet.
Totally logical move, and I agree, but to keep it secret from the public so they stay ignorant is another subject. Or worse, to lie and control them using religion.
How they get ill-informed people to believe rubbish - like the recent Netflix series on the pyramids:
1. Find a plausible looking, but nutty, pseudo-academic who makes incorrect or simply made-up claims for which there is no factual evidence.
2. Show the majority of experts and researchers in the field explaining his claims are nonsense and unsupported by evidence.
3. To close the circle, claim triumphantly that experts in the field saying the claims are nonsense PROVES the claims are correct (because the experts are trying to cover them up).
This will get large numbers of foolish people to follow this circular loop round and around forever, accepting more and more ludicrous nonsense.
P.S. Here's the UK Guardian's much much more convincing theory about how such nonsense gets on Netflix in the first place (the program is "hosted" by a Graham Hancock):
" how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son. Honestly, what are the chances?"
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, jak2002003 said:
Says you, the expert right? Got a link for that statement that is not from a baby milk formula company?
My understand is based on my knowledge from studying nutrition and food science for 4 years to PhD level at a good university in the UK....and a career in biological sciences and nutrition spanning many years.
If you truly belive that any man made, artificial and processed food is healthier for a baby (or you) than natural, fresh foods, then I have no further comments to make to you.
I should have truncated the quote from you to make it clearer so I apologise for that. I agree of course that human milk is better for early infants than cow's milk or formulas, until weaning.
My objection was to this assertion, not the rest:
18 hours ago, jak2002003 said:In fact it's better that children and adults have no dairy products at all.
which is not supported by nutritionists. For example, see below from McGill University. No suggestion here at all that adults or children shouldn't be drinking cows' milk, in fact it is recommended as a valuable nutrient resource.
Consumption of Milk and Alternatives and Their Contribution to Nutrient Intakes among Canadian Adults: Evidence from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition. Auclair et al Nutrients (2019) Aug 19;11(8):1948.
Abstract
As a staple food and dense source of nutrients, milk and alternatives play an important role in nutrient adequacy. The aims of this study were to quantify the consumption of milk and alternatives within Canadian self-selected diets and determine their contribution to intakes of nutrients and energy. [...] Milk and alternatives contributed >20% to total intakes of calcium (52.62 ± 0.46%), vitamin D (38.53 ± 0.78%), saturated fat (28.84 ± 0.51%), vitamin B12 (27.73 ± 0.57%), vitamin A (26.16 ± 0.58%), phosphorus (24.76 ± 0.35%), and riboflavin (24.43 ± 0.37%), of which milk was the top source. Milk and alternatives contribute substantially to nutrient intakes and thus warrant further attention in terms of mitigating nutrient inadequacy among the Canadian population.
-
12 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:
At over one year old the child does not need milk. As for the younger one, the mothers milk is best.
I would not feed any dried bovine milk with added chemicals to my kids, unless it was unavoidable. In fact it's better that children and adults have no dairy products at all.
This is based on rubbish internet misinformation and has no scientific basis.
Of course if you have an actual lactose allergy or intolerance you should not consume lactose, just as if you have a peanut allergy you should not eat peanuts.
This does not mean all adults and children should avoid eating peanuts.
-
1
-
-
The statement about no CGT being due for share disposals for non-UK residents is correct.
No report is necessary to HMRC if you fulfil the residency definitions linked above and do not return to the UK within the time specified. I have disposed of EFTs in this way myself.
Note this 5 year absence and non-return period only applies to considerations of CGT. The general definition of a non-resident for tax purposes does not incorporate this 5 year period and is worked out using the UK gov guidelines e.g.
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/guidance/check-your-UK-residence-status/choose-tax-year
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, KhunLA said:
"At least 262,908,216 people or 79% of the population have received at least one dose.
Overall, 224,113,439 people or 68% of the population are considered fully vaccinated.
Additionally, 108,806,974 people or 33% of the population have received a booster dose."
https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states
IMHO, wouldn't exactly call that effective. 2/3 fully vax'd
but vax'd still account for more than 1/2 the deaths
Ineffective is in the eye of the beholder I suppose:
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
5 hours ago, KhunLA said:"pandemic of the vaccinated"
Now being reported the vaccinated people are making up the majority of covid deaths in some places.
Of course they are. Currently about 97% of the US population over 16 has received at least one dose. [https://dig.abclocal.go.com/ccg/interactives/us-vaccine-tracker/vax_us_cdc.html ] If most people are vaccinated and the vaccine has 70% efficacy then 30% of vaccinated people will get the disease and some will die.
If 100% of the population have been vaccinated then 100% of people who die of Covid will have been vaccinated. So what. This is self evident.
-
2
-
1
-
4 hours ago, Bert got kinky said:
Daily News reported on a TikTok post
apart from a TikTok post, what evidence is there that this was caused through the vaccine?
Are there any other reports of this case in which an actual doctor or expert in the field have confirmed the cause?
The reason why I asking?
People read something on the interweb and just presume that it must be true.
On BBC news website this morning.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-63719246
Exactly this was my thought also.
A report on TikTok is not a scientifically credible source. It could be completely fictional.
If true the condition could be unrelated to the vaccine but assumed by the untrained or predjudiced to be due to the vaccine.
There is little to support the truth or accuracy of this account.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, garrya said:
Good infos above.
When I was young, I was given antibiotics by my GP all the time and I had developed resistance to most.
At some point only the antibiotics jabs worked. Scary indeed.
Since that time I have not taken much of it but I seemed to have lost the antibiotic resistance.
You'd better figure out what causes your persistent cough.
Unfortunately you have completely misunderstood what "antibiotic resistance" means.
People do not become resistant to antibiotics - you can neither gain or lose antibiotic resistance as an individual- and this did not happen to you.
When physicians and scientists talk about "antibiotic resistance" they mean that the disease causing pathogens -the bacteria- become antibiotic resistant through mutants that survive an antibiotic course. It is the disease pathogen you get infected by that is resistant, not you!
Explained simply here:
https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/antibiotic-resistance.html
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, garrya said:
How did they do that if still there isn't an available sample in any labs?
????
Why do you keep saying this nonsense, when I have literally posted a catalog page showing you can buy a tube of Omicron variant isolated Sars-Cov-2 virus from the European Virus archive, for 2500 euros?
Following that link will show you that many other samples of the Covid virus are readily available for purchase too, from the same source.
I can only imagine the psychological contortions you will go through trying to deny this definite proof that your claim- that no-one has isolated the Covid virus- is completely absurd.
However while you are trying to deny that, here is a completely separate source for the virus. It is the ATCC [American Tissue Type Collection] a US not-for-profit source for cells, viruses, bacteria and other types of biological samples for academic research labs. You will either have to claim this 100 year old world famous reputable bioresearch source[ see second picture below] doesn't exist, or doesn't really have SARS-Cov-2 available for $1,248 a vial!
https://www.atcc.org/products/vr-1986hk
-
19 minutes ago, kevinbraysford said:
you can only pay back last 6 years.if you missed say 2010 to 2015 you cannot pay for them years.
Definitely not true.
If you are a man younger than 71 or a woman younger than 69 you can pay for years from 2006 to 2016, but you only have a few months left to do it- until April 2023.
Clearly stated here https://www.gov.uk/voluntary-national-insurance-contributions/deadlines
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, garrya said:
The trouble is the COVID remains the only pathogen that has never been isolated. No governments have a copy in any labs.
All the variations come from PCR tests which arent designed to find a pathogen.
This is complete nonsense. I can't believe how any rational person could accept this fictional narrative.
The Chinese Sinovac vaccine is made entirely of isolated Sars-CoV-2 virions.
Research labs world wide are able to order Sars-CoV-2 isolates from the same viral isolate banks that store other disease pathogens for research purposes.
Here is the catalog page from the European Viral Archive where you could buy a tube of the Omicron variant. Many other isolates are available from the same source, and there are similar banks in the US.
Nothing "mainstream" about this.
https://www.european-virus-archive.com/virus/sars-cov-2-omicron-ba1-2022
-
On 11/7/2022 at 8:59 AM, xylophone said:
Well you have dug a hole for yourself with your arrogance and misinformation, and with regards to your posts which advocate "wine fraud".......stated as:- "misrepresentation of the wine (such as variety, blend, origin, or vintage)", so let me add a few more snippets of information for you so that you can dig the hole even deeper: –
1). From the previous wine thread on ThaiVisa.com:- "we do know that Montclair red wine does contain Roselle (as it is stated on the box) but no one knows quite how the final product is achieved".
2). This from an Australian wine buyer on a previous thread: – "Sorry for the lateish reply, have been down visiting some wineries in South Australia where I brought up this very topic with a number of wine makers.
The polite answer to this stuff that Montclair et al are producing: It is not wine.
The longer slightly more complex answer involves a lot of expletives".
3). From another contributor in Thailand: "Now here is something which I do applaud because it states on the box, "Made with Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot grapes and fruit juice...............".
4). An article in a Thai newspaper regarding cask wine, "The best-selling box wine in Thailand is Mont Clair red or white from Siam Winery. Packaged in a 5 liter box and sold at about Bt1000 it's a clever blend of South African wines (grape juice?) with an addition of fruit juice, other than grape, which permits substantially lower excise tax rates".
So your assertion that "wine drinkers in Thailand can rest assured that the cheaper fruit wines here do not contain anything other than the fruit known as grape", is plain nonsense, especially as even Siam winery has previously quoted that their wine is a mixture of grape juice and fruit juice (Roselle) – – is that good enough for you?PS. It would restore my faith in human nature to see some sort of an "apology" for your incorrect and unsubstantiated slights on my character and credentials, but arrogance such as yours is usually the hallmark of an altogether unsavoury type of character, so I expect none.
Obviously you are correct and LatPhrao is not, but as a minor cavil, it adds to confusion if you refer to the pre-fermented grape juice as "wine" and then talk about fruit juice being added to "wine"!
As I am sure you know, the term for the grape juice (and grape skins for red wine) mix which goes on to be fermented is "must" . I can see why you may be avoiding this usage to avoid puzzling readers, but you could say " pre-fermented grape juice" instead, which takes no longer with cut and paste than typing "wine" which is definitely incorrect. Grape juice isn't wine!
I may seem obsessive, but claims that wine is sold as finished wine that then has raw fruit juice added to it have come up again and again in many previous posts.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
46 minutes ago, xylophone said:I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with some aspects of your post, because the aspect of "fruit wine" is more tightly controlled than you suggest.
If any fruit juice is added, and I did post something here a few years ago with regards to the amounts of fruit juice/wine which can be added, to the wine so it falls into the "fruit wine" category.
Not only that, on the label it has to state, "fruit wine" somewhere (although I will admit it's never prominent) so imagine that an exporter of wine wanted to send his product to Thailand and produced a label which falsely stated that it was "fruit wine". Should he be found out for this ruse, then he would be subject to huge fines and reputational damage, not to mention probably having the stock destroyed.
I've heard this on several occasions and there is nothing to suggest that the Thai authorities will have any bearing on what is on the label, because it will already be stated on the label from the producing country, what it is, so the producer/the producing country would be fraudulently exporting a product.
You may also wish to peruse the information on this link......
https://www.the-londoner.com/blog/ordering-and-buying-wine-in-thailand/
I also remember speaking to one of the hierarchy of the Wine Connection chain in Thailand when they were selling wine which was fruit wine, although not that you could see it on the label, but it was inexpensive, hence the reason it was done, to get through Thai excise duty. This wine was produced in Vietnam and the white wine had juice from passionfruit and pineapple (I think it was) whereas the red wine was mixed with juice from "black fruits" as the person said (blueberry, blackberry, plum et cetera).So fruit wine is a reality.
A perennial debate, but one which I still am sceptical about.
In my view "fruit wine" is wine fermented from a mixture of grape juice and the juice of other fruits, which are mixed before fermentation starts, and not finished wine made from grapes, to which raw fruit juice is then added before bottling.
I think anyone with even moderately functional taste buds could tell if what they are drinking is finished grape wine that has subsequently had raw fruit juice added to it.
I could be wrong, of course, but have never seen definitive evidence that convinces me that the raw fruit juice interpretation is true.
-
5
-
15 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:
No, MP's are elected to serve the people and those M.P's who refused to listen to their constituents were voted out of office .
They are elected to follow the will of the people , not the other way around .
No they aren't. The UK is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. This means that people vote for MPs who then take independent decisions in government.
This is a structure that has evolved to deal with the inescapable truth that most people are ill-informed, prone to short term actions which directly benefit them and not the country as a whole, and lack essential economic, scientific or ethical understanding to adequately determine the best course of action for a country's long term benefit.
"At its most basic level, direct democracy means involving the public directly in making decisions. By contrast, representative democracy involves the public choosing representatives, who take these decisions on their behalf. [..]
The political thinker Edmund Burke (1729-1797) is one of the most well-known defenders of representative democracy. His view, that elected representatives should not be bound to obey the particular wishes of their electors but should form their own judgements (though be open to hearing and taking into account the views of those on whose behalf they govern), remains influential to this day."
https://consoc.org.uk/the-constitution-explained/direct-democracy/
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 10/31/2022 at 11:50 PM, Mike Teavee said:Also worth noting that if you're not UK Resident for tax you might be able to pay National Insurance contributions at Class 2 rates (I was when I was working in Singapore & have continued to do so now I'm retired in Thailand) which would make the £800 quoted more like £155 & "Payback" would be approx. 7.5 months
Just to make it clear: you are not eligible to pay Class 2 AVCs unless you are living AND working abroad.
Because you are retired and presumably neither working or self-employed, you are no longer eligible to continue to pay class 2 contributions, so beware (although the chances of anyone finding out are very low!)
Clearly stated here, https://www.gov.uk/voluntary-national-insurance-contributions/who-can-pay-voluntary-contributions
and relevant excerpt:
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:Sunak is the new PM.
Fantastic!
Ushers in a welcome era where people who have to choose between heating their home or eating enough will again be told we all have to tighten our belts, but this time by a billionaire.
The Tory way. Gotta love 'em!
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:
The leader of the Labour party should change the name of the party.
On LBC today KS he confirmed to a caller talking to him that the Labour party fully supports brexit and will never ask to rejoin.
Why would you want to have France telling you what to do, who the USA has confirmed is an alie of the USA.
Why do you think the UK being in the EU means "France telling you what to do" but wouldn't involve the UK telling France what to do. Surely both are equally applicable?
Why did Belgium, say, or Portugal never complain about the UK "telling them what to do?"
-
3 hours ago, BritManToo said:
ALL the Tory leaders were remainers (including Cameron, Boris and Teresa)!
In fact the only MP I know for sure who wanted to leave the EU was the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Er... never mind the facts, eh?
Corbyn's Twitter in 2016 at the referendum:
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:If that makes me "barely sentient" no problem for me.
That's the diagnostic feature of the barely sentient: they don't realise it's a problem.
Why?
Because they're barely sentient...
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:I hope he does. That'll shut up the stirrers.
If he does, hopefully he won't make the same mistakes.
A "mistake" is knocking over someone's wineglass while reaching for the salt.
A series of deliberate lies, deceits and cover ups involving sycophantic cronies reliant on you for a job is intentional wrongdoing, and reveals a personality with no moral anchor or principles.
People who want Johnson back, after he was removed because his own party's MPs declared him unfit for office and forced him to leave are, in my opinion, barely sentient.
-
5
-
1
-
4
-
The Moderna vaccine (only) has been shown to be effective as a half dose when given as a booster, so this is often the procedure.
For example see https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/covid-booster-vaccine#halfdose
"Is the booster a single dose of the vaccine, or a half dose?
The booster is one single injection.
If you have Pfizer or Novavax as your booster, you will receive one full dose of the original vaccine.
If you receive Moderna as a booster, you may receive a half dose, as this has been shown to be very effective."
-
23 minutes ago, ohpont said:
Don't panic too much about bread, they are so many other food, next is just one example.
All types of alcohol, including such as wine, beer, whiskey, gin, vodka, contain high levels of yeast. The foods that are used to create these alcoholic drinks--potatoes, molasses, beets and grape skins--contain yeast. Yeast is absorbed into the bloodstream when a person drinks excessive amounts of alcohol. This can cause or aggravate a yeast infection. The high amounts of sugar in some forms of alcohol can also cause yeast infections.Yeast,leaven sourdough, poolish, many ways to raise bread.
https://www.livestrong.com/article/198027-what-foods-can-cause-a-yeast-infection/
I don't think this is a scientifically very reliable source, and the article linked appears to be written by an unqualified journalist, not a scientist or doctor.
I'd question whether distilled spirits like vodka or whisky could contain measurable quantities of yeast. The statement that "all forms of alcohol....contain high levels of yeast" is simply wrong.
This article, reviewed at least (but not written by) a clinician gives a more accurate assessment :https://www.verywellhealth.com/alcohol-allergies-and-intolerances-1324211
"Yeast Allergies
The type of yeast used to ferment many alcoholic beverages is known as brewer's yeast. It is the same yeast that is used to make bread rise.12
Allergies to brewer's yeast have been well-documented in the medical literature. They are most likely to occur in people who have mold allergies.13 Brewer's yeast is used in all fermented alcoholic beverages. This includes beer, wine, hard cider, and sake. People with yeast allergies should avoid these.
Distilled liquor is not made with brewer's yeast. Distilling a drink usually removes any naturally occurring yeast or yeast by-products from the liquid. Because of this, distilled spirits are generally safe for people with yeast allergies."
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, hotandsticky said:I doubt that the bank staff would know the difference between residency, domicile and certainly not tax status. Remember, you receive any income in the UK it is taxable - therefore you always likely to be "tax resident".
This isn't quite right in terminology.
You are not "tax resident" in the UK just because you have income arising in the UK that is taxable. All income arising in the UK, even for people of other citizenships who have never set foot in the UK is taxable.
This doesn't mean they are "tax resident", which has quite a specific meaning and set of tax obligations.
-
2
-
1
-
4 hours ago, LoeiI said:
Sorry if i'm being a bit thick but how would the UK authorities know where you reside ?
Because when you leave you have a legal obligation to tell them:
https://www.gov.uk/moving-or-retiring-abroad
"You need to tell the relevant government offices that deal with your benefits, pension and tax that you’re moving or retiring abroad.
Tell your council
You need to contact your local council if you move or retire abroad, and give them a forwarding address.
Benefits
You need to tell the relevant benefits offices that deal with your benefits that you’re moving abroad.
They will tell you if you can continue to get your benefits while you’re abroad.
Pensions
You need to contact the International Pension Centre.
Find out how moving or retiring abroad affects your pension - and how to claim it.
Student loans
You need to tell the Student Loans Company if you’re moving abroad to make sure you pay the right amount.
Tax
You need to tell HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) that you’re moving or retiring abroad to make sure you pay the right amount of tax."
-
1
-
This is REALLY happening in Oxfordshire ?? Where next ?
in UK & Europe Topics and Events
Posted
Resorting to false clickbait stories looks like desperation.