Phaedrus

The Darkness - I Believe in a Thing Called Love High-grade silliness :)

Speed it all up! And you could dub over the top :) Bonus points for everyone who knows where I plagiarized this idea from...

Find Risky Intercourse Seriously Kinky APPLE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13362927 A new vaccine can protect macaques against the monkey equivalent of HIV and could provide a fresh approach to an HIV vaccine, a study suggests. US researchers say the vaccine offered protection to 13 of 24 rhesus macaques treated in the experiment. In 12 of the monkeys, the vaccine was still effective 12 months later. They claim the work, published in the journal Nature, could "significantly contribute" to the development of an effective HIV/Aids vaccine. The researchers gave 24 healthy rhesus macaques a vaccine containing a genetically modified form of the virus, rhesus cytomegalovirus (CMV). In 13 of the monkeys, the vaccine appeared to offer protection against simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), the monkey equivalent of HIV. Of these 13, 12 monkeys were still protected one year on. The researchers say the vaccine works by stimulating the production of a particular type of blood cell, called "effector memory T-cells", which can remain vigilant in the body long after an infection has abated. Lead author Professor Louis J Picker, of the Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute in Oregon, compares these cells to armed soldiers at the ready. "There are soldiers that are back at the base with their rifles in the shed, and then you have the guys out in the field," he told the BBC. There was also evidence, he said, that the vaccine all but eradicated traces of SIV in the monkeys, something which he said was "unprecedented" in HIV vaccine research. Safety concerns Researchers in the field welcomed the study, but said safety issues would need to be addressed before similar approaches could be tried in humans. "I'm excited by the science because it really does demonstrate that it may be possible to eradicate the HIV virus by a strong immune response," said Professor Sir Andrew McMichael of Oxford University. "But at the same time I'm scratching my head how to take this approach into humans." An artist's impression of the HIV virus, which is thought to have originated from a similar virus in chimpanzees Professor McMichael said HIV arose from a type of SIV found in chimpanzees, so the animal model used in the study was a good one. The problem, he said, was the potential safety and regulatory issues with introducing CMV into humans, even though many of us already carry the virus. "CMV is not totally benign, it does cause a number of diseases. If you're giving people something you're not going to be able to get rid of should it cause problems, then that's quite a difficult risk to manage." Professor Robin Shattock of Imperial College, London, agreed safety would be key. "The breakthrough here is in using a viral-delivered vaccine that persists - essentially using an engineered virus to thwart a pathogenic virus. The tricky part will be showing it is safe and effective in humans." Professor Picker responded by saying such issues would be addressed in forthcoming work, pointing out that early forms of the smallpox vaccine also carried health risks to humans. "On one level 99% of people in sub-Saharan Africa are CMV-positive and half the people in the developed world are, so we know at lot about it and it's mostly non-pathogenic, except in vulnerable populations like pregnant women," he said. "We're fully aware to make it available to humans, then the next step is to make a virus which retains or has an enhanced ability to make effector memory cells, but no longer has the capacity to infect vulnerable parts of the population." Vaccine failure Developing an HIV vaccine has so far proved a deeply challenging task, but there have been some promising results. In 2009, researchers in Thailand published in the Lancet the results of an experimental HIV vaccine, which they said reduced by nearly a third the risk of contracting HIV. Then last year, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested a drug used to treat HIV-positive patients may offer gay and bisexual men some protection against contracting the virus. Trials of the combination drug Truvada among nearly 2,500 men suggested it could reduce the chances of male-to-male HIV infection by 44%. But major breakthroughs remain hard to come by. Indeed, the new Nature study comes as a separate paper in The Lancet Infectious Diseases reports on the failure of an HIV vaccine trial in South Africa. The MRKAd5 HIV-1 vaccine was trialled in a study involving 801 patients, and no evidence was found that the vaccine was effective. However, the report authors concede that the study's conclusions may have been compromised by a premature end to the trial.

This is indeed unfortunate. A question/suggestion - can you put your own post at the start of the thread (as you did in the duos thread) to work around this? Or does that not work?

I'm not optimistic that they ever will. But I do like to torment them occasionally by quoting Matthew 24:36 and/or Mark 13:32 - "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." - and then let them explain how their own 'knowledge' squares with that.

I'll be going. There's one or two bands I'd really like to see, quite a few that I'd be interested to check out - and, of course, the splendid serendipity of stumbling in on some band you've never heard of who turn out to be completely awesome. Happens every year :) I honestly don't give a damn about the 'less and less blues every year' thing - I'm quite happy with variety!

Yep. And just wait until they roll out the "This bill is aimed at catching criminals. If you oppose this, it must be because you support terrorists and pedophiles" line.

"In this day and age?" says our corrupted genie. "LMFAO! Granted! You do realize that your bank has no cash reserves at all, don't you?" I wish I had an infinite supply of beer :)

You say that like it's a bad thing! The RHAG crew will be around shortly to teach you the error of your ways :)

Revolution in Saudi Arabia! Gas prices go through the roof. You can no longer afford to drive anywhere. I wish that everyone who drives very slowly in the left-hand lane suddenly realized how damn irritating it is, and stopped!

A good question. I think... on a boat (a large, comfortable boat), so I can go wherever the mood takes me.

Seriously? The Scotch-tasting chart got through... not sure what that says about the gremlins' tastes :)

I have to disagree here. Language requirements are nothing to do with Free Speech. I'm not going to talk about how much or little free speech Quebec does or doesn't allow, because I know next to nothing about it, but the fact that the government requires some things to be done in a particular language for official purposes - or chooses to only offer schooling in its chosen language - is not an infringement on Free Speech. Provided you can say what you like without fear of censorship (which, it should be noted, is not the same as freedom from consequences), your right to Free Speech has not been infringed.

A couple of thoughts on this. I should probably qualify them by saying up front that I'm in a similar position to you - MPs and indy MAs are what I do, generally (all incalls) so I know very little about outcalls. Anyways... As others have said, all this screams "incall" to me. Obviously this is no use if your heart's desire only does outcalls, but if you have an option that may be the way to go. Secondly, a backup plan might be an idea, depending on how fussy you are about who you see. If you've already booked a hotel room, it may be an idea to have an agency number or two in your back pocket in case of Real Life getting in the way - it happens, sometimes. At least you can have fun and the room isn't wasted. Finally... don't sweat the fact that you'd rather have fun than work late. Seriously. Your leisure time is by no means worth less than anyone else's, irrespective of what you do with it. The fact that you've decided to spend time with a delightful lady rather than any of the other pursuits that life offers us is in no way an inferior choice. I daresay you know this already, but just in case it needs saying - you have no reason to feel guilty about not working when you have a prior engagement! Remember, nobody has ever said on his or her deathbed, "I wish I'd spent more time at the office!" :)

Well, I'm too late for this thread, but I'm just catching it in time for the Revenge of the Sixth. Sorry. :)

Apparently, that's all fine, too. :icon_neutral: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/05/pol-layton-opp.html

I just don't get this at all! I believe most SPs have more than one client... why on earth would they be bothered by a client seeing another SP occasionally? Just out of interest, Emily - did this potential client eventually provide a reference, from the 'usual' SP or another? I wonder if he may have been trying to wiggle round the reference thing entirely, for whatever reason... I can understand not wanting to ask your SO for a reference, though... :)

Similar to the Staines Massive, I think :biggrin: I'm not helping, am I? :) If you want to know more, watch some Ali G...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/may/01/escape-brothel-china-jilin-province A naked man was spotted racing across a rooftop in Changchun, capital of north-east China's Jilin province after police raided a brothel. The man in question was seen desperately trying to climb down from the building during the raid. The photographer, a high school student visiting a friend nearby, picked up his cameraphone after hearing the chaos outside: "I worried his private parts would be burned by sliding down the rusty pipe."

I'm not going to believe it until I see the full, long-form death certificate :icon_biggrin:

Congratulations, Vanessa!

Who knows? I suspect it won't, in the short term at least - I'd be surprised if much happened while it was still going through the courts. But if the legal process ends with a ruling against the government that says SPs' rights are bring infringed while they carry out a legal activity (for now), and if there's still a Harper majority at that time, then I worry they may well be provoked into doing something about the legality of it to render such a ruling null and void. Of course, if one of our self-appointed moral guardians gets the bit between their teeth, all bets are off.

Which is more likely to get me more breadcrumbs?