So I went to my OB/GYN today for a yearly fibroid recheck and good news all around.
Not only have 2 of the fibroids disappeared, but the last remaining one had shrunk.
Also, last October, though thin all my life, I went up to 144 lbs. (October 2020) during COVID (plus hormonal imbalance with fibroids/menopause) and become prediabetic.
Checking my weight today, I was back down to 121 lbs! (This is a home scale pic).
I'm still not off the hook for prediabetes, though, because at last check 3 months ago, I was still right on the line for regular diabetes PLUS for the first time, my lipids were elevated.
However - I've lost 15 more pounds since then, and am counting carbs and saturated fat, so we shall see.
How did I do it?
Well, I wasn't a big sweets eater anyway, too sweet for me, always has been - my problem was regular pop, all day every day, for the caffeine.
I still had some pop in the mornings until July, when I stopped all pop completely (except diet, but only in the morning) and started a low-carb and saturated fat diet (getting counting help from MyFitnessPal.com ) - meaning since I already don't do sweets, less bread (no buns, tortilla, refined-flour pasta, or potatoes), increased veggies, only grilled or baked meat, and increased my water intake x4 - and I cycle or walk at least three days a week.
(Yes, I did have cheat days - we call them "Fat-Food Fridays," upon which we still eat healthy all day until dinner and relax the rules - which I look forward to all week, mind you - but allow bread, potatoes, or pasta, just limiting the type or amount ;)
Mostly, however, it was the pop - after I stopped all regular soda in July, that's when most of the weight just dropped off within three months - can you believe it?
23 COVID pounds gain, lost - mostly after stopping pop completely in July.
More reasons to move to Western North Carolina/the greater Asheville area? ;)
A mama bear goes down the slide, then waits for her cub to slide down the other slide, on a school playground, while a group of teachers keep the kids inside, but look on in squealing amusement lol.
In May 2019, I wrote the below post, which I parked in draft along with many others, because at the time, I was concerned about the security of my account after a security breach, The breach turned out to be random rather than my prior issue, and thus I began blogging again.
Regardless, it's about Britany Spears (and Mary Todd Lincoln) and how though we don't lock women away into institutions anymore to control them, there is still the propensity in our society to control women with psychiatric care.
Now look - I understand that bipolars can overspend when in mania - IF she's even bipolar - but a conservator is supposed to safeguard the money only - not control every aspect of their life, every life decision they make about relationships, etc., and monitor every little thing that they say and do.
I know this because my mother is bipolar (along with a cluster-B-mix personality disorder, for extra fun).
FYI, I am not - and I've been quadruple-checked to be sure.
I do have PTSD, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety and social anxiety as a result, though, so I didn't escape unscathed - so I guess the only 2 blessings that came from that early "psychiatric control/gaslighting/abuse" by my mother, in my teenage years were:
1) I refused the heavy psychiatric medication prescribed as a teenager "for depression," terrified of drugs in general, and noting that my mother had previously taken certain pills that zoned her out/made her sleep too much, and generally seemed to make her worse - so I refused all medications until age 20, when Prozac came out in 1988, as I researched its safety and side effects first, as a novel type of antidepressant.
I consider this a blessing and myself lucky, on this point - because I could've developed a dependency, like my little sister did for a time.
2) I also learned through that early therapy, while my brain was still developing - as a part of my mother's control/gaslighting abuse or not - more of what the range of "normal" actual was, as opposed to continuing to model what I saw in my family.
(I don't think they realized how sick my mother herself was, yet, at that point, they thought she was traumatized by my father - but I'm pretty sure they know, now, that she is, in fact, mentally ill in her own right - and that my father just made it worse with abuse :/)
As mentioned, my little sister was not as lucky.
When she began to "act out" against my charismatic-evangelical religiously-addicted (and earlier pill-addicted) mother and her control at age 12, she was dragged off to the same places - only unlike me, she took all the meds they prescribed - which included her being prescribed Xanax at age 12 - and of course developed an addiction to pills - Xanax and Klonopin, which she ultimately got off the street - an addiction she kicked herself at age 22.
Ironically, of course, my mother tried to blame me for her drug usage, ain't that a kick?
Despite the fact that I've had a lifelong fear of drugs, refused them as a teenager myself, and it was she, herself, who got her own daughter hooked on prescription drugs.
However, I'm the family scapegoat, remember - someone's on drugs, the crops fail, the microwave doesn't work - it's always my fault - even if I never touched these things.
Back to my mother, though my mother was mentally ill, my abusive father had done the same with her, to control her - that's why she had pill problems earlier - "just keep her zoned out on pills and no one will believe the stories she has to tell about me and the abuse."
Now, she was using the exact same gaslighting tactic that dad used on her - with her own children, to control them :/
Gaslighting - not just a male method of power abuse anymore.
Anyway, when my grandmother discovered she was terminally ill, she wanted to update her will - and because she was an only child, my grandmother's estate would go to her (which wasn't much but the land).
She asked about what to do and whether or not to have a conservator for her because when she went off meds and became manic, she'd shop and not even remember it.
Instead, I said perhaps to have an executor of the will - most likely my older sister, because I didn't want the job, plus she has a phobia of hospitals and healthcare, and we originally came up with the plan that she would handle the paperwork and legalities and I would handle the actual care at the time - but no single conservator.
However, my grandmother still asked me for input about her actual will, because she didn't want anyone to know that she feared what my mom would do with the estate.
I suggested to spread the estate over 5 family members to cast a vote, like a "conservator committee," as opposed to just one person - which included my mother herself, my 2 sisters, my sister's husband, and me.
That way, no single one of us could ever use or borrow against the estate without the democratic-vote consent of the others - and not just my mother - any one of us would need to be subject to this 5-member family-committee approval.
(And if anyone possibly reading should ever doubt that, then ask for Granny's first will - written right after she developed terminal cancer - and you'll see that's the way it was initially written).
Unfortunately later, my older sister as executor, terrorized my grandmother and my mother into Granny changing the will.
First, she told my grandmother that if I was in the will, my husband could get the estate during our divorce.
Of course, this was a lie - just a ruse to get me out of the will, which is what she openly told me, as opposed to what she told everyone else.
So instead, I signed off on the will willingly myself, to prove I wasn't after a thing - I just wanted to be the one to give her care.
Then, she told my mother that with the original will, I wanted to "have her committed."
This is not only a lie, but not even legally possible - you can't legally "commit" someone since 1988 (and as a former social work student at UK, I of all people knew that).
PLUS despite my mother's issues, I didn't think she needed to be "committed" or institutionalized - only short-term if she went off her meds and refused to eat, etc., and was a true danger to herself or others.
Besides it now being illegal, I think it's pretty clear that I'm strongly against institutionalizing women long term anyway, even if it wasn't, because it's been a form of subjugating and abusing especially women for centuries, and I've believed that since I was a child.
I just think if there's money involved a conservator might be in order, but there should be limits to that and never one person - just as I thought there needed to be a "family committee" of five people to safeguard my grandmother's estate because of my mother's bipolar-binge spending habits - period.
My sister ultimately decided to borrow against the estate and set up an annuity for her, which was fine.
However, though I don't communicate with them anymore, I have received tidbits from others (without asking for them) that this same sister has actually controlled way too much of her life and bullied her into certain things (as I suspected she might).
Apparently, she also told my little sister she didn't want to care for my mother now that she's in her 70s and that she needed to do it instead, as Mom's favorite (erm - too bad, she signed up for this?).
Lastly, after she learned through the social security office that my father died, she wanted my mother to apply to get his social security - even though he was remarried to my stepmom until his death, who is still alive.
(I loved my stepmother dearly, and she was just as much of a victim of my dad as anyone else, but IMO, she deserves that SSI from my dad's death because my mom actually divorced him and thereby signed off on any rights to his financial assets, and at least my mom has my grandmother's estate - albeit through my sister.)
Yeah, my older sister is a a peach, as I've mentioned - and yet still, the rest of the family has never figured out who the class A, selfish, greedy manipulator of the family (and thief) really is, and that sometimes the smeller is the feller (projecting onto others their own motivations;).
Ta-da - that's an extremely dysfunctional family for ya! lol
Now - if you're also lucky enough to be the family scapegoat in an extremely dysfunctional family - and I'm speaking to other dysfunctional family scapegoats only - my advice to you is - just get out.
Everything is going to get blamed on you anyway, and you'll never have any self-esteem until you do - and if anybody is going to be threatened with being carted off to mental institutions or drugs, it will most likely be you, as long as you're a part of that family - because you can see how crazy they really are, while the rest will keep pretending.
Not that I'm knocking therapy - but do it on your own - go to your own doctors and clinics - you don't need their "help" (cough, cough, control).
You have the right to choose your own healthcare and treatment plan.
Because it wasn't until I got away from my family, and the clinics and clinicians that my mother hand chose and dragged me too that I was able to actually heal and get better :).
Never a Britney fan, but I've always felt sorry for her. "Free Britney" is OTT, but they may have a point. Because I love Alec Baldwin, but he's been arrested several times for actually punching paparazzi, and we all heard his verbally abusive voicemail left to his daughter, calling her a "little pig." Michael Jackson, another former child pop star, showed up to court in pajamas, distorted his face, and at the very least, has poor judgment and made questionable decisions regarding children.
Were they Baker-Acted repeatedly to mental institutions, lost custody of their children to their ex (to whom she pays child support AND alimony), invited to award shows while recovering as jokes, and their fathers became conservator over their multi-million dollar estates?
No, they were not.
In fact, they became bigger stars.
Britney became a "circus freak" public joke whose "conservator" father vacillates between publicly displaying her right back into the entertainment world that broke her, then inexplicably locks her away from society.
A joke that both liberals and conservatives alike are still merciless with - because of one public display of mental illness 11 years ago.
Do you have an explanation of society's treatment of her versus them - other than gender?
Because I can't think of one.
An adult man displays erratic, even abusive behavior, arrested several times - he's just "eccentric" or "has a bad temper."
An adult woman display erratic, nonviolent behavior - she's "bat-sh*t crazy" and "mentally ill."
FYI, in the United States, since 1988, it is illegal to detain or force anyone - male or female - into psychiatric hospitals or to take medication *UNLESS* they are a deemed by the courts and a professional psychiatric team to be suicidal or homicidal - a danger to themselves or others.
Is she really suicidal/homicidal and a danger to herself and others?
Is she really more dangerous to others and her own children paparazzi-punching, verbally-child-abusing Alec Baldwin?
(Again, I love Alec, but let's not pretend he's not BSC, too - and unlike Britney, don't ever piss Alec Baldwin off - because he truly IS dangerous when he gets mad.)
Once upon a time, after witnessing the traumatic deaths of her husband and two sons, first lady, Mary Todd Lincoln became obsessed with spiritualism (contacting the dead) and with the fear of losing her remaining son, Robert, to death. Robert, in turn, had her committed to a mental asylum.
Later, her attorney argued Robert (and others) actually did so to gain control of Lincoln's estate and money, and she was freed and regained control of Lincoln's estate.
Today, it might be argued that Mary Todd Lincoln had PTSD; however, at the time, we had no idea what that was - and men could pay asylum staff to commit sane, wealthy women to mental asylums.
(Also, for a small fee, men could pay to sexually assault asylum women - because who would believe them? When these women ended up pregnant, gosh, what a mystery.)
Now, it's 2019.
Britney Spears is 37 years old and made $47 million dollars herself.
We don't throw women into mental asylums anymore over estates or to keep silent secrets - or do we?
This all began in 2008.
People of both political sides were absolutely merciless to her very public mental breakdown, in which she called the paparazzi herself to meet her at a salon, had them shave her head, and then knocked out a car window with an umbrella.
She was hospitalized and it was revealed she suffered from bipolar disorder.
Yes, it was cuckoo - but there was a method to her madness, too - I actually understood the point she was trying to make.
She was essentially saying, "You want something to talk about? Obsessed with my appearance? How you like me now, paparazzi, with a shaved head?"
Constant hounding and rumors, American societal obsession with perfect appearance, fake people who lie with a smile on your face all day and you don't know who to trust, people treat you like a product.
If you have any chinks in your chain, fame will find those weaknesses, press on them, and break them - and Britney, due to her personality forming under this pressure as a child, and bipolar disorder, broke especially hard.
Then, just a couple of weeks later, the same MTV that built her and made her a star, invited her to their VMA awards, just to display her weight gain and erratic behavior like she's a circus act - solely to watch her act crazy and make fun of her :(
I turned it off, finding their doing so just as sick, if not sicker, than anything she was doing.
Because though I have a very healthy sense of humor, I also have a heart - and I have never found cruelty funny - it was the furthest thing from funny I could think of - and no, she did not deserve it, just because she put herself in the limelight (with the help of her family).
In fact, even if true she's crazy, promiscuous, previously attention-seeking, dumb as a rock - she still doesn't deserve being treated cruelly and like a circus freak.
At the time, though never a fan, I was one of a small handful of people who publicly expressed feeling sorry for her because people were truly merciless towards her.
Okay, we get it, she's a child star gone crazy - so are a lot of people in the entertainment industry - why don't we treat child boy stars gone crazy the same as Britney?
What she needed was help - but all anyone could do - including my supposed fellow "feminist" and "be kind to others" liberals - were throwing shit at her and laughing just as much as deplorables, saying she "deserved" it.
No - nobody deserves being treated cruelly and like a circus freak.
But then, this was a time where Reality TV shows glorifying meanness was cool, as was budding social media - and my fellow liberals were right there, cheering characterless Reality TV along, right alongside with Deplorables.
At the time, I wrote several posts predicting that the glorifcation the characterless and cruelty displayed on Reality TV (as well as on social media) was helping to devolve the ethos of this country irrevocably.
Now, we have a mean, Reality-TV show president.
And you, my fellow liberals can't understand why - and want to point fingers only at Trump Deplorables for their meanness?
Really?
I don't think so.
And I see that most of you, my fellow liberals, are STILL being mean to her/have no empathy for her - why?
Regardless, she supposedly doesn't have enough judgment and insight to make her own decisions, but those who do have that legal right allow and encourage her right back in the same fame world that broke her - and that doesn't strike you as odd?
No - my fellow supposed "anti-exploitation" and "feminist" liberals are still getting more popcorn and throwing it at her, right along with Deplorables :(
At least Deplorables admit to being Deplorables, having little to no empathy for women.
So what are we?
Big Fat Hypocrites.
If she eventually suicides - which she likely will, at this rate - will the mess that was her life be as funny?
As I said, the people who have been legally given control over her estate are supposed to have better judgment and make better decisions than she did - but they aren't.
It seems to me the entire family may be dysfunctional - the inmates may be running that asylum.
Because if truly cared for her, they'd be encouraging a quiet life away from the stressors that broke her - but they didn't.
Something is wrong with the people put in charge of her care - whether she can admit that about her own family or not.
Some motherly advice for Britney ...
If the people around you aren't at least 50% more sane than you - and they aren't 100% behind what's in your best interest - get out and find people who are :)
And here's a hint: Note that historically, those people were not found neither in the entertainment business OR your dysfunctional family ;)
As stated below, this was not the best choice, but likely the wisest choice.
I say the wisest choice because it avoids even more provider and payer confusion than there already is, because otherwise they'd be risking administering the vaccine potentially "off label" - not to mention avoiding a constitutional legal war with the FDA over who truly has authority over the new products.
That is a war which the FDA constitutionally should win, being executive branch, and the CDC knows it, even if they disagree.
The FDA has the authority to actually approve drugs and creates the authorized-usage label.
The CDC comes into play afterwards, creating usage guidelines for providers, as well as create public-health protective-precaution guidelines - especially for public-health inoculation.
However, this was not the wisest choice for public health overall, it's too confusing - but this time, that's the FDA's fault, not the CDC's.
Because what the CDC's advisory panel was trying to do was fill in the gaps left by the FDA in their authorization label - because they left off the specifics of certain at-risk subpopulations (certain immunosuppressed groups or other health conditions), whether employed or not - so I do understand what the panel was trying to do, too.
The CDC was in an awkward position to create guidelines for use and public health, after they inherited what most feel like is an incomplete authorization for "on-label" use by the FDA.
The best authorization by the FDA would've been those 50 and older and others at greater risk due to health conditions, are immunocompromised, or are on immunosuppressive agents - regardless of employment status (but perhaps including front-line healthcare workers) - but the FDA didn't specify only healthcare workers :/
The "over 18 by employment risk" thing is just weird and vague and will also cause a lot of authorized use questions and confusion for providers and payers over what constitutes being an "at-risk" job, but that's what the FDA said.
I mean, what does that mean, and how can you prove it?
(In fact, it sounds very Republican to me, only focused on making sure the laborers are protected - at least until they fall down dead and can be replaced, but eff the weakest members, the elderly and the infirm - and the FDA is already suspected to be Republican-legacy-led after the whole Aduhelm thing, breaking its own rules and appearing to collaborate with a Big Pharma company rather than objectively rule on it.)
In my opinion, food authorization and drug authorization should be two separate agencies anyway, unless a pharmaceutical is found within food, and then perhaps a product would need authorization by both.
I could be wrong, but I think we're the only Western country that puts our food and pharmaceuticals together in one agency. Most European countries, for example, have separate agencies or ministries for food and pharmaceuticals.
But then we're America and have to be different - sometimes this has been a good thing, and other times, not so much.
Because though we have some of the best education and training in the world for healthcare, we often over-streamline and overly trim our government, cutting off our noses to spite our faces, because people here fear the government control too much (when in actuality, our government is one of the most lenient in the Western world).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for trimming the fat from government and getting rid of government waste - but combining food and drug authorizations into one agency is not the way to do this, IMO.
Though the CDC has a choice to publish different guidelines, it has rarely, if ever, done so - that would be unprecedented, at least with such a high-profile treatment and life-threatening illness.
However, also unprecedented would be for the CDC to break with its advisory panel - which it actually did, this go round.
I get it, though - the CDC was between a rock and a hard place - because as I said, it was the wisest choice to avoid provider and payer confusion on authorized "on-label" use, as well as avoid a internal/constitutional war with the FDA.
Keep in mind, however, that this was a difficult decision for all, because Pfizer's study was small, only done in Israel, and did not show meaningful clinically statistical significance for a third shot of the same formulation.
In other words, the FDA's authorization is mostly speculative anyway, rather than based on hard evidence, only because we have nothing else.
Which of course sets Moderna in a good position to be next authorized for a third shot with the FDA - HOWEVER - what is also does, by default, is also help Pfizer, in a way - by proving the efficacy of vaccines does wane over time - something that Pfizer was unable to prove definitively in their small study.
Well, that's awesome for Moderna, but being a small company, they had supply issues.
In fact, I wanted Moderna's vaccine from the start, because of the extra subgroup study, but by the time my subgroup was authorized, here in Kentucky, they ran out and all that was left was Pfizer's.
Don't get me wrong, both Pfizer and Moderna kick butt with protection nearly equally - but these studies apparently show Moderna's effectiveness lasts longer.
So ...then my next question would be, if Moderna gets FDA approval for a third shot, too, in a few months, their studies having proven longer efficacy - what happens if your first two shots were Pfizer, but you want your third shot to be Moderna?
Or vice versa - in fact, that question comes into play now for some - because what if you had Moderna the first go round, and you want, and are authorized as eligible population for, the Pfizer booster - what happens and can they do that?
Now, the official answer should be "NO" - because crossing Pfizer with Moderna shots hasn't been authorized because it hasn't been studied.
HOWEVER - are all booster givers going to check your card, which vaccine version you got, before they administer it?
For example, we know already that some people were given third shots of Pfizer before it was authorized.
Also, I know that some people who lost their cards, went to a different company to get their second shot, and were given the second shot anyway.
That is because unlike in most European countries, in America, there's no national or federal government registry database with your actual identifying information on it, that can be checked, before you're given a shot.
In America, though the shots were paid for by the federal government, the federal government did not administer the shots (until it was formally authorized by the FDA for general use, as opposed to emergency use, just over a month ago).
Thus, the shots administered were through private companies (and a few state governments) - which means, of course, you're essentially only registered with the private company registry (or state registry, in some cases, and your private insurance company merely received notification) that you used to get the shots, i.e. CVS, Walgreens, Kroger, etc.
Regardless, they better study crossing vaccines and make a decision on that quickly, because it's going to happen, authorized or not.
Plus people want that choice between drugs, especially in America.
Supply issues can't be helped, of course - but they better figure it out soon, because we need to be forward thinking (while still following the science)
So, I was wondering, after the FDA approved the third shot - of exactly the same vaccine formulation as before, mind you - how they were going to stratify who worked in a "high-risk COVID exposure" environment or not?
I mean, they'd have to be pretty specific, and I don't think they were - because if they leave it too vague and open, you could be like a dog-walker and say you're at increased risk, going into people's several people's homes or something lol.
And what about the immunocompromised, whether they work or not - like people on immunosuppressants for organ transplants or cancer?
The FDA completely ignored them unless they were 65 and older.
However, the panel was nearly split on that - they can't even agree on that, because the scientific community is still grappling with the small population size that Pfizer used in its application study that did not prove the usual statistical significance required for approval.
So we're shooting in the dark, here, and doing a lot of presuming, about both the efficacy of a third shot and whether or not vaccine-induced immunity wanes over time.
I mean, it's likely and it could, still - but there's a possibility it could not, too - because the study wasn't conclusive.
I'm not sure this has ever happened, where the CDC publishes guidelines separate from what the FDA approves, because that would mean the boosters were being given "off-label" to what the FDA authorized - and ultimately, the FDA has authority over the CDC, as executive branch, so-?
And what would that mean for payers, if the FDA hasn't authorized what the CDC recommends, because essentially we'd be using the product "off-label?"
I have no idea - like I said, I don't think this has happened before?
Maybe it has and I don't know about it, but it's pretty rare. I mean, I'm sure it happens with some common, non-life-threatening conditions - like using an inexpensive product like steroids for rheumatoid arthritis or something - but I'm not sure it has ever happened with a really high-profile drug product in a life-threatening condition?
So all righty, so get your popcorn - because IF the CDC does indeed end up publishing guidelines contrary to what the FDA authorized, they're essentially endorsing "off-label" usage of a product (meaning it's not authorized for use in this population/indication) - it's about to get crazy up in here.
Because it would be testing the boundaries of which federal agency has authority over what (constitutionally, the FDA should win, as executive branch), as well as the American health system overall, that's for sure.
In fact, other countries have often based their coverage decisions on FDA approvals, so-?
I think they're making this too complicated again, even more than some states did with the vaccines and stratifying groups lol.
It's a nightmare for both providers and payers, even they won't know what the hell to do lol.
I mean, what if a doc gives the booster to someone whom the FDA does not consider an authorized use, but the CDC does - will they receive payment for it? And from whom?
Again, keep it simple - most people have the attention span of gnats, these days, anyway.
Either approve it or don't.
If approved, BE SPECIFIC, BUT ALSO DON'T OVER-STRATIFY - just stratify by like by age and health condition - period?!?
And dang, Pfizer - just work on a truly reformulated booster that includes all known variants and study it, already, rather than all this disruption and nonsense over a marginally effective third shot, at best, why don'tcha?
I mean, I'm sure you, and other Big Pharma, would just love it if there was no regulatory authority at all, on your products, in America, but at least we are the most lenient Western country on you, so do you really want to pit it against itself and tear it down completely?
If so, I'm moving to France lol.
(Because IMO, they do the best job of keeping your greedy sh*t in check, Big Pharma lol. )
So as mentioned previously, I transcribe the interviews for an independent marketing company. between pharma and either payers or clinicians, not just nationally, but globally - and today, I had one where both the interviewer and respondents had British accents.
The interviewer has a very nearly Queen's English, proper-London accent, but occasionally. she'd slip on a word or two, into another accent, that let me know she had adopted the "proper" accent, particularly for interviewing, and was actually from somewhere else in UK - but where?
At the end, there was some talk of the Tottenham VS. Wolves game.
For starters, it took me some time to figure out who and what they were talking about, not being well versed in British FC lol.
(God, I hope I got all the names and locations right - because Lord knows they take their "footie" very seriously, over there - and you just know they'd complain about not getting their soccer heroes' names right before they'd ever even think of complaining about how I spelled the pharmaceuticals lol.)
Regardless, as it turned out, the interviewer said she actually grew up in Liverpool.
The respondent said, "You don't have the accent."
She said,"Eh, I prob'ly could, if you needed, m'too," in that stereotypical, sing-song, up and down, slowed-down roller-coaster Liverpool way - LOL.
Aha! Mystery solved lol.
She said she hadn't lived there for 20 years, so she'd lost it, but can get it back if there/around others with it.
This makes me feel much better about my Cincinnati VS. Lexington accent mix, after living here for 30 years lol.
If I'm around northerners, it's more Cincinnati, but when around Southerners, it's more Lexington.
However, if I need to be absolutely clear, for whatever reason, it's a pure Cincinnati - because a Cincinnati accent is taught in universities nationwide as "the broadcasting accent," because it's essentially no accent - unless of course I'm talking to Eastern Kentuckians, and then I let the Lexington accent rip or else they won't understand me lol.
Also, though my husband still has a very strong Detroit accent, even his own family says he speaks slower and some words have a slight Southern drawl, and he's only lived here for 12 years lol.
Then again, when he's watching a hockey game or is back in Detroit, it's pure Detroit, "Eh? Geeez" ;)
I mean, it just happens - with everybody.
However, my older sister used to give me a lot of sh*t about it, after she moved to Chicago, 39 years ago, and I moved South 32 years ago.
I don't know why - because "losing your accent" (and gaining it back when home) is a very common, innocuous thing that happens to everyone, after living somewhere else over time, it's human nature.
And yet because it's me, of course, she ascribes the worst motivations, in order to prove something to herself about me (usually something dastardly, so she can feel superior) - but I honest-to-God don't even know what her point and problem supposedly is, on that one lol.
Thus, I'd usually just tell the Ice Queen that she was welcome to get in her "CAAR" and drive back to "Sh'CAAHgo" where it's "Coohld" - the climate matching both her temperament and her capacity for mercy - because those pronunciations that she's adopted of the words "car,""Chicago,"and "Cold" aren't Cincinnatian, either - they're exclusively Chicagoan ;)
(Da Bears lol).
That usually shut her up :)
Because instead, a true Cincinnati accent would be:"cahr," "cold" and "ShihCAHgo."
PS - FYI, Lexington would be very similar, only more of a slight southern drawl - "ca-uhr," "coh-eld"and "SheCAWHgo"or even"SheCAWga" if you're from rural Central Kentucky :)
As mentioned last week (see prior posts), the independent advisory panel of experts to the FDA recommended the "booster shot" (a third shot of the exact same vaccine formulation) only for those 65 and older.
There had been lots of conflict and controversy over this, in the scientific community, because Pfizer's study only contained 312 people, and using the exact same formulation for a third shot did not appear to fully prove additional benefit - thus, the independent advisory panel recommended to the FDA that only those 65 and older receive the booster (those with low or slow immune systems).
After the independent advisory committee offers its recommendations, the FDA then has the choice to agree, disagree, or agree in part with the advisory panel's recommendations.
Today, the FDA voted and agreed with the independent advisory panel's recommendations - but also added an additional subpopulation.
So a few months ago, for a college graduation gift to our honorary son, B, whom I've mentioned - who was accepted at both Johns Hopkins and UC-Berkeley for his Master's, btw - I got him several meals through Home Chef - and he loved them!
He said they were both healthy and delicious and he and his girlfriend had a lot of fun picking out the meals and making them together, and they even had leftovers, so well worth the expense.
So HC had a special, recently, and we decided to try them ourselves - and they're on their way, they'll be here Friday!
In case you don't know how Home Chef works, it's a subscription (or a gift card) and there are several meals and meal plans to choose from, all healthy, but you have meal choices and can choose low carb, low calorie, low sodium, or all of the above - you just pick your size, how many meals, how much prep you want to do (just pop in the oven or you want to assemble the meal, etc.), and they deliver them fresh, right to your door, via FedEx.
So today, the new weekly menu is out, to choose your items, and I forgot to mark down my password. Then, of course, I locked myself out trying. Then, while multitasking, I took too long to reset it, I guess, and the link expired (or so we figured out when I called customer service) lol.
So I spoke with "Raina," who was super friendly, and didn't make me feel like an idiot (though she would've been well within her right to do so), who correctly deduced that the link had just expired and she'd send me one directly.
Afterwards, I received a little survey to rate her on customer service, and I noticed they do things a little differently - they give you a little bio (I guess to make it harder to be mean to them, if you're THAT kind of person, who just takes out your frustration on random customer service people).
They also ask you to choose between rewards for them - a goldfish (lol), giving them one longer lunch break, or a gift card.
Isn't that cool?:)
In "Raina's" bio, it mentioned she lived in Chicago and she is also a Second City (Chicago) player?!?
So ... I just checked their website, and she's not on it (or at least under that name or one of the main-stage players) - so did she mean she was just taking classes?
And for those saying "If she was an SC player, why would she work at Home Chef, too?" - erm - do you know how much SC pays?
Not enough lol.
That's why they all have day jobs, too, like all struggling actors and comedians, I saw that on the Chris Farley documentary - they wait tables, are bartenders, taxi drivers, Uber drivers, even pizza delivery, you name it.
I also read an article a few months back that during COVID, SC nearly declared bankruptcy, because they had to shut down for so long, and the actors were scrambling for work :/
I'm thinking now, though, that she likely meant she just takes classes there, rather than being a paid SC player, because of the way it's phrased.
Regardless - that's about as close as I'll ever get to getting to talk to an actual SC-Chicago player - and even the possibility that she is an actual SC player, rather than just taking classes, sent me into fits of excitement - so I'm going to continue to believe she was, just working her day job (especially during COVID) - perhaps past the point of all reason - because it makes me happy, dammit! ;)
I was like, "OMG, OMG - was I just talking live to a real-live Second City-Chicago player on their day job?!? I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!" lol.
So I chose 5 stars and chose the gift card, and in the comment box, I said something like "Because she was very pleasant, didn't make me feel like an idiot, and also because we have to keep supporting our Second-City-Improv-to-SNL pipeline, especially during COVID - thank you!"
Dang straight, support the arts, especially during COVID, People!
Especially ourSecond City Improv Players - they're a national treasure!
All the great Saturday Night Live Comedians started out there, (most from the Chicago venue) - Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, John Belushi, John Candy, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Gilda Radner, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Aidy Bryant, Cecily Strong (and more attention should be paid to our SC ladies, gotta say)! ;)
Go SC! Go SNL! Go ... both male and female improv actors, whether actual players or just taking classes ?!? lol
Now I just hope the food is as good as the customer service, but based on the review by others, I don't think I'll be disappointed!
For some reason, I woke up this morning with James Taylor's song, "Carolina In My Mind" :)
Probably, because I'm missing the mountains, after vacationing there in June and spending our anniversary at The Biltmore Estate (see the sidebar videos.)
Also, I'm a huge JT fan, I love JT, always have - I play JT when I just want to chill or am traveling :)
As for this video, it's someone else's photos to the soundtrack of the song, which shows the diverse landscape of the state, from the Blue Ridge Mountains in the western part of the state, to the tropical coastline in the Eastern part of the state :)
Lyrics:
In my mind I'm gone to Carolina Can't you see the sunshine? Can't you just feel the moonshine? And, ain't it just like a friend of mine To hit me from behind? Yes, I'm gone to Carolina in my mind
Karin, she's a silver sun You best walk her way and watch it shinin' Watch her, watch the morning come A silver tear appearing now I'm cryin', ain't I? Gone to Carolina in my mind
There ain't no doubt in no one's mind That love's the finest thing around Whisper something soft and kind And hey, babe, the sky's on fire I'm dying, ain't I? Gone to Carolina in my mind
In my mind, I'm gone to Carolina Can't you see the sunshine, sugar? Can't you just feel the moonshine? Ain't it just like a friend of mine To hit me from behind? Yes, I'm gone to Carolina in my mind
Dark and silent, late last night I think I might have heard the highway call my name Geese in flight and dogs that bite Other signs that might be omens say, "I'm goin', I'm goin'" I'm gone to Carolina in my mind
And it's with a holy host of others standin' around me Still, I'm on the dark side of the moon And it seems like it goes on like this forever You must forgive me If I'm up and gone to Carolina in my mind
In my mind I'm goin' to Carolina Can't you see the sunshine? Can't you just feel the moonshine? Ain't it just like a friend of mine To hit me from behind? Yes, I'm gone to Carolina in my mind Yes, I'm gone to Carolina in my mind Said I'm gone to Carolina I'd better get back on home again, real soon, you know? 'Cause I'm gone to Carolina in my mind
This started me thinking about the gossip and folklore that surrounds the inspirations behind JT's music VS. reality, and how much that we, as a culture, have now embraced gossip more than fact.
You see, after James Taylor wrote "Fire and Rain," which is partially about the death of an actual person, people assumed that all of JT's songs were inspired by actual people and events, and tried to figure them all out lol.
Thus, folklore about the meaning behind his songs took on a life of their own.
What's interesting is - NONE of the folk stories that went any of his songs - includingFire and Rain - were true.
Thus, it's a lesson on what people believe and spread around versus truth.
Sometimes, like in JT's case, they're harmless - but other times, not so much (politics).
Folk Story/Urban Legend/Myth about the song "Fire and Rain:"
There are several folk stories people believe about this song, but the most popular version goes that JT's friend, Suzanne Schnerr, was killed in a plane crash on a surprise flight to London to see him recording at Apple Records, which was arranged by his friends,, and thus explains the lyric "sweet dreams and flying machines, in pieces on the ground" and "Suzanne, the plans they made put an end to you."
Reality:
Suzanne died by suicide - and as he has recently told it, in a 2017 interview - after "her family had her committed undeservingly, because they wanted to control her"and she wanted to escape this control.
His friends didn't tell him about either being committed or her suicide until he'd finished his first recording in London at the Beatles' Apple studios, for fear it'd blow a big opportunity for him.
Thus, in the lyric "Suzanne the plans they made put an end to you,"the "they" refers to both her family's decisions to have her committed, as well as his friends' refusal to tell him about her committal and suicide, which had kept him from being present, and his subsequent guilt, wondering if perhaps if he had been there, instead of London, he could've saved her.
As for the line, "sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground" was about his own depression that followed after the prior and recent failure of his band,
Thus, the only aspect of this folklore that is true is that the Suzanne mentioned in the song was a friend of JT's that died - period.
In fact, there are so many stories about the song, and over-analyzation of the lyrics, that Stephen Colbert and JT created their own parody of the song, filled with nonsense lyrics in 2019, called "Fire, Rain, and Calzones" lol
Now - there was also a show where Stephen Colbert and JT sang "Carolina on my Mind" as a duet (as Stephen Colbert is from South Carolina and still has a home there), but no one has the video for that, just the audio:(
I would really like to see that, because as everyone knows (including my husband), Stephen Colbert is also one of my imaginary husbands lol.
I have many imaginary celebrity husbands, in every category, mind you lol - like Aaron Rodgers ins my imaginary sports husband, Sting is one of my many imaginary music husbands (like JT), and Stephen Colbert is comedians/talk show host husband lol.
(Update, 11/7//2021 - in light of Aaron's falsely entitled, cuckoo rant about vaccinations and "the woke mob," I've changed my mind - I'm totally betting against Aaron Rodgers and filed a fantasy divorce from him as one of my fantasy cohusbands ;)
(I don't have many currently in authors an acting - except Dwayne Johnson - they've all left us, so I guess they're my "heavenly husbands" now, but that's a whole other list, but Gregory Peck, Gene Kelly, and Paul Newman, for starters lol)
All in fun, of course - I'm not a weird, diehard fan of any of these people, and admittedly, I don't care much for football as a whole, I just like Aaron Rogers lol. But I know who everybody is because my husband is, both pro and college, In fact, even as we speak, he's watching College Game Day, he never misses it :)
And to tell the truth - sorry Stephen - but I don't watch Stephen's show every night, I'm lucky to catch it even in a week (and often just YouTube clips - I usually binge watch TV anyway on the weekends.
As for Carolina in My Mind ...
Folk Story/Urban Legend/Myth about "Carolina In My Mind:"
During his time at McLean Hospital for depression in the mid-60s, a fellow patient and friend, named Karin, became paranoid and hit him over the head with a chair, knocking him unconscious, where he "went to Carolina in his mind," explaining the lyric "Ain't it just like a friend of mine, to hit me from behind" and"Karin, she's a silver sun, you'd best walk her away and watch it shining"
(lol)
Reality:
James primarily wrote the song while taking a vacation break from recording at Apple studios on the Spanish Islands of Formentera and Ibiza, with a Swedish woman named Karin he'd just met, and the pair became stranded on the island overnight, and the song is about seeing the sunrise and feeling a sudden homesickness for North Carolina (JT was raised in Massachusetts and North Carolina).
And the lyric, "ain't it just like a friend of mine, to hit me from behind?"
He's actually referring to the memory of North Carolina sneaking up on him out of nowhere, when he least expects it, during an inopportune time - and if you also paid attention the lyrics before that line, you'd know that :)
Ah, folklore VS, the reality of songs.
I remember as a child, folk stories about songs and bands were especially popular with the charismatic evangelical set, only they usually also had a more sinister bend to the rumors, like The Eagles "Hotel California" and any song that KISS every played because they believe "KISS" actually stood for "Kings In Service of Satan," and if you listened to these songs, you took a chance of becoming under Satan's power lol.
Because Lord knows that charismatic evangelicals are obsessed with the devil more than they are with Jesus, as well as their abject paranoia that something sinister outside of us can somehow take over our minds and possess us unaware - which of course would not only completely negate the Christian concept of free will entirely, but is also a revealing self-portrait of their own propensity towards gullibility ;)
Thus, I wasn't allowed to listen to most secular music - but believe me, I've made up for lost time since ;)
And for the record, though I believe young minds are impressionable and they can walk away with the wrong impression after being influenced by people, music, books, movies, video games - I do NOT that these things, in and of themselves, can "take over" or "possess" anyone, as there's still always free will choice, even in young ones - nothing can influence you without your choice or consent.
Thus, I believe we shouldn't ban these things, but instead, listen/watch these things WITH our children - when age-appropriate - with an open mind, making our own opinion (rather than letting others tell us what we should think, without ever viewing/listening ourselves), thereby giving full perspective and discussing them WITH our children :)
Besides, forbidding fruit entirely makes it that much sweeter - so IMO, it's good to discuss the pros and cons, the choices and consequences, with our children ;)
Heck, even with beauty pageants, I'd watch them with my daughter so that she could be sure to get a full perspective on what our culture celebrates about the surface of women VS. the full-picture reality of women :)
Though still not a huge fan, as for KISS, the name of the band means exactly what you think it would mean, "kiss," and drummer, Peter Criss, gave the band its name as an extension of the name of his previous band called "Lips."
The crazy costumes and hair were simply a gimmick to get attention, positive or negative, just like Ozzy Osbourne (only in KISS's case, perhaps to cover for the fact that though they wrote fun party songs, they weren't very talented? ;)
Hotel California was written after reading the book, "The Magus,"by John Fowles,and the band wanting to write a similar, creepy, metafiction, Twilight Zone-ish song, just to see if they could, based on some of the life of excess and weird stuff they saw in California, taken to an extreme.
Persistent rumors abound that the Hotel California is based on the house of Anton Levay's Church of Satan in San Francisco.
Even if that were true, the song is about the excess and underbelly of entertainment business in LA, taken to a Twilight Zone degree, so it's a criticism of that - NOT an advertisement for it lol.
Just a little lesson in folk story/urban legend/myth and what people believe based on gossip VS. reality, brought to you by me :)
Okay, so the independent scientific advisory board to the FDA (comprised of independent infectious-disease experts, pharmacists, and statisticians) voted"NO" (16-2) on recommending a third Pfizer shot for those 16 and older - HOWEVER - unanimously voted "YES" (18-0) to a subpopulation, those ages 65 and older (those most at risk/with lower immune systems).
Keep in mind, the FDA does not have to follow the independent advisory boards recommendations, but they typically do.
However again - remember that recently, Aduhelm (adalimumab) was a prime example of a time that the FDA did not take the independent advisory panel's recommendations against the drug, and instead approved it - so it's anyone's guess.
Because today was an unusually long, full-day, intense debate, the FDA did not make it's decision, and thus the final vote will be next week.
See? Told you the scientific community was split on this one (see below post ;).
In the end, it came down to whether the panel thought the small study that Pfizer provided proved any additional benefit from a third shot of the exact same formulation of the vaccine.
At the end of the day, it appeared the majority of the committee wasn't fully convinced by the small study that a third shot provided additional benefit for everyone, except for those 65 or older, who are most at risk and have the weakest immune systems.
But again, the FDA itself could disagree and still approve it anyway, like they did Aduhelm.
Now - what I'm not sure of is, if the FDA does agree with the independent advisory committee's recommendations, and it's not approved, either partially (for those 65+) or fully (ages 16 and up), whether Pfizer can reapply again, after new data, i.e. a larger population and longer-term studies for durability of response?
Typically not - but the again, Aduhelm un-stereotypically (and inexplicably) got second and third chances, after producing more data (that still didn't prove much meaningful statistical significance) - so who knows?
My hope is that Pfizer will perhaps instead focus on answering the question I posed below - which is whether mRNA vaccines will still need additional variant-strain genetic information added to the original formulation, like "live strain" vaccinations, or not - and if so - perhaps reapply after that has been done and studied in clinical trial for efficacy, safety, and durability of response?
Also, I know the Biden administration really wanted that third booster shot - but the evidence just isn't there yet.
The small study Pfizer provided neither proved nor disproved a third shot of the same formulation added any additional benefit - nor did it determine durability of response of the first two, one way or the other.
Now, I'm a die-hard Democrat, and I love Biden, but unlike Trumpers, I don't pretend he's the hand of God and that everything he says and does is a holy edict of God and that he's perfect - no one is.
If we Democrats claim to be the party that "follows the science," then we need to do that - wait for statistically significant evidence, instead of making biased assumptions, yes?
Otherwise, we're no different than Trumpers - we can speculate and believe something all day, but that doesn't make it fact - we have to prove it ;)
Perhaps then if we just focus on getting the rest of the population vaccinated with the first two shots instead, because we DO have real-world proof of its efficacy against the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, and that it offers at least some protection against variants like the Delta variant, at least when it comes to severe disease.
Now, again - having said all of that - if the FDA goes against the IAC's recommendations and approves the third shot, and it's still offered for free, I would still get it - both because we had no ill effects from the first two, and because we have no proof either way, whether it provides any additional benefit or does nothing more - so why not?
So there's a bit of controversy over this, and not the usual suspects - the scientific community itself appears to be split.
Now - there is no question that real-world follow-up studies have shown Pfizer and Moderna's mRNA-based vaccines have been able to provide efficacy against regular COVID, and at least some efficacy against variants including the delta variant.
The question is around the booster-shot study that Pfizer used was a small study in Israel of 312 patients, showing increased antibodies/immunity for 30 days, using the exact same formulation as was implemented previously with no additives.
Pfizer also used the same study to suggest that immunity can wane over time - but also has no definitive proof of that, as it was a small study, and parameters for durability of response were not well defined, nor had enough time passed to determine that with absolute certainty.
Historically, the FDA does not approve drugs based on small studies with a small population size and short clinical trial periods, but there are two exceptions - uncommon/rare/orphan disease or public-health emergency.
If the drug is approved for public-health emergency, then real-world studies back it up, the drug will receive full regular-use approval. (This was the case with the original vaccines, who originally used small studies to gain emergency FDA approval, and only received regular-use approval a month ago).
Thus, the scientific community is split on whether giving a third shot of the exact same formulation provides any additional benefit, especially to justify the extra expense, based on one small study, typically only considered by the FDA during public-health emergencies, and then only authorized for emergency use until there's more real-world evidence.
Now, let's go back how vaccines and their boosters vary ...
Unlike Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines, your basic yearly flu shots are NOTyetbased on mRNA technology (but they're in the works).
Flu shots are currently still based on weakened strains of the actual influenza virus. Each year, any new mutation variants are added to the flu-shot formulation.
J&J and AstraZeneca's COVID vaccines are alsoNOT mRNA vaccines, they also use weakened "live strains."
However, Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines ARE based on mRNA, the base genetic code for coronavirus genotypes - just add specific genetic info for SARS-CoV-2.
This is the reason why the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have offered at least some protection against variants of SARS-CoV-2, while J&J and AstraZeneca's "live strain" vaccinations have not fared as well with variants.
So now, the question the FDA is asking itself is:
"Would a third shot of the exact same formulation of the original mRNA vaccines offer additional or even incremental benefit, especially considering the study sample population size was only 312 people?
Well, of course, Pfizer's going to tell you "yes" regardless lol.
They're playing the "offers incremental benefit" card, more than the "additional benefit" card, you see, which typically only flies here in the U.S. versus Europe - or I should say at least European countries are more stringent with their definition of drugs that provide incremental or additional benefits (particularly France) ;)
Let us also not forget that recently, the FDA broke its own rules with Aduhelm (adalimumab, first drug for Alzheimer's, shown to show little if any efficacy), so who knows what will happen.
However, methinks Pfizer first needs to answer this question ...
"Do mRNA vaccines also need to be adjusted to include more specific genetic components for variants in booster shots, like live-strain vaccines - or not?"
Now THAT is truly the billion-dollar question - one that Pfizer needs to answer, if they can yet - and I'm not sure they can yet?
Having said that, if they approve the third shot, emergency status or not, if it's still free, I'll probably get it.
Why?
Because it at least it offers that 30-day immunity boost, and we suffered no ill effects (other than increased bleeding for me, one month, and exercise stamina reduction for a week or so), and we've clearly benefitted, considering Kentucky ranks right up there in cases and Trumpers lacking in common sense with viruses and we've not contracted it, plus we traveled to the same type of territory in North Carolina - twice - also wearing masks indoors, of course.
However, I'd really like to know that answer to that last question, as soon as they can, too ;)
