Riobard

… and do so firmly.

I believe the term is pummel hores.

Deuce Hundo is Deuce Hundo is a flogged dead Queens Plate horse. Who needs to choke on breaking old news? Every throat has its tool limit. More spread legs, less spreadsheets. ”Everything in moderation, including moderation.” ~ Wilde

See above as I was not able to type below the quotes … To clarify, in case you sense a contradiction wrt to my previous guidance: You will be asked to enter arrival and departure dates as well as planned duration of stay; similarly your most previous trip if you answer yes in the yes/no binary field about past travel to Brazil, it asks for those two related entry and departure dates as well as duration of that past stay. Days or months; if it won’t “take” try typing D following the number of days or M following the number of months (eg, 30 D or 1 M). Another disconnect is that the summary instructions do not prepare you for financial means questions that actually present within the 7 application stages. Your occupation and monthly USD equivalency income are required, but not verifying documentation from financial institution. Don’t put dollar sign or comma; if it’s five thousand just enter 5000. I don’t know if there is a threshold but I think it could be 2000; in any event there’s no suggestion of evidence required upon arrival. The advice given by VFS is if you want to defer definitive travel until such point as your visa is approved simply enter reasonably approximate (well, bogus really) dates and duration as the point is to not raise red flags regarding passport expiry date in relation to entry date, or exceeding allowable visit days within any the permissible span dictated. I note that for Canada the visa exempt privilege included 90 days within a 180 day block of time, but now it’s reduced to 90 days per year tallied from entry date to a year later, unless granted extension when there. It cannot be ruled out an algorithm is baked in where the date of your previous arrival setpoint and duration are tallied along with your prospective duration to ensure a visit within the allowable bounds.

Well the subforum has been on life support, so good on you to feed it some oxygen.

When what is superiorly and flawlessly smart, unable to let go, meets what’s in the aforementioned mirror?

I would neither employ the label of reciprocal sycophancy nor object to the idea that it’s just been perfectly illustrated.

Holy moly. Does he sleep? Unplug? On commission? Fears a chatroom ball dropped is apocalyptic?

Believe me, you took that out of my mouth. Translation: “I’m compellingly interesting by having mic dropped Johns Hopkins … why couldn’t my contrarian input on the PSA topic have been more recognized by other than the non-credentialed? All it takes for me to dismiss what I realize reflects expertise is that what becomes too much for me could only have been boring. Raspberries”.

You’re everywhere. Is that good for everbody?

I’ll give this version of response an interpretative shot. ”My vindictive snap queen dictatorial prerogative to determine the merit of content requires nothing more than smartass labelling what I know to be intelligible as unreadable. Deprived the degree of influence I desperately crave, I’ll gobble up whatever crumbs of validation are sent my way and I’ll regurgitate them with the set habitual response of ‘translation please’ because creativity is not the point of a troll. Hopefully not many will notice that I have no more to say than a media hack.”

I’m taken aback by your capacity to hold all of that extremely detailed content in mind for such an extensive written rendering months later. How do you do it? It’s like a vacuum cleaner bag exploded and you nevertheless organized and packaged all of the content into a vastly quantitative yet qualitive narrative.

I give up. Backslapping brigade much? You must be a cut above simply because you could never be deficient because you imply such and you are the arbiter of whose intelligence is substandard and incongruent with education. Nobody but somebody with a superiority complex would express such an observation. Nobody with an evident superiority complex is not somewhat stupid as well as unpainted into their corner.

This is not a very bright or useful comment and it conveys that you can only lazily skim the surface of what is not so very complex a topic. A recommendation is, de facto, an opinion. Clearly your choice of language “only an opinion” was intended to sarcastically devalue the content of another poster, with whom you have a bone to pick, whose entries were no less supported by evidence than that of a reputable cherry-picked facility that you name dropped as if it rendered said poster’s perspective inferior. Every bit of the stratified by age PSA screening guidance is accompanied by a grade of strength of clinical evidence and a grade of strength of recommendation. There is nothing about it that is not opinion and accompanied by the imperative of flexibility. That your clinician recommended an MRI was an opinion. The only certainty was that there could be more info to augment an opinion about whether the PSA value denoted malignancy. Your pressing need to have singled out your case experience as if it truly contradicted the prevailing established guidance is fraught comparatively with zero evidence as well as zero strength of application to the recommendation agenda. Your desire to butt heads was the only message that came through. Decentre.

A response that would be deemed unnecessarily aggressive but for the reality that you cannot restrain yourself. Cheap gets cheap laughs. Sad case. … Academic English. I haven’t been asked to alter writing style in published work because manuscript peer review, either side of that endeavour wherein I’ve been subject to review or expected to review, is a process that is vetted to exclude the obnoxious. I think that in your case you often only have something to say because you have a pressing need to be part of something. But you can shut it and still belong. Try it. Because otherwise who has trapped you here? Who hurt you?

What’s important here is that your analysis will have been useful to you. I’m paying by time denominator about the same as 10 years ago although prices in reais have trended up in absolute terms that are nevertheless considerably fractionated in percentage terms and objectively paltry amounts according to my home currency. Moreover, it is home-based escort price increases that have escalated when Brazil prices have been comparatively static against the only currency that has valid meaning. Hiring at home has been ruined because my overall impression is half the appeal for several multiples the cost. My set point was established at a historical juncture that anchored the financial meaning that I assign today. That reference point renders visitor-to-visitor comparison pointless. Because my disposable income is much higher 10 years on, that entire duration unbroken in retirement status, it would take a lot of deterioration in Brazil trade quality to erode the wow factor that I find consistently accessed. I feel more deprived than ever in between visits. That said, a decade is a solid period of time to accrue a stellar reliable roster of good matches. I haven’t one bit based that membership on some degree of price variation that arises between escorts and that I consider par for the course. Bien sur another advantage with having a trusted roster is removing the necessity of double-dipping into funds for where deeds are done. It’s not a large roster of guys but trading off a huge group of different guys for profoundly satisfying consistency seems worth it. Ten years has afforded dozens of connects that contribute to a sense of grazing an entire buffet. My analysis is only useful to me. It wouldn’t occur to me to approach it the way others do in spite of absolute clarity regarding those data collection practices that deviate from mine. Life is too short and shortening. I also cannot replicate a data acquisition design in which cost is explicitly inquired about. Me not do it that way. I’ve been to Barcelona as much as Brazil over the past year. Getting there costs about the same. Being there is more expensive. Hiring there considerably pricier. I have neither mental yearning nor desire to repeat with any particular guy I’ve met. In contrast, my erotic thoughts are highly populated by memories of several Brazil-based guys. The larger resource pool where you can see them in person before committing is a plus. I don’t need to budget much for disappointment.

Outside of the meta-communication tone, mostly valueless, in which forum opinion is expressed, the opinion divide here is not so unbridgeable in that one must consider that for some the screening leans to being essential for them in spite of some guidance entities putting forward the recommendation of non-screening. Such entities are not indicating that it’s essentialist that screening be assiduously avoided as opposed to discretionary even to the extent that testing deviates from the recommended guidance. They are referring to overall population benefit while also aware of epidemiological data regarding incidence and prevalence of disease occurrence, morbidity, and mortality. There are extant examples of clinical guidance that come across as much more rigid and dogmatic. For example, try to get a refill of HIV PrEP without a venipuncture lab test following a period of time in which you engaged in no activity for which PrEP is indicated and consumed none of the previous supply. I would think that disease transmissibility combined with personal vulnerability to undiagnosed disease and disease exacerbated by the inadequate antiretroviral uptake that characterizes PrEP come into play. That said, I am tasked with the aggravation of accepting this apparent rigidity with equanimity because while my personal circumstances appear to place me above the requirement the overall population benefit of required testing for eligibility of PrEP access the barrier imposed has considered multiple factors, like PSA guidance entities have done without an absolute manifest hurdle. What characterizes disagreement in the clinical guidance domain is that they are less at each others’ throats and tend to acknowledge the challenge of constructing definitive recommendations based on the data at hand. All sides include elaboration of the material they reference. There is no absence of common ground. However, discretion is often an artefact of uncertainly, is tantamount to equivocating. That leads to more heated splits in opinion within the general population rank and file. Guidance can be thou shall or shall not in certain contexts. Not so with PSA screening. The discussion launched with questions about prostate cancer screening for an old man who may have benefited from code blue paddles at the podium a year ago. Also, the adage that two things can be simultaneously true, as exemplified in the clinical literature. The number of lives saved by PSA screening is not indisputably zero and the overall population offset, by standard denominator, of PCa mortality conferred by screening is small enough to tip the guidance away from widespread application.

Wabbit so wahskawee!

Pardon me as I likely jumped the gun. The proposition to reinstate the visa exemption was dispatched following Senate approval to the Chamber of Deputies some weeks ago but it actually does not seem to have been included on the extensive list of proposals to be discussed and decided this week by the relevant government Foreign Relations division.

Tough call, though. Mythical vs Biblical.

I just read the 15-year results of the huge UK cluster randomized PSA surveillance study. I believe that many guidance entities have been holding out for how it might influence recommendations. I would think that it strengthens the grade of evidentiary reliability for the Canadian guidelines for age 50-69 (no benefit outside of shared decision-making) and explains why that health protection entity has not revised its position relative to having been published several years ago, in spite of reasonable-seeming critiques that have not yet integrated the implications of the aforementioned UK PSA CAP research. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2817322

Edit: as well as missing the boat by overlooking financial …

That’s good. The correct guess was made and would then seem to have been an incontrovertible judgement, as if overdiagnosis with deleterious effects were outside the realm of possibility. If your situation were to be the norm the guidance would evolve differently. So I’ll chime in with my recent experience of a near collision with biopsy needles. I went to a different MRI program that yielded a higher PI-RADS score and the urologist pushed biopsy. However, the report text included apparently humanly impossible anomalies that may have been typos, yet dismissed by the urologist, that prompted me to pony up much more cash for a confirmatory MRI in the clinic with which I had been previously consistently engaged, in which new results were consistent with lower scores within the same program over time. Averted biopsy conundrum, and PSA in spite of increasing age has been lower than the past 10 years median value. Parenthetically, why I wouldn’t do a home PSA kit but rather pursue standard venipuncture with the same unique lab result delineation for temporal comparative tracking if possible to use the same resource. Works both ways.

Unless you subsequently lose your prostate gland based on an educated guess, however reasonable seeming at the time, in which the exigency would ultimately have been disputable.