Just grabbed these shots off the TV.   Seems aged count for very little in this socialist gov.   And another gripe - just been refused coverage from the health fund for a couple of tests ordered by the doctor. most irritating was the bowel cancer test - promoted right now on the TV as a free yearly recommendation, but over 65 get nicked - you're gonna die anyway.   and make sure you get your credit cards in order before you retire - I wanted to change mine last year due to dissatisfaction with current provider. Four banks and two societies later I gave up - they just don't want SMSF people at all. They asked for all investment details, cash deposits, accountants details and authorisation to enquire, and on and on down to the most intimate details.   In every case I called a halt when it started to get ridiculous. Most annoying aspect is that in my case I have a lifetime of impeccable credit history and business dealings, means that one would think that I would get the card super easily (without my opening my private situation here) and humbug and multiple visits and interrogations ad finitum. In each case I went so far then told them to jam it.   to annoy everyone now I pay cash - preserves my privacy and cuts controlling entities right out of the tracking snooping scenario. End of rant. Age discrimination.   B
Tags (comma-separated):
	Attach Poll

New facility - make it arse up. Renders correctly everywhere else! 
you'll get the idea.

Australians need to get creative like the English.

I am not sure where it went wrong for you.

I have received my last bowl cancer kit last year when I was 74. It stops at 74. All through the govt. Not a cent to pay. I am a self-funded retiree with no benefit cards.

Check the website.

Cheers

jacob

Jacksa wrote:

---

I have received my last bowl cancer kit last year when I was 74. It stops at 74. 

---

 It only stops if you want it to stop. Keep having them if you wish.

Cheers,

Peter

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

Jacksa wrote:

---

I have received my last bowl cancer kit last year when I was 74. It stops at 74. 

---

 It only stops if you want it to stop. Keep having them if you wish.

Cheers,

Peter

---

 You have to pay though.

B

Brodie Allen wrote:

---

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

Jacksa wrote:

---

I have received my last bowl cancer kit last year when I was 74. It stops at 74. 

---

 It only stops if you want it to stop. Keep having them if you wish.

Cheers,

Peter

---

 You have to pay though.

 

B

---

 Nope.

Same with breast cancer scans.

Cheers,

Peter

Maybe if you haven't had bowel cancer by age 75 it may not matter. 

Brodie Allen wrote:

---

---

 You mentioned 65 Brodie, not 75. No one has stated eligibility carries on after 74. What are you saying?

Brodie Allen wrote:

---

---

 This confirms our (I'm 83) experience.

Similar with Breast cancer screening.

I'm saying that there's a number of eligibility exclusions for both

Govt. and health schemes as you need them most with ageing.

Frankly I think it should be illegal under the aged portion of the

discrimination act.

The item mentioned is but one of many (hundreds according to

my GP.) Another where I got an account for $1145 was a stool

examination. Was always n/c from via Medicare over the years.

Certain of my MRI's are not covered also.

Just for the record, we are looking for causes of some strange

events emanating from the F . . . . .g jabs that seem to have

been responsible for more deaths than the "virus".

B

Unless you have some evidence for complications emanating from the "f...ing jabs", perhaps highlight " what I think are complications from..."

Saves spreading unverified rumours, no?

Cheers, Mark...

Silkwood wrote:

---

Unless you have some evidence for complications emanating from the "f...ing jabs", perhaps highlight " what I think are complications from..."

 

Saves spreading unverified rumours, no?

 

Cheers, Mark...

---

 With respect, silkwood, you are swimming against the swelling tide of scientific determination.

Don't want to go further - we would be here for a long time. My own experience is enough for me

anyway. 

Here's a bit of science - no fabric mask can prevent the transit of a virus - just the physical size

of an airborne virus makes the attempt at filtering ineffective. In fact a mask creates a warm and

moist environment that cultivates and amplifies the viral danger to the wearer.

B

Brodie Allen wrote:

---

 

 

Here's a bit of science - no fabric mask can prevent the transit of a virus - just the physical size

of an airborne virus makes the attempt at filtering ineffective. In fact a mask creates a warm and

moist environment that cultivates and amplifies the viral danger to the wearer.

 

B

 

 

---

 Please provide scientific peer reviewed studies by relevant and real authorities that support this, you won't of course because they don't exist, only conspiracy theorist fake pages.   Many many real scientific studies show the effectiveness of masks in significantly reducing transmission of viruses.        

Meredith wrote:

---

Brodie Allen wrote:

---

 

 

Here's a bit of science - no fabric mask can prevent the transit of a virus - just the physical size

of an airborne virus makes the attempt at filtering ineffective. In fact a mask creates a warm and

moist environment that cultivates and amplifies the viral danger to the wearer.

x2. Brodie, you are on the wrong tram, please get off at the next stop.

B

 

 

---

 Please provide scientific peer reviewed studies by relevant and real authorities that support this, you won't of course because they don't exist, only conspiracy theorist fake pages.   Many many real scientific studies show the effectiveness of masks in significantly reducing transmission of viruses.        

 

---

Brodie Allen wrote:

Here's a bit of science - no fabric mask can prevent the transit of a virus - just the physical size

of an airborne virus makes the attempt at filtering ineffective. In fact a mask creates a warm and

moist environment that cultivates and amplifies the viral danger to the wearer.

B

---

 interesting comment.

What do think about doctors and nurses discarding their masks while they operate on patients?

Might save a few cents in operating theatre costs if they could get away with that thinking.

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

An "airborne virus" is typically contained within droplets of fluid from the mouth during coughing or sneezing. That is how the virus is spread.
Pretty much any mask will stop them.
Cheers,
Peter

---

 Simply :

Efficacy of masks Outward expirations

Efficacy of inward Inhalations

Outward droplets v inward aerosols and relative minimisation due to droplet evaporation

Inward reception of droplets  and aerosols remaining viable in moist, warm receptors' mask and

    building in efficacy and quantity with multiple receptions and time

There's more to this than simply evaluating the situation by droplet size.

B

Brodie Allen wrote:

---

 Simply :

 

Efficacy of masks Outward expirations

Efficacy of inward Inhalations

Outward droplets v inward aerosols and relative minimisation due to droplet evaporation

Inward reception of droplets  and aerosols remaining viable in moist, warm receptors' mask and

    building in efficacy and quantity with multiple receptions and time

 

There's more to this than simply evaluating the situation by droplet size.

 

B

---

 I presume you got this rubbish from some anti vaccine site or similar.    Again since you say it is based on science (which it definitely is not) please give some peer reviewed scientific studies by reputable authorities that show your statement is true.   You won't because it isn't, it is simply made up rubbish made to fool the foolish.

With respect, Broome, simply, demonstrably untrue.

msg wrote:

---

My O My Meredith (and others) such a strong dislike and might I even venture into hate for something.

I suggest you back up your statement(s) also with scientific evidence.

We need to hear the reasons behind both arguments.

I hope you are just not only listening to main stream media.

I have no opinions on either viewpoint so don't judge me. I just don't like the tone of your replys.

---

 Just google research papers on the efficiency of masks, many very reliable and well studied papers will show up that show without doubt that masks work in restricting the spread of viruses, you will not find any that show otherwise.     The simpliest evidence though is simply look at the death rates for covid in places where masks were not widely used.   Hate for lies that cause illness and death is fairly reasonable.   

Apart from the scientific evaluations which you can get for yourself, :

Simple common sense mandates that small things fit thru big holes quite easily,
and warm and damp is a breeding place for bad things. and there aint many
microbes smaller than virus. And the aerosols are mostly sub-microscopic
mist that sheds size almost instantly anyway. You don't have to cough or sneeze, Peter.

In case you don't know what an aerosol is, see the condensation on your
glasses when you "huff" on them to clean them and how quick they become
non-existent.

Not gonna get into lengthy discussion - just use your nut a bit.


"Broome"

-- Edited by Brodie Allen on Monday 30th of September 2024 07:45:15 AM

-- Edited by Brodie Allen on Monday 30th of September 2024 07:47:09 AM

msg wrote:

---

Mereditth, you are still not supporting your argument in the same manner that you are asking of Brodie. There is also lots of info in support of Brodie. Why should we believe your assertions and not Brodie.

Hate in the manner you are exhibiting is never reasonable.

---

 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118   Googling will show a few dozen similar reports by qualified and respected authorities that have been peer reviewed and found to be factual.    Googling masks don't stop viruses or similar will show 0 reports by any qualified or respected authorities to support that argument, there is simply not "lots of info" in support of Brodie by any actual qualified people.