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
Peter_n_Margaret said
05:09 PM Sep 12, 2024
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
Brodie Allen said
12:09 PM Sep 13, 2024
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
TheHeaths said
02:39 PM Sep 13, 2024
Brodie,
The site doesnt mention any cost. Eligibility is between 45 and 74, have Medicare card, be an Australian citizen and an Australian mailing address.
May be worth following up.
Peter_n_Margaret said
05:16 PM Sep 13, 2024
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.
Maybe if you haven't had bowel cancer by age 75 it may not matter.
TheHeaths said
09:17 PM Sep 14, 2024
Brodie Allen wrote:
You mentioned 65 Brodie, not 75. No one has stated eligibility carries on after 74. What are you saying?
Cupie said
11:40 AM Sep 15, 2024
Brodie Allen wrote:
This confirms our (I'm 83) experience.
Similar with Breast cancer screening.
Brodie Allen said
02:34 PM Sep 15, 2024
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
Kebbin said
04:15 PM Sep 15, 2024
You are not on an Aged Pension or a Low Income Health Card, so I would hazard a guess that you are earning a good self funded pension otherwise you would not be charged full amount.
rmoor said
07:01 PM Sep 15, 2024
Like many people "our/my" age, one has many health issues.
I complete the freebie test kit when it arrives but I also have to do another privately for one of my specialists next week.
The test costs me $90 to complete but at the end of the day I have no qualms paying that amount.
If they (my three specialists) and my Dr do not look after me, or myself, then who will. I believe the cost is insignificant if it detects an anomaly that could lead to a serious health issue.
Silkwood said
08:01 PM Sep 19, 2024
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...
Brodie Allen said
06:24 PM Sep 27, 2024
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
Meredith said
08:50 PM Sep 27, 2024
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.
Magnarc said
08:25 AM Sep 28, 2024
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.
watsea said
02:15 PM Sep 28, 2024
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 said
02:55 PM Sep 28, 2024
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
Brodie Allen said
07:43 PM Sep 28, 2024
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
Meredith said
07:07 AM Sep 29, 2024
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.
Silkwood said
01:24 PM Sep 29, 2024
With respect, Broome, simply, demonstrably untrue.
msg said
03:36 PM Sep 29, 2024
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.
Meredith said
05:23 PM Sep 29, 2024
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.
msg said
05:39 PM Sep 29, 2024
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.
Brodie Allen said
07:17 AM Sep 30, 2024
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
-- Edited by Brodie Allen on Monday 30th of September 2024 07:48:29 AM
Meredith said
08:48 AM Sep 30, 2024
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.
msg said
08:54 AM Sep 30, 2024
Who are these "qualified" people? Negative queries as above 'Googling..." is not likely to get a response.
Brodie Allen said
01:37 PM Sep 30, 2024
Here's a result of a quick search that goes somewhere close to the definitive article that
my medical attendant gave me to read. It covers a bit of the matters that I referred to in
my "contentious" post.
Make up your own mind - for me I will only wear a mask if obliged to do so. The "incubator"
aspect is enough for me to doubt the efficacy of cloth masks when being used to block
aerosols.
Good luck because there's more of these manufactured pandemic dramas planned for
down the line.
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
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
It only stops if you want it to stop. Keep having them if you wish.
Cheers,
Peter
You have to pay though.
B
The site doesnt mention any cost. Eligibility is between 45 and 74, have Medicare card, be an Australian citizen and an Australian mailing address.
May be worth following up.
Nope.
Same with breast cancer scans.
Cheers,
Peter
Maybe if you haven't had bowel cancer by age 75 it may not matter.
You mentioned 65 Brodie, not 75. No one has stated eligibility carries on after 74. What are you saying?
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
I complete the freebie test kit when it arrives but I also have to do another privately for one of my specialists next week.
The test costs me $90 to complete but at the end of the day I have no qualms paying that amount.
If they (my three specialists) and my Dr do not look after me, or myself, then who will. I believe the cost is insignificant if it detects an anomaly that could lead to a serious health issue.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Hate in the manner you are exhibiting is never 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
-- Edited by Brodie Allen on Monday 30th of September 2024 07:48:29 AM
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.
my medical attendant gave me to read. It covers a bit of the matters that I referred to in
my "contentious" post.
Make up your own mind - for me I will only wear a mask if obliged to do so. The "incubator"
aspect is enough for me to doubt the efficacy of cloth masks when being used to block
aerosols.
Good luck because there's more of these manufactured pandemic dramas planned for
down the line.
B