From: Antoun Nabhan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Nov 15 2000 - 14:25:40 PST
I'm assuming that 4) and 5) are there because some of us are unwittingly
"boosting the count" by more than we would if we could actually see our
mates clearly? :-)
Reading FoRk because there's too many other unfunny things on my desk to
read right now...
At 08:19 PM 11/13/00 -0500, Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 11/12/00 7:41:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, a nervous Tony
><< Promiscuity llinked to stronger immune system
> And despite the impression that soap operas might give about our propensity
> to monkey around, humans have white blood cell counts that
> are consistent with being monogamous, the researchers found in a separate
>okay, so if we reverse the unnatural trend of monogamy we might increase our
>white blood cell counts to the levels of barbaray macaques in how many
>evolutionary cycles? i think those of us humans who take a leadership
>position in boosting the count should be (choose one)
>2) tested for std's under an unweildy and inefficient nationalized healthcare
>system beholden to lobbyists and subsidized by taxes.
>3) tested for std's under an inefficient and arguably less expensive
>"private" system subsidized by stealth taxes and spiraling insurance
>premiums. don't forget the lobbyists.
>4) given lasik* surgery for nearsightedness to reduce the need for glasses.
>5) given laser surgery for cataracts to improve brs (ballot response systems)
>* expensive ELECTIVE surgery not to be confused with #5.
>(Doesn't medicare cover cataract surgery?)
>(Donated eyeglasses are distributed for free to the needy by private
>corporations like LensCrafters.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 17 2000 - 17:58:34 PST