About

Member has chosen to not make this information public.

Posts (2)

Dec 26, 2018 · No pets on counters, tables, no pet/food touch and wash your hands. in Digestive Health

I with respect disagree. Immunity issues – when we become "sterile" fanatic and deny ourselves low risk exposure to build a functioning defence against infection and desease. I submit instead to invest in the care and upkeep of our homes to lessen concerns and ward-off the minimal risk of such issues. There are a variety of contaminants that are fixed conditions of thhe human experience. Allowing excusing them to become equal obsession is counter to wellbeing and healthy living. The thinking provokes the image of poor sanitation and inability to maintain even the lowest degree of responsible personsl care. Complacency is not proactive care. I have multiple chronic disorders and require a service dog to assist me daily with life's functionality. This requirement causes be need my close proximity of her 24/7/365 and her tasks require her to access these and other surfaces in our home and parts of my anatomy to provide this aide. 30 years of this requirement and three helper teammates later their benefit outweighed any small chance or concern over minimal exposure risk. My service dog licks my hands legs and face at time, in those tasks. It is more prudent to maintain the wellness and health care of both our lives which entails cleanliness of person / animal and environment to endure defence against potential risk. I do not say "pets" should be table settings or counter suffering adrenalin junkies, merley that over reasoning can be as harmful to heath as worry is to stress. If one choses to share home and life with pets the environment must in fact accomodate the neeeds and understanding of our companion animals primal habits and have the capacity to adapt the environment to their needs as well.

We can and do contaminate their environment using your model of thought. Spreading (germs) on towels we wipe our hands on that they may lie upon or encounter, with us.cnairs we sit on when unwell or wearing medical devices for disorders (like bowel function) everywhere we walk, eat sit lay on or touch – they are at equal risk of infection from us. The circle of cross contamination is there. ( like sharing the home with a sick child) All things being equal being "good to our pets" entails established responsible living protocols to protect both and accept the fact we ourselves are "dirty" . Exposures (even accidental over compensation or percaution) ca not deny this. It works both ways we spread Invisable bacterial matter in a snezeze or when using washroom (facilities) or eggres or exiting of a room from one environment to another. We lie in bed and exposure risk lies with us. Bacteria is part of the living condition for both. It is unavoidable and served as an early warning system to activate immune response and defence.
Why weakening the frontline of its designed benefit escaped me. There is a better and more substantial risk of posioning in food preparation on counters, use of toiletries and personal aides….towels, ect,… Our hands and our animal paws need washing or covering also to minimize exposure risk as any other potential to them or ourselves in navigating the environment we share with them (subject them to by captivity / ownership) The same exposure prevention for them from us (Invisable and) predictable by observable risks. Walking from the washroom to any environment compounds the risk. It is that "simple" Pointing a finger at pets potential to infect by hidden dangers is an excuse to deny we live with risk greater or self imposed daily on our immune system and are the better for it.

Note: Fecal transplants are saving lives as modren medical research transends the human animal barrier., in vital immune balance reasearch crossing specie barriers. Dogs eat feces for mineral extraction mitigation. (Think grass eating for self care – primal apocatherapudion) using nature as a pharmacy to heal or remedy. Biologic need to balance immunity response and maintain microbiome flora for health benefits realized.

We have an arsenal in place biologically to mount an effective defence against "minimal" risk, through that very immune system. Should it be compromised to a point of pathogenic dangers in association with co habitation then the arrangement is counter productive in sharing the environment for both. If such Low immune tolerance in ourselves minimally put them at unfair disatvange to potential risk through exposure in a closed environment where these conditions prevale regardless of concerns to affect change. You have risk as part of life. I would rather err on the side of living the best quality of life and hope for betterment of health in excersize, nutrition, stress reduction (interaction with "pets") methodologies, proper rest and adherence to medical protocols in therapy and treatment for/of self through practitioner card and intervention and education/ knowledge/ awareness of ourselves and our environment, pets included.

I do not post this as argumentative or opposition to personal feeling but, to offer my expereinces and thoughts along my journey in life with my Service Dougs and a compromised immune system in chronic illness. I humbly ask you view this writing in the intended light. Just, my thoughts. There is always the delete button.

May 10, 2018 · Complications with Statins in Heart & Blood Health

mx.google.com rejected your message to the following email addresses:
sammie.elizabeth@Gmail.com

Your message couldn't be delivered because the recipient's email server (outside Office 365) suspected that your message was spam. To fix this, try to modify your message, or change how you're sending the message, using the guidance in this article: E-mailing Best Practices for Senders. Then resend your message. If you continue to experience the problem, contact the recipient by some other means (by phone, for example) and ask them to ask their email admin to add your email address or your domain name (the text after the "@" symbol in your email address) to their allowed senders list. For Email Admins
When Office 365 tried to send the message to the next email server outside of Office 365 the external email server returned the error below. This indicates the recipient's email server (or their email filtering service) suspected the sender's message is spam. If the sender isn't able to fix the problem by modifying their message then contact the recipient's email admin and ask them to add your domain name, or the sender's email address, to their list of allowed senders.While the sender may be able to alter the message contents to fix this, it's likely that only the recipient's email admin can fix this problem. Unfortunately, Office 365 support is unlikely to be able to help fix these kinds of externally reported errors.

mx.google.com gave this error:

Remote server returned message detected as spam -> 550 5.7.1 [40.92.8.104 7] Our system has detected that this message is;likely unsolicited mail. To reduce the amount of spam sent to Gmail,;this message has been blocked. Please visit; https://support.google.com/mail/?p=UnsolicitedMessageError; for more information. a1-v6si233298pls.523 – gsmtp

Diagnostic information for administrators:
Generating server: CO1NAM03HT140.mail.protection.outlook.com

sammie.elizabeth@Gmail.com

mx.google.com

Remote Server returned '550 5.7.350 Remote server returned message detected as spam -> 550 5.7.1 [40.92.8.104 7] Our system has detected that this message is;likely unsolicited mail. To reduce the amount of spam sent to Gmail,;this message has been blocked. Please visit; https://support.google.com/mail/?p=UnsolicitedMessageError; for more information. a1-v6si233298pls.523 – gsmtp'

Original message headers:
Received: from CO1NAM03FT061.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com
(10.152.80.60) by CO1NAM03HT140.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com
(10.152.80.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.735.16; Thu, 10
May 2018 08:01:47 +0000
Received: from CY4PR16MB1527.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (10.152.80.57) by
CO1NAM03FT061.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.81.47) with Microsoft SMTP
Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id
15.20.735.16 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 10 May 2018 08:01:47 +0000
Received: from CY4PR16MB1527.namprd16.prod.outlook.com ([::1]) by
CY4PR16MB1527.namprd16.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8dde:f06f:f94d:e864%18]) with
Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.20.0755.012; Thu, 10 May 2018 08:01:47 +0000