fwiw, the window was only open for about an hour this morning and i
don't currently plan to re-open it. we'll have to see, but right now it
seems like it's ok....
this editing process was slowed down by a number of weird factors, but i should be back to posting within an hour or so. i just need to call my gp to book an appointment, presumably with an urologist.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
i'm a big advocate of tort law. and, i think that the solution to
smokers rights v. non-smokers rights lies in shifting the burden to the
smokers, themselves.
so, while i'm not really an advocate of laws that ban smoking, i am an advocate of adopting a "polluter-pays" approach to dealing with the externalities related to cigarette smoking. remember: i live in canada. so, i can support high taxes for cigarettes, but only under the argument that the money goes towards health care. what i'm talking about right now, though, is the question of what is to be done about tenant smoking, and finding ways to balance tenant rights for smokers and non-smokers.
i would both argue that smokers have the right to smoke and argue that non-smokers have the right to not smoke. the novel part of my argument is that i would argue that non-smokers should have the ability to hold smokers liable for costs incurred in smoke-proofing their buildings. for the practical example in front of me, i would argue that the smokers in the building should be held liable for the heating and electrical costs incurred as a consequence of me opening the window to neutralize their habits. if a cost is placed on their pollution, perhaps they'd think twice about causing these externalities.
so, while i'm not really an advocate of laws that ban smoking, i am an advocate of adopting a "polluter-pays" approach to dealing with the externalities related to cigarette smoking. remember: i live in canada. so, i can support high taxes for cigarettes, but only under the argument that the money goes towards health care. what i'm talking about right now, though, is the question of what is to be done about tenant smoking, and finding ways to balance tenant rights for smokers and non-smokers.
i would both argue that smokers have the right to smoke and argue that non-smokers have the right to not smoke. the novel part of my argument is that i would argue that non-smokers should have the ability to hold smokers liable for costs incurred in smoke-proofing their buildings. for the practical example in front of me, i would argue that the smokers in the building should be held liable for the heating and electrical costs incurred as a consequence of me opening the window to neutralize their habits. if a cost is placed on their pollution, perhaps they'd think twice about causing these externalities.
so, i woke up to a different smell today: cyanide & carbon monoxide. that is, the smell of cigarette smoke.
that's a smell i know well. it's dankness - the way it falls over everything like a blanket. you simply can't address this without opening the windows and letting the room air out.
i'm actually not sure if the tenant directly above me smokes or not. i think he might be a secret smoker from time to time, which is why this comes and goes. i think that the other tenant on the main floor does. the tenants two floors up are very heavy smokers and you can smell it when you walk in the front door but it doesn't usually bug me down in the basement.
this isn't the first time i've noticed this, but i don't think it's been this bad before; or, perhaps, my smell is better now than it has been since i've moved here. but, i didn't quit smoking just to deal with the second-hand smoke from upstairs. so, i'm not backing down on this point: the windows will remain open (with the heat up...) until the smell clears out.
and, the answer is to stop smoking inside.
that's a smell i know well. it's dankness - the way it falls over everything like a blanket. you simply can't address this without opening the windows and letting the room air out.
i'm actually not sure if the tenant directly above me smokes or not. i think he might be a secret smoker from time to time, which is why this comes and goes. i think that the other tenant on the main floor does. the tenants two floors up are very heavy smokers and you can smell it when you walk in the front door but it doesn't usually bug me down in the basement.
this isn't the first time i've noticed this, but i don't think it's been this bad before; or, perhaps, my smell is better now than it has been since i've moved here. but, i didn't quit smoking just to deal with the second-hand smoke from upstairs. so, i'm not backing down on this point: the windows will remain open (with the heat up...) until the smell clears out.
and, the answer is to stop smoking inside.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Monday, January 23, 2017
i crashed hard this afternoon after yet another absurd day down here...
as mentioned here repeatedly, the situation has been clearing up over the weekend, although not decisively. and, while the smell seems to be gone now, it may take a while for the apartment to clear out completely and me to get my head back. i remain oozy, but am a little better than yesterday (which was a little better than the day before). i am convinced that something was fixed, at least, and believe it was a consequence of my tactics to draw attention to the issue. if the issue reappears, i will not hesitate to repeat.
but, what happened? i glossed over this in the vlog, but i'll be more detailed, here.
there was rattling upstairs on friday afternoon. the smell became noticeable on saturday morning; the headache hit before noon, and i fell asleep. i opened the windows on saturday night and actually mostly left the heat off (except when i was up to eat). the initial goal was to try and get him to turn the heat back on upstairs; given that i believed that the cause of the leak was turning the heat off the other day, getting him to turn it back on would at least put him face to face with the device, and have him see if he damaged anything. i sent the email out on sunday, which explicitly pointed to the likelihood that something was knocked loose on friday. it was not until monday morning that i gave up hope on him turning his heat back on, and turned mine up to 30.
late on monday morning, i heard another rattling upstairs followed by the liberal use of a spray bottle. about an hour later, a "gas inspector" that looked a lot like the new property owner showed up in construction gear. he walked around a little and concluded there was no sign of a gas leak, but agreed, when pressed, that the fact that i've had the windows open for several days would make it hard to get a good reading.
i gave the guy upstairs a chance to be honest, but i didn't expect that he'd take it. in the few years that i've been here, i've experienced nothing but dishonesty from him. he wouldn't admit to why he wanted to let dogs down here, for example. and, his own brother has asked me to not give him checks because he, himself, doesn't trust him. if your own brother does not trust you at 60-some years, there must be a serious problem, right?
but, i've been clear - repeatedly - that i do not think that he can be held legally liable and ultimately elevate responsibility elsewhere. the way you want to think of it is like this: suppose you told a six year-old that you think he accidentally broke the furnace. six is maybe a tad young, but you get the point. if that six year-old is home alone, and you told them this over email or phone, what would the six year-old do? well, first, it would check to see if it could fix the situation, and then it would destroy any evidence (such as spraying the area - and i don't actually know if febreeze would mask natural gas). then, it would deny culpability in any way possible by blaming others or making things up. if you asked the six year old directly, the six year old would lie. if eventually caught, the six year old would admit that the reason it lied was that it didn't want to get in trouble.
now, this might seem a little outlandish, but the evidence i've gathered around me has led me to conclude that this is the psychology in front of me. i've been operating this way for quite a while, now. i mean, you might ask the reasonable question: if you think there's a gas leak upstairs, why not just knock on the door? and, the answer is that the person that opens the door is incapable of dealing with the situation in an honest or adult manner, and needs to be directed from outside.
the reason that i glossed over this is that - given the situation, more broadly - it doesn't matter. i need to do what i did to get a reaction. and, i got the reaction i wanted. hopefully, the experience is enough to act as incentive for everybody to be more careful with the furnace.
as mentioned, the gas guy looked a whole lot like the property owner. again: i didn't ask questions (except when i did, and he shuffled nervously). i mean, if he were to go to the absurd point of putting on construction gear to try and convince me of something...
he admitted his device couldn't pick much up in context, and instead tried to blame the smell on the baseboards. i guess the solution is another furnace, right? lol. i set this up to demonstrate that this idea does not make sense. but, i wanted an analysis, and not an argument, so i just let him walk out.
as mentioned: the smell (which, as has been the case previously, was localized in the bathroom) has lifted. they did something. they might not be telling me what they did. but, i got them to do it. and, hopefully the threat of expenses will have them behave more carefully in the future.
i'm going to get something to eat. the vlogs should be done rendering by then. and i should be back at it when the sun comes back up.
as mentioned here repeatedly, the situation has been clearing up over the weekend, although not decisively. and, while the smell seems to be gone now, it may take a while for the apartment to clear out completely and me to get my head back. i remain oozy, but am a little better than yesterday (which was a little better than the day before). i am convinced that something was fixed, at least, and believe it was a consequence of my tactics to draw attention to the issue. if the issue reappears, i will not hesitate to repeat.
but, what happened? i glossed over this in the vlog, but i'll be more detailed, here.
there was rattling upstairs on friday afternoon. the smell became noticeable on saturday morning; the headache hit before noon, and i fell asleep. i opened the windows on saturday night and actually mostly left the heat off (except when i was up to eat). the initial goal was to try and get him to turn the heat back on upstairs; given that i believed that the cause of the leak was turning the heat off the other day, getting him to turn it back on would at least put him face to face with the device, and have him see if he damaged anything. i sent the email out on sunday, which explicitly pointed to the likelihood that something was knocked loose on friday. it was not until monday morning that i gave up hope on him turning his heat back on, and turned mine up to 30.
late on monday morning, i heard another rattling upstairs followed by the liberal use of a spray bottle. about an hour later, a "gas inspector" that looked a lot like the new property owner showed up in construction gear. he walked around a little and concluded there was no sign of a gas leak, but agreed, when pressed, that the fact that i've had the windows open for several days would make it hard to get a good reading.
i gave the guy upstairs a chance to be honest, but i didn't expect that he'd take it. in the few years that i've been here, i've experienced nothing but dishonesty from him. he wouldn't admit to why he wanted to let dogs down here, for example. and, his own brother has asked me to not give him checks because he, himself, doesn't trust him. if your own brother does not trust you at 60-some years, there must be a serious problem, right?
but, i've been clear - repeatedly - that i do not think that he can be held legally liable and ultimately elevate responsibility elsewhere. the way you want to think of it is like this: suppose you told a six year-old that you think he accidentally broke the furnace. six is maybe a tad young, but you get the point. if that six year-old is home alone, and you told them this over email or phone, what would the six year-old do? well, first, it would check to see if it could fix the situation, and then it would destroy any evidence (such as spraying the area - and i don't actually know if febreeze would mask natural gas). then, it would deny culpability in any way possible by blaming others or making things up. if you asked the six year old directly, the six year old would lie. if eventually caught, the six year old would admit that the reason it lied was that it didn't want to get in trouble.
now, this might seem a little outlandish, but the evidence i've gathered around me has led me to conclude that this is the psychology in front of me. i've been operating this way for quite a while, now. i mean, you might ask the reasonable question: if you think there's a gas leak upstairs, why not just knock on the door? and, the answer is that the person that opens the door is incapable of dealing with the situation in an honest or adult manner, and needs to be directed from outside.
the reason that i glossed over this is that - given the situation, more broadly - it doesn't matter. i need to do what i did to get a reaction. and, i got the reaction i wanted. hopefully, the experience is enough to act as incentive for everybody to be more careful with the furnace.
as mentioned, the gas guy looked a whole lot like the property owner. again: i didn't ask questions (except when i did, and he shuffled nervously). i mean, if he were to go to the absurd point of putting on construction gear to try and convince me of something...
he admitted his device couldn't pick much up in context, and instead tried to blame the smell on the baseboards. i guess the solution is another furnace, right? lol. i set this up to demonstrate that this idea does not make sense. but, i wanted an analysis, and not an argument, so i just let him walk out.
as mentioned: the smell (which, as has been the case previously, was localized in the bathroom) has lifted. they did something. they might not be telling me what they did. but, i got them to do it. and, hopefully the threat of expenses will have them behave more carefully in the future.
i'm going to get something to eat. the vlogs should be done rendering by then. and i should be back at it when the sun comes back up.
i'm a lot better right now, but i'm also apparently unable to close
the windows without getting woozy. the stench continues. with the heat
set to 30, it's a decent balance, for now.
again: i've pointed this out to the old property owner several times and i'm not getting a real answer. he's going to have to wait until his gas bill shows up to learn, i guess - along with his electrical bill, which is heating a basement with the windows wide open because the gas is leaking.
who am i kidding. he'll blame it on the windmills in northern ontario and demand a tax cut. i'm going to have to call the new property owners over the next few days; the landlord is useless, and i'm not going to even bother, i'll just leapfrog him right off.
anyways. i spent the morning finishing the editing up until jan 20th (inclusive), which means vlogs are done until the tenth of february. they're rendering, right now. i'll start uploading when i close the virtual machine when they're done rendering...
so, the last 48 hours were not a total waste. but i really hope i can get a head start on the rest of the week this morning.
again: i've pointed this out to the old property owner several times and i'm not getting a real answer. he's going to have to wait until his gas bill shows up to learn, i guess - along with his electrical bill, which is heating a basement with the windows wide open because the gas is leaking.
who am i kidding. he'll blame it on the windmills in northern ontario and demand a tax cut. i'm going to have to call the new property owners over the next few days; the landlord is useless, and i'm not going to even bother, i'll just leapfrog him right off.
anyways. i spent the morning finishing the editing up until jan 20th (inclusive), which means vlogs are done until the tenth of february. they're rendering, right now. i'll start uploading when i close the virtual machine when they're done rendering...
so, the last 48 hours were not a total waste. but i really hope i can get a head start on the rest of the week this morning.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
windows are still open, and i'm noticing the same basic cause & effect as i have previously: the headache gets a lot better if i stand beside the window for a few minutes, even if it comes back afterwards.
methane - which is my concern, not carbon monoxide - is not a poison. it can't actually hurt you, in low concentrations. what it does is smother you, so you can't breathe. but, i'm obviously getting enough oxygen. so, if i'm right about what's happening, the headaches i'm getting from the methane are basically the same thing as getting woozy after climbing a mountain: i'm just experiencing low oxygen. there aren't long term side effects, or at least won't be if the exposure is kept minimal. it's just irritating.
i'm going to try and get back to work for a few hours. i don't promise much.
methane - which is my concern, not carbon monoxide - is not a poison. it can't actually hurt you, in low concentrations. what it does is smother you, so you can't breathe. but, i'm obviously getting enough oxygen. so, if i'm right about what's happening, the headaches i'm getting from the methane are basically the same thing as getting woozy after climbing a mountain: i'm just experiencing low oxygen. there aren't long term side effects, or at least won't be if the exposure is kept minimal. it's just irritating.
i'm going to try and get back to work for a few hours. i don't promise much.
i had a mild headache yesterday morning, so i stopped at about 11:00 am to lie down for a few minutes. i wasn't planning on sleeping...
i woke up in the afternoon with a brutal, splitting headache complete with blurred vision and "aura": a textbook migraine.
i didn't have a history of these up until last year, but that's more than twice, now. but, the thing is that it seems to be correlated with the tenant upstairs turning the gas off...
i remain convinced that there is a gas leak in the basement, and that there's not a lot i can do besides open the window (as an incentive to action...) until the property owner fixes it.
the headache persists. it got a little better around midnight, but it's back - with aura. i don't expect to get anything done today.
so, i'm doing a little bit of vlog editing, instead.
i woke up in the afternoon with a brutal, splitting headache complete with blurred vision and "aura": a textbook migraine.
i didn't have a history of these up until last year, but that's more than twice, now. but, the thing is that it seems to be correlated with the tenant upstairs turning the gas off...
i remain convinced that there is a gas leak in the basement, and that there's not a lot i can do besides open the window (as an incentive to action...) until the property owner fixes it.
the headache persists. it got a little better around midnight, but it's back - with aura. i don't expect to get anything done today.
so, i'm doing a little bit of vlog editing, instead.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Thursday, January 19, 2017
i just split three days up into little pieces and, in the end, ended up back where i was to begin with. i guess i needed to catch up on the sleep. i was up on the 17th about 17:00, and ended up awake on the 19th at about the same time after sleeping for most of the day (in fact most of the last 24 hours). so, i'm cycled back around and ready to pick up where i left off.
but i need to pick up the pace...
i need to eat, first. and then i need to have a productive night.
but i need to pick up the pace...
i need to eat, first. and then i need to have a productive night.
also, in the long run i'll need to keep an eye on my cholesterol. but, it's currently actually pretty outstanding.
i've been over this: my diet seems terrible, until you realize that i don't eat very much and i walk a lot.....
these numbers are real. and attainable. note: both of my parents have/had high cholesterol. my dad actually had several life-threatening cardiovascular episodes before brain cancer got him, and his father died of heart disease. if this were a purely genetic concern, i'd be in a lot of trouble. and yet look at these numbers....
chol: 3.69 mmol/L = 66.42 mg/dl. this is actually lower than the normal range (3.8-5.2). i also have low blood pressure....
tg: 0.88 mmol/L = 15.84 mg/dl. lower end of normal range (0.6-1.7).
hdl: 1.37 mmol/L = 24.66 mg/dl. this is pretty much in the middle of the normal range (1.00-1.80). higher hdl is preferable (apparently, above 1.6). but, i have to keep in mind that i'm low, overall. the way you measure a situation like this is to look at a ratio, and while it's not on the print-out, google confirms my logic. my ratio is 2.69; under 3.5 suggests i'm at low risk for heart disease.
ldl: 1.92 mmol/L = 34.56 mg/dl. this is also lower than normal (2.0-2.6), but again you have to keep in mind that the total is low. the important ratio here is ldl/hdl, which is 1.4. that again suggests very low risk - around half of the average risk, it turns out.
non-hdl chol: 2.32 mmol/L = 41.76 mg/dl. this measure is just a difference between total cholesterol and good cholesterol; it's the amount of cholesterol that is not good cholesterol. apparently, i want to keep the difference between non-hdl and ldl less than 30 mg/dl. well, i'm at 7.2.
i have to keep an eye on this because i should be at high risk. but, my lifestyle is very different than either of my parents, and the effects of that are showing pretty clearly.
i've been over this: my diet seems terrible, until you realize that i don't eat very much and i walk a lot.....
these numbers are real. and attainable. note: both of my parents have/had high cholesterol. my dad actually had several life-threatening cardiovascular episodes before brain cancer got him, and his father died of heart disease. if this were a purely genetic concern, i'd be in a lot of trouble. and yet look at these numbers....
chol: 3.69 mmol/L = 66.42 mg/dl. this is actually lower than the normal range (3.8-5.2). i also have low blood pressure....
tg: 0.88 mmol/L = 15.84 mg/dl. lower end of normal range (0.6-1.7).
hdl: 1.37 mmol/L = 24.66 mg/dl. this is pretty much in the middle of the normal range (1.00-1.80). higher hdl is preferable (apparently, above 1.6). but, i have to keep in mind that i'm low, overall. the way you measure a situation like this is to look at a ratio, and while it's not on the print-out, google confirms my logic. my ratio is 2.69; under 3.5 suggests i'm at low risk for heart disease.
ldl: 1.92 mmol/L = 34.56 mg/dl. this is also lower than normal (2.0-2.6), but again you have to keep in mind that the total is low. the important ratio here is ldl/hdl, which is 1.4. that again suggests very low risk - around half of the average risk, it turns out.
non-hdl chol: 2.32 mmol/L = 41.76 mg/dl. this measure is just a difference between total cholesterol and good cholesterol; it's the amount of cholesterol that is not good cholesterol. apparently, i want to keep the difference between non-hdl and ldl less than 30 mg/dl. well, i'm at 7.2.
i have to keep an eye on this because i should be at high risk. but, my lifestyle is very different than either of my parents, and the effects of that are showing pretty clearly.
ok. umm...
i was vaccinated.
the doctor is...he's got a lot of work to do....this is why i asked for the print-out...
the blood test results indicate i'm positive for anti-hbs. that means i'm immune. given that i also have immunity to hep A, i must have gotten twinrix at some point.
the test that the lab requested is to determine if i may have defeated it naturally and become a "chronic carrier". note that a "chronic carrier" is not the same thing as a "chronic infection". whether i misunderstood or he misspoke is less important than getting it right...but i think he read the information too briskly and misspoke, leading me to a false understanding...
when i said today that i should wait until march because there's a temporal component and i wouldn't learn anything from an immediate test, he nodded and said something about a graph and appeared to be struggling to remember something he hadn't thought about since college. google is so remarkably useful. he was no doubt thinking about this:
if i had picked up hep b in the blackout, i wouldn't have tested positive for anti-hbs a mere 11 weeks after infection, which is what happened. i must have already had immunity. what he told me had led me to believe that they had picked up lgM anti-HBc which, at 11 weeks, would indicate exposure. that is not the case. this was a miscommunication.
if i wasn't in shock, i would have asked for it in writing in the first place.
doctors are not magicians. it's always a good idea to ask questions, get things in writing and do independent research. i'm not upset because i consider this to be my responsibility, and not his.
but this is cleared up. whatever sickness i had this month, it wasn't hep b. i'm already immune to hep b. and i think it's clear that i'm immune to hep b because i was in fact vaccinated.
i still don't know what happened that night, though.
i was vaccinated.
the doctor is...he's got a lot of work to do....this is why i asked for the print-out...
the blood test results indicate i'm positive for anti-hbs. that means i'm immune. given that i also have immunity to hep A, i must have gotten twinrix at some point.
the test that the lab requested is to determine if i may have defeated it naturally and become a "chronic carrier". note that a "chronic carrier" is not the same thing as a "chronic infection". whether i misunderstood or he misspoke is less important than getting it right...but i think he read the information too briskly and misspoke, leading me to a false understanding...
when i said today that i should wait until march because there's a temporal component and i wouldn't learn anything from an immediate test, he nodded and said something about a graph and appeared to be struggling to remember something he hadn't thought about since college. google is so remarkably useful. he was no doubt thinking about this:
if i had picked up hep b in the blackout, i wouldn't have tested positive for anti-hbs a mere 11 weeks after infection, which is what happened. i must have already had immunity. what he told me had led me to believe that they had picked up lgM anti-HBc which, at 11 weeks, would indicate exposure. that is not the case. this was a miscommunication.
if i wasn't in shock, i would have asked for it in writing in the first place.
doctors are not magicians. it's always a good idea to ask questions, get things in writing and do independent research. i'm not upset because i consider this to be my responsibility, and not his.
but this is cleared up. whatever sickness i had this month, it wasn't hep b. i'm already immune to hep b. and i think it's clear that i'm immune to hep b because i was in fact vaccinated.
i still don't know what happened that night, though.
i woke up sopping wet because i was outside in a torrential downpour. my reconstruction of the last moments of the blackout suggests it's probably why i got in the guy's car. but it means that any relevant evidence got washed off.
there was nothing on my clothes. and, i was bruised, but there was no residue.
i should have inquired around about the existence of an anal rape kit rather than assumed one doesn't exist. i was in a daze and didn't want to deal with it.
there was nothing on my clothes. and, i was bruised, but there was no residue.
i should have inquired around about the existence of an anal rape kit rather than assumed one doesn't exist. i was in a daze and didn't want to deal with it.
"There is no chronic (long- term) infection with hepatitis A. People do not become carriers of the hepatitis A virus."
"Avoid having sex while you're infectious – hepatitis A is most infectious from around two weeks before the symptoms start until about a week after they first develop."
ok. so...if i got hep A in the blackout, the person i got it from would have had to have been exposed recently. and, further, it would have had to have been in an anal-oral transmission. even in the worst blackout scenario, i would have no doubt gagged.
i wish he would have told me that or printed the results out, because the transmission possibilities around hep A really rules out the possibility of a consensual encounter. i was either raped or i was vaccinated. which is more likely?
on the one hand, i think it's pretty low probability to suggest i happen to have been raped by somebody who was in an active transmission stage of hepatitis A in detroit in 2016. this is a third world disease that has a short window for transmission. and, i guess that detroit is in bad shape. but, poverty does not introduce disease, right? the disease has to come from somewhere. this is so unlikely as to rule it out.
unfortunately, however, the low probability of the scenario doesn't rule out all of the other evidence leaning towards a sexual encounter and a disease transmission: waking up with a sore anus and bruises, and then getting sick not once but twice over a long period of lethargy that included a bout of possible jaundice.
of course, it's not impossible that i could have had sex that night and already been vaccinated.
there's nothing i can do except wait. but, i think that the possibility that i got hep A is really so remote that the presence of antibodies is re-opening the potentiality of a vaccination in my mind; i had all but ruled that out once i got sick. and, if i got a hep A vaccination, i would have almost certainly gotten it with a hep B vaccination.
i can't handle being unable to deduce this. that's what upsets me. but, it's just more demonstration of the superiority of empirical epistemology. like i needed one....
"Avoid having sex while you're infectious – hepatitis A is most infectious from around two weeks before the symptoms start until about a week after they first develop."
ok. so...if i got hep A in the blackout, the person i got it from would have had to have been exposed recently. and, further, it would have had to have been in an anal-oral transmission. even in the worst blackout scenario, i would have no doubt gagged.
i wish he would have told me that or printed the results out, because the transmission possibilities around hep A really rules out the possibility of a consensual encounter. i was either raped or i was vaccinated. which is more likely?
on the one hand, i think it's pretty low probability to suggest i happen to have been raped by somebody who was in an active transmission stage of hepatitis A in detroit in 2016. this is a third world disease that has a short window for transmission. and, i guess that detroit is in bad shape. but, poverty does not introduce disease, right? the disease has to come from somewhere. this is so unlikely as to rule it out.
unfortunately, however, the low probability of the scenario doesn't rule out all of the other evidence leaning towards a sexual encounter and a disease transmission: waking up with a sore anus and bruises, and then getting sick not once but twice over a long period of lethargy that included a bout of possible jaundice.
of course, it's not impossible that i could have had sex that night and already been vaccinated.
there's nothing i can do except wait. but, i think that the possibility that i got hep A is really so remote that the presence of antibodies is re-opening the potentiality of a vaccination in my mind; i had all but ruled that out once i got sick. and, if i got a hep A vaccination, i would have almost certainly gotten it with a hep B vaccination.
i can't handle being unable to deduce this. that's what upsets me. but, it's just more demonstration of the superiority of empirical epistemology. like i needed one....
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
i stopped by at the doctor's office today, hoping to get more info on
the urologist referral. no progress. but, i got him to print off my
full blood test results, and it turns out i also picked up hep A.
or, perhaps i got a twinrix vaccine? i went to florida when i was a kid. hrmmn. oddly enough, the presence of hep A antibodies is making me think it's more likely that i was vaccinated.
hep A hits faster. and, i was quite sick about a week after the blackout. it seems a bit quick, though, even for hep A; i thought it was some kind of bacterial infection in my throat, and tied it to a toke at a steve reich concert. could it have been both? apparently, hep A is mostly about anal sex. it felt bacterial. it's gross, but it actually makes sense.
with no memory, it's very hard to say anything.
the fresh air was beneficial; i feel better than i have in weeks. so, hopefully i'm over it. i'm still waiting until early march for the next blood test; results are on the 6th.
or, perhaps i got a twinrix vaccine? i went to florida when i was a kid. hrmmn. oddly enough, the presence of hep A antibodies is making me think it's more likely that i was vaccinated.
hep A hits faster. and, i was quite sick about a week after the blackout. it seems a bit quick, though, even for hep A; i thought it was some kind of bacterial infection in my throat, and tied it to a toke at a steve reich concert. could it have been both? apparently, hep A is mostly about anal sex. it felt bacterial. it's gross, but it actually makes sense.
with no memory, it's very hard to say anything.
the fresh air was beneficial; i feel better than i have in weeks. so, hopefully i'm over it. i'm still waiting until early march for the next blood test; results are on the 6th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)