I'll definitely supplement. I just meant adding. Since I titrate a few things already. I found a process on how to extract the oil already. I would assume the oil is close to 100% after extraction. But to confirm how does one test something like that? Any idea?

I will be ordering an extract and cutting it with coconut oil until it's at my tolerance level and then include (R)ALA in my diet, as well as continue my carnitine. I mean I will to to do what it takes and I don't mind the discomfort during the day. It's when it's 3am and I'm bouncing my foot and tying knots around my toe to help with the pain just to sleep. It's rather annoying.

Well this is oddly something I should consider. I take carnitine already for another reason. 1-3g per day.

Ala is probably one of the few things I seriously do not get enough of.

So I do have one other hope here. I noticed the study was with 8%. All of the OTC patches are .025. But some say they burn. Study didn't mention a burn. The study also appears to be branded. Is that the same capsaicin? I have located oils and extracts but still even pure extracts seem under 1%.

So is the study the same stuff?

I ..I ..... Might love you.

I've changed my entire life and improved my fitness. With one damn problem. I have nerve pain in my left foot. I'm in reasonable shape and even do barefoot running on the beach at times. But currently. I'm up tapping my foot trying to shake the pain away. I'll be making my own patches if I can't find any with a similar percentage. If this works..... It would be incredible. I've been trying to fight and hide this for a year and a half now. 80lbs down. Major improvements. But not on the damn foot.

Arrows don't pull themselves back

You'll be waiting a long time. They will just give another name to a position involving work ethic.

Odd question. Can amorphous ice become normal ice under any circumstance without becoming liquid first?

I think we would be more or less agreeing and our misunderstanding is the term fake news. Their definition of fake news is subjective and opinionated. Which means they are using the terms incorrectly. That's more of an understanding and education issue.

I apologize I have not followed the story closely enough. If I could probe questions I could give a better idea of my personal perspective.

I understand on these topics there is more than one point of view and more than one agenda.

What are the claims on why it's preventing people from voting?

As for the rise. It's only logical with greater access to transportation, greater advancement in technology and the world that more people percentage wise would vote. Population is still on the rise for the age group to vote. So the number should be up. I'm not sure how far up the numbers are and how far down the claims are.

What I'd assume with my ignorance of the sides.

Laws made things more difficult and removed the ability for some to vote. Yet there was still a higher turnout.

This could be a simple, more people care thing. People could be trying harder. But I have to admit I'm an idiot in this area. I try to stay away from politics as I believe both sides have serious flaws.

Are you asking if you can have subjective opinion and different perspectives? I mean of course. That's what makes articles worth while for humans to read and write. If not, it's a debate which makes it very hard to make all of your points without interjections.

For example a bridge might not be a good idea for nature or residents. But it may be essential for millions of people in other cities to live. Neither side is inaccurate. You just can't use false information.

False is inaccurate with no factual basis.

Out of context words

Misused quotes

Bad numbers

There is always margin for error or human mistake. But you can understand the difference of a misspelled name vs a person claiming someone stated something and they weren't involved.

I don't know why this seems difficult to understand.

If the contents within the article are not accurate it's fake news.