Message from @J҉o҉k҉e҉r҉

Discord ID: 621731032034705428


2019-09-12 15:33:42 UTC  

they will know

2019-09-12 15:34:06 UTC  

id's da benis

2019-09-12 15:34:16 UTC  

But what's a benis tho

2019-09-12 15:34:32 UTC  

Hmm

2019-09-12 15:35:43 UTC  

>>mute xxxjxxx#0576

2019-09-12 15:35:44 UTC  

<:vError:390229421228949504> Please include at least one user to mute (@mention or ID)!

2019-09-12 15:35:52 UTC  

>>mute @xxxjxxx

2019-09-12 15:35:52 UTC  

<:vSuccess:390202497827864597> Successfully muted **xxxjxxx**#0576

2019-09-12 15:35:59 UTC  

@everyone what's a benis?

2019-09-12 15:36:08 UTC  

I'm looking for answers for homework

2019-09-12 15:36:09 UTC  

I love how the second study he linked literally says this
`Very few studies investigated IGF and IGFBP levels in relation to progression of prostate
cancer.`
@kino

2019-09-12 15:36:11 UTC  

Oh

2019-09-12 15:36:14 UTC  

I'm back

2019-09-12 15:36:18 UTC  

Dude

2019-09-12 15:36:21 UTC  

I got evidence

2019-09-12 15:36:25 UTC  

That the earth

2019-09-12 15:36:30 UTC  

Is a triangle

2019-09-12 15:36:51 UTC  

no trolling

2019-09-12 15:36:57 UTC  

<#484513575801454593>

2019-09-12 15:37:00 UTC  

Is the earth a donut?

2019-09-12 15:37:09 UTC  

Nom 🍩

2019-09-12 15:37:12 UTC  

A donut?

2019-09-12 15:37:26 UTC  

Yum

2019-09-12 15:37:31 UTC  

Na na

2019-09-12 15:37:35 UTC  

The earth

2019-09-12 15:37:43 UTC  

2019-09-12 15:37:45 UTC  

Ohb

2019-09-12 15:37:47 UTC  

Uhh

2019-09-12 15:37:56 UTC  

Yes?

2019-09-12 15:37:58 UTC  

The earth is a huge gaping kitty

2019-09-12 15:38:06 UTC  

and another says this
`Even though we observed a modest increase in risk of prostate cancer associated with higher
levels of IGF-I, and a slight reduced risk with higher levels of IGFBP-3, neither of these
peptides are likely to be useful as additional measurements in prostate cancer PSA
screening. The strength of the associations are too weak to have any value as a screening
test, because at these odds ratios, the detection rate (sensitivity) is less than 8% for a 95%
specificity (5% false positive rate) [3;74]. This issue has been investigated by Oliver et al.
who found no evidence that measures of IGFs or IGFBPs enhanced the specificity of
prostate cancer detection beyond that achievable by the currently used free/total PSA index
[75]. Future research should be aimed at clarifying the associations of IGF-II, IGFBP-2 and
IGFBP3 with prostate cancer, in large prospective studies`
@kino
I repeat *higher* levels
even then his cited studies dont back him. Read paper before you cite a child could debunk them

2019-09-12 15:38:10 UTC  

Waiting to be feed a hotdog

2019-09-12 15:38:40 UTC  

I think earth is a woman just wanting to spread it's legs

2019-09-12 15:38:42 UTC  

Hmm i see

2019-09-12 15:39:33 UTC  

Tfw ecosexuals dominate the chat

2019-09-12 15:39:46 UTC  

Wut

2019-09-12 15:39:50 UTC  

Hmm

2019-09-12 15:39:52 UTC  

@SiliconBassist the chat is dead asf

2019-09-12 15:39:55 UTC  

Smh

2019-09-12 15:40:17 UTC  

@everyone talk or Hitler comes back

2019-09-12 15:40:25 UTC  

aw the I AM guy is gone