Lorraine @bainey.bsky.social @bainey

Why AC/DC Still Rocks Nursing Homes There is something powerful about watching a room full of older adults light up when “Highway to Hell” starts playing. In the viral video from Wadsworth, Ohio, seniors move with surprising energy, laughing, dancing, and fully inhabiting the moment. Some lean on walkers or canes, yet the music seems to override physical limitations. This is not just entertainment. It reflects deeper neurological, emotional, and social processes that make familiar rock music especially effective in elder care settings. Much of the impact comes from the way music from youth is stored in the brain. For many residents now in their seventies, eighties, and beyond, AC/DC formed part of the soundtrack of their late teens and early adulthood. Songs from that formative period become tightly linked to personal identity and autobiographical memory. Even when short-term memory fades or dementia progresses, these earlier musical memories often remain relatively intact. Hearing a track like “Highway to Hell” can reopen emotional pathways that everyday conversation no longer reaches, briefly restoring a sense of continuity with a younger, more vigorous self. The music also triggers a clear biochemical response. Upbeat, high-energy rock stimulates the release of dopamine, the neurotransmitter associated with pleasure, motivation, and reward. This chemical shift improves mood, reduces feelings of apathy or mild depression, and creates a temporary sense of vitality. In environments where days can feel repetitive or isolating, that surge of positive affect is more than pleasant—it is restorative. Physical movement follows naturally. The steady, driving beat of classic AC/DC tracks provides a clear rhythmic structure that supports what researchers call rhythmic auditory stimulation. The body tends to entrain to the pulse, making it easier to step, sway, or dance. Even limited movement improves circulation, maintains joint mobility, and strengthens the connection between intention and action. What looks like simple fun is also gentle, motivating exercise that many residents would not initiate on their own. Beyond the individual, the shared experience builds social connection. When an entire group responds to the same song, barriers of age, health, or personality soften. People make eye contact, smile at one another, and participate in a collective moment of joy. In residential care, where loneliness is a persistent risk, these spontaneous gatherings reinforce a sense of belonging and shared humanity. The combination of memory activation, mood elevation, physical engagement, and social bonding explains why rock music from residents’ younger years often succeeds where quieter or unfamiliar music does not. It does not treat the elderly as fragile beings who need only soothing sounds. Instead, it treats them as people who once danced, shouted along with choruses, and felt fully alive—and who can still access that feeling when the right song plays. The result is more than a lively afternoon. It is a reminder that identity, energy, and connection do not disappear with age. Sometimes they only need the right soundtrack to return.

@autcareandshare Sounds like you are both having a fabulous week. How do you both deal with the heat?

@Met4CastUK Thunder just started in Oranmore, Galway.

@CarlowWeather Thunder just started here in Oranmore.

@LadyHaywire @Pebbles316 My friend swears by mayonnaise in her nana sambos.

I am still trapped on the same SSRI I was prescribed at 7 years old because every attempt to come off has resulted in severe, debilitating withdrawal.... At 23 years old, I decided I wanted to come off antidepressants. Despite having been on them virtually my entire life — throughout my childhood and brain development — my doctor tapered me off in just 6 weeks, following the same outdated and dangerous guidance many doctors still use today. What followed was a severe full-body neurological crisis: nonstop physical, cognitive and psychological suffering unlike anything I knew a human being could endure. When I went back to my doctor and told him I was in withdrawal, I was told antidepressant withdrawal “doesn’t exist,” that symptoms of “discontinuation syndrome” are “mild and only last two weeks,” and that what I was experiencing was proof I needed the drugs After months of torturous suffering and countless emergency room visits, I had no choice but to reinstate the antidepressant. But even after reinstating, the neurological damage from the rapid, doctor-directed taper did not go away. That is why the term “withdrawal” is often deeply misleading. For many people, coming off antidepressants can trigger a devastating neurological injury that persists for years. I still do not feel normal. I am intermittently bedridden, and even as I type this, my brain feels like it is on fire. I genuinely do not remember what happiness, love, or emotional connection are supposed to feel like anymore. So much of my cognition, personality, creativity, and ability to access my mind the way I once could feels altered or gone. Some days the suffering becomes so overwhelming that I genuinely do not know how much longer I can continue living in this condition. Today, at 30 years old, I am still on the same medication I was prescribed as a child. I desperately want to come off, but every attempt has caused severe, debilitating withdrawal that has made it physically impossible. #MentalHealthMonth #NobodyToldMe #medicationinjury #HHS #HealingJourney #overmedicalization #SSRI

A masterpiece 🙌🏻 #Powerful

The Human Cost of Failing to Name COVID ‘Airborne’ Pls share widely thetyee.ca/Analysis/2026/…

Here are 5 reasons why I would wear a respirator, if I lived somewhere with a Meningitis B outbreak.

A lot of you are risking your health because of a comforting lie..

CDC had a study on their website early on that 1 in 5 people who got even mild COVID were likely to get long COVID. They never ever mentioned it beyond the website. I started digging deeper in and gathered this medium.com/@covidsafety81…

😂😂

Galway SPCA @GalwaySPCA

7 months ago

This Valentine’s Season if you’re looking for a little symbolic closure and a way to do some genuine good!? Neuter Your Ex For €30, we’ll name a feral cat after your Ex and Neuter them as part of our Trap, Neuter & Release (TNR) programme gspca.ie/blogs/news/sup…

3 12 13 2K 1

@mayodweller @HSELive @roinnslainte @CarrollJennifer Thanks for pointing this out. Where can we find more charts like the one on the right please?

Excellent presentation - please watch and share widely.

Mike Hoerger, PhD MSCR MBA @michael_hoerger

7 months ago

2026 Edition of "COVID-19: Things I have Learned (So Far)." 0:00 Intro 2:07 Transmission Persists 4:55 Morbidity & Mortality Persist 23:07 Psychological Defenses, Politics, & $$$ 29:52 Analogy of Big Tobacco 35:04 Multi-Layered Mitigation 58:00 Practicing Community Care

37 284 714 119K 646

You will be fascinated by this video on the sickness absence *rate* of ***young*** doctors. Covid isn't just about the acute stage of illness, it's about what it does to you afterwards. Thank you for listening and sharing ❤️

The Price of Denial: Early Warnings, Arrogant Dismissal, and the Lingering Cost of COVID's Immune Legacy There have been a recent number of articles framing the immune harm from Covid as a new insight. While I am pleased this has entered the mainstream, I am afraid it is too gracious to the lagging scientific consensus of how covid has been wearing away at our immune responses. Especially given how when I raised this based on T cell phenotypes, I was dismissed and attacked with extreme prejudice. Reframing Covid's immune harm as a new insight rather than a long-fought hypothesis contrary to 'immunity debt' achieves several aims: 1) It deemphasizes the role in propagating false narratives that several individuals had along with choice medical journals. For example, the BMJ extensively platformed Alasdair Munro's claims of the 'immunity debt' hypothesis. When an editor was approached with a proposal for how covid was harming immunity by individuals who had published in the BMJ before and myself, they refused to accept it. 2) It saves face for the individuals who staunchly attacked the hypothesis and dismissed it as a joke. Those people also strongly attacked me, and they would go on to claim that it is my fault such a false and ridiculous narrative of immune harm from covid even existed. These are lay people but also others. 3) it preserves a semblance of credibility for the established sources who previously denied the hypothesis and obfuscated it. 4) It shirks accountability for the duty of discernment, consideration, and equipoise that stewards of information and knowledge, like the BMJ, had to the public. They had access to the hypothesis and rationales previously and chose to trounce on it and dismiss it with extreme prejudice. To me, it highlights how many of the experts were ill-equipped to grasp early immunological changes and project them to their outcomes. This was not just an oversight, it was an editorial choice. The author of the BMJ article, Nick Tsergas, confided that the editors wanted to avoid controversy and drama. They wanted to whitewash its history. What did I do to earn such controversy? Tell the truth before other scientists could see. By the time immune harm manifests there is much damage already done. In the first half of 2020, I noted that SARS-CoV-2 had been shown in preprints to downregulate MHC Class I, overstimulate and kill CD8 T cells, and would likely accumulate harm with reinfections. I noted this even in mild cases and was dismissed by many figures, including Francois Balloux Marc Veldhoen, Zeynep Tufekci, and Antonio bertoletti. They did not dismiss kindly. Bertoletti, a senior professor at Duke NUS would reply under my posts calling me a clown and insulting me constantly. I was a medical student at the time and this behavior seemed inappropriate and offensive, especially considering how I was engaging him with genuine concern when I was discussing T cell death with him in the summer of 2020. By late 2022, I was pointing out that many people, after even mild infections, appeared to have reductions in plasmacytoid dendritic cells and other immune changes without reporting symptoms that would fit the conventional definition of Long COVID. These were not dramatic claims; they were mechanistic observations grounded in emerging data. However, the implications were stark. I had numerous media appearances discussing that immune harm was occurring. This was discussed in The Tyee by Andrew Nikiforuk. thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/… In April 2023, FactCheck.org published a piece that characterized concerns about lasting immune effects from mild infections as exaggerated. They quoted Professor Danny Altmann, who stated there was “no phenotype” resembling immunodeficiency, only “nuanced differences” that did not translate to real-world consequences. The article framed early warnings as misinformation, implying that those raising them were overstating risks. This was not neutral correction; it was authoritative closure of debate. The message was clear: mild infection left no meaningful immune scar outside severe disease or formally diagnosed Long COVID. Discussion effectively ended there for many. factcheck.org/2023/04/sciche… Where did factcheck find the authority to promise that no such immune harm was occurring? Did they truly seek to understand what the consequences of broad t cell activation, differentiation, and death would manifest in? The dismissal was reckless and arrogant. And now proven wrong. The personal cost for telling the truth when people were actually concerned about covid was immediate and lasting. I was tagged in threads alongside senior immunologists who dismissed the ideas outright, accused (implicitly or explicitly) of fearmongering or misinterpreting preliminary data. These characterizations spread quickly on social media, embedding themselves in timelines and memories. People lied about me. Zeynep and Jeremy Kamil said that I had paid for my own PhD, when it was actually paid directly by the National Cancer Institute for my discovery of a linked mechanism of T cell death and differentiation. Years later, a search of my name still surfaces echoes of those accusations, unaccompanied by context or correction. Professional relationships cooled; invitations to collaborate quietly dried up. I lost a fellowship offer at the National Cancer Institute as Tom Misteli, the head of NCI research, wrote how, "I needed to learn what I can and can not say." The energy spent defending basic mechanistic possibilities was energy not spent on research or clinical work. It was isolating, and it was unnecessary. This manifested into something remarkably shocking and completely unprecedented in scientific literature. My two greatest and most eminent antithetical-fans teamed up and published an article mocking my twitter handle, saying that mild breakthrough infections correlated with 'fit and happy' t cells. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/im… It was shared across social media with an interpretation to mock my claim that T cells were harmed. People that mocked me cheered, like the Harvard professor Mark Davis, along with zeynep saying that it was a good rebuttal to 'looney twitter-only claims.' On Indie Sage, Christina Pagel did not disagree with the scientific content but expressed disappointment at the devolution of my interlocutors, that she was not a fan of shaming and mocking no matter how outlandish my claims were. She was wrong on both counts. Their mockery is now a testament to their ignorance and the devolution. This is not something they can retract, only deny publicly. When it occurred I reached out to the editor and he asked me if I would like to reply about the scientific content. I wanted to, but, on advice of a friend who was mortified at the conduct of the individuals and the journal itself, asked for an investigation of bullying from professors. The journal concluded the investigation saying that only my followers would know that I was the one being referenced, so were under no fault or obligation to amend the title. They retracted the offer for my response. (I included this saga and the emails to Nick and the BMJ. They chose not to include it.) I continued to watch the literature. The signals did not vanish: persistent T-cell alterations, exhausted phenotypes, subtle shifts in innate compartments. These were not the province of fringe voices; they appeared in mainstream journals, yet the narrative remained that mild infection was immunologically inconsequential for most. The possibility that repeated or even single mild infections could erode immune resilience was treated as speculative at best, irresponsible at worst. I paid a price for insisting otherwise, not in fame or notoriety, but in the quieter currency of reputation and peace of mind. Now, in early 2026, the conversation has shifted. A recent Daily Mail article discusses widespread reports of people “getting sicker more often,” with doctors noting struggling immune defences against routine bugs. The piece quotes Danny Altmann again, this time describing the hypothesis of lasting immune harm from mild COVID as “reasonable.” The idea is presented as fresh and worthy of consideration. There is no mention of the earlier certainty that no such phenotype existed, no acknowledgement that some of us were attacked for articulating precisely this possibility years ago. The system lacks both memory and foresight. The absence of reckoning is striking. Those who confidently declared “no phenotype” now entertain the same hypothesis without reference to prior denial. No correction, no apology, no credit to those who endured the backlash. This is not personal grievance alone; it reflects a broader pattern in science where consensus resists challenge until the evidence becomes overwhelming, then absorbs the insight as if it were always obvious. History is replete with such examples (Semmelweis, Warren and Marshall), yet we seem incapable of learning the lesson. The societal toll compounds the individual one. Delayed acceptance meant delayed mitigation: fewer precautions against reinfection, less urgency in studying immune reconstitution, slower recognition that population-level immune dysregulation might follow waves of mild cases. Excess respiratory illness, rising cancer concerns, unexplained reactivations. These are not abstract. They represent preventable burden born of a refusal to countenance uncomfortable possibilities when they were first raised. Vindication, when it arrives quietly and without acknowledgement, is a hollow reward. The smears linger longer than the evidence ever did. Yet the deeper failure is not personal. It is the persistent hubris that treats early, mechanistic warnings as threats rather than contributions. Until we cultivate the humility to listen when the data are still emerging, rather than demanding certainty before engagement, we will pay this price again in the next crisis. I hope the record shows that some of us tried to warn you, not for credit, but because the immune system deserved better stewardship than it received. I am glad I can look upon this period knowing that I did my very best, was ruthless, about conveying what seemed so clear to me, in very unambiguous terms. What is happening was more important than my professional standing as a fragile, early-career immunologist, because I was placed in a niche position as a specialist in T cell aging and death.

“What’s a life worth living if you have to mask everywhere and fundamentally change how you spend time with friends and family?” I hear this question a lot, especially from people living with Long Covid, and I think there’s a misunderstanding baked into it. Some people seem to assume that all COVID-conscious folks live like I do. That we’re joyless, isolated, hiding from life. That’s not true, and it’s not why I do this. I work at a large university and pre-pandemic I used to get sick 2-3x per year. I’m 45. I currently mask in all shared indoor spaces. I avoid indoor dining. I’m extremely vigilant compared to most people. And while I will advocate for policy change and awareness until my dying breath, I don’t expect anyone else to live by my self-set standards. I expect myself to, because I’m playing a long game. I have a bucket list and getting chronically ill in my 50s is not on my fucking list. I travel. I adventure. I see family several times a year for extended visits. I accept risk, but in bounded windows, not as constant background exposure. I’ve also lost friendships along the way, which hurts, but those decisions were made consciously to protect my family. I’m not trying to eliminate all risk forever. I’m trying to minimize cumulative damage during the years that matter most, while my daughter is growing up and while my brain and body still have the most to lose. The risks I take now are calculated. They mostly involve opening our doors to a small number of family members, typically on our terms, where we can use every available tool to reduce risk in every other possible way. We still mask to protect them, and I take extra precautions before seeing family. Will I mask everywhere when I’m 60? Probably not. Technology, medicine, and my own risk tolerance will change. But I also hope to continue visiting only open air venues. What I’ve learned in the meantime is how not to get sick. And that has changed my quality of life in ways I didn’t expect. I have more energy. I feel healthier than I did a decade ago. Masking is likely part of my future, but it has never limited my life beyond eliminating indoor public eating. I see it as a temporary control measure while science catches up. And yes, this is hard. Especially as my daughter grows older, dates, goes to college, and lives her life. Will she always want to do the things we used to enjoy, like movie theaters or trampoline parks, while wearing a respirator with me? I don’t know. But I do know this: if I don’t protect my health now, those future years together may not exist at all. I’m not doing this to avoid living. I’m doing it because I want more life later, for her, for my wife, and for me. If my daughter wants to have a child someday, I want to be there as a grandfather. Perhaps I’ll be the old guy who always wants to play outside. And yes, maybe I’ll be the guy who wears a mask when he goes places. Maybe I’ll be the mad scientist grandfather who tests the baby before removing my mask. But after years of watching successful adaptation modeled, I suspect she’ll already know how to protect her older parents. A life worth living isn’t one without constraints. It’s one where you choose your constraints intentionally, based on values, evidence, and love. That’s my system. Not a mandate. Just my rules for staying whole long enough to enjoy what comes next. The islands weren’t meant to be explored with a mask on, but I will never use a public restroom again without a mask on. Small sacrifices. Big gains. @EndemicPrepared @D_Bone

And you can’t make me!

Forget Myers-Briggs, What’s your Covid denier type?

Just stepping in to remind the Covid conscious community that although I am not active on Twitter, I am still updating my Covid files, all backed up and organized by topic here: laurieallee.com/general-5