Paper: Aluminium and Alzheimer’s

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00062/full

You could probably predict this one based on my last post.

Companies use plenty (metric fucktons) of aluminium machinery (watch any episode of How it’s Made online) because the odds of you proving the connection and the odds of tracking it back to their production and the odds of you suing is practically nil and they keep profit margins fat. Abstaining from “junk food” might make you feel better because you cut down on your foods processed using aluminium as a powder (e.g. for baking) or aluminium machines (most dangerous/leeching when handling acidic contents AKA most “junk” plus random popular foods like tomato sauce).

It would be so easy to force them to switch to (clean, no other pollutants) stainless steel but that’s more expensive and there’s no public pressure. I link to these to help that end.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is perhaps the principal example of cognitive failure in humans,

brain damage

and currently over 5.5 million Americans suffer from this incapacitating and progressive disorder of thought, reasoning and memory. Our laboratory has been evaluating the potential contribution of environmentally bioavailable neurotoxic metals to the onset, development and progression of AD for about 30 years

Filthy casuals.

(Lukiw et al., 1987). Largely because of its known multiple and potent neurotoxic effects, much of our research has focused on the potential contribution of aluminum to the AD process

Yeah, why do Americans get it so much, Aluminium Machine Manufacturing America????

And the generation who grew up with “safer” aluminium “tins”…

While I’m activating almonds.

Other elements might be iffy too, if you’re a man with titanium jewelry (skin contact), consider replacing it.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180620125907.htm

If it seems cheaper and better than (good thing), it’s probably a slow acting toxin.

Why don’t you get Trump to announce companies have to label which metals (elements) are in their products, especially important for say, kitchenware compounds (e.g. stainless steel)? You already have the lead law although that’s in dire need of a re-write because they now label everything as a lawsuit proofing measure.

You need to know what you’re buying, literally.

Simple consumer liberty. Why aren’t we funding this?

Immune response reduces female attractiveness

More evidence for the attractiveness = health brigade.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/4/20130255

“Instead, plasma cortisol level was negatively associated with attractiveness, indicating that stressed women look less attractive. Fat percentage was curvilinearly associated with facial attractiveness, indicating that being too thin or too fat reduces attractiveness. Our study suggests that in contrast to men, facial attractiveness in women does not indicate immune responsiveness against hepatitis B, but is associated with two other aspects of long-term health and fertility: circulating levels of the stress hormone cortisol and percentage body fat.”

That’s great except-
cortisol is part of the immune response process.
Directly.
So…. yeah.
https://www.verywellmind.com/cortisol-and-stress-how-to-stay-healthy-3145080

Biologists know this.

I’m at the stage where I can spot Royal Society errors in under five seconds.

Sort your variables out. Acute cortisol release is anti-inflammatory.

Fat also lets your body free up energy quickly to fight illness. You need “some” depending on your body (race, sex, energy needs, diet).

Some (correct) biologists want it relabeled as an organ.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/923153.stm

“Researchers have found that fat plays an important role in protecting bones and organs, regulating hormones and the immune system and managing women’s reproductive systems.”

Women just need more fat (as a %) for pregnancy (it’s most of a year, come on).

Try studying men, I doubt it doesn’t manage theirs too.

Like the free metabolic energy is scared of testicles or something.

Study the signals, quit with the noise.

To prove my grief, read this sack of shit Intro.

Can you tell me what’s wrong with it?

“The growing field of evolutionary psychology reports a large body of evidence to suggest that standards of beauty are not arbitrary cultural conventions, pointing to, for example, cross cultural agreement in preferences for cues to health and fertility [1]. Furthermore, a number of studies suggest that facial preferences emerge early in childhood, before any cultural standards of beauty are likely to be assimilated, suggesting we have a strong inborn universal standard of facial beauty [2]. Evolutionary psychologists interpret preferences as strategies evolved owing to the selective benefits accrued to those who chose their mates based on these criteria (reviewed in Rhodes [3]). To argue that such preferences are adaptive, however, it is necessary to show that preferred traits serve as cues to fecundity, health or other traits that enhance fitness, and contribute to higher reproductive success.

Nature or nurture, fucking PICK ONE.

Studies linking facial attractiveness and health records in men, however, have found only weak or no association between facial attractiveness and health (reviewed in Rhodes [3]).

method?

Recently, Rantala et al. [4] found that men’s ability to produce antibodies in response to the hepatitis B vaccine correlated positively with facial attractiveness, suggesting that men’s facial attractiveness indicates immunity in humans.

Vaccines. Evolution. Don’t use those two ideas in the same sentence.

I can and shall laugh at you derisively.

Thus, by choosing men with attractive faces as partners, women may get direct benefits by avoiding contagion and indirect benefit by increasing health and immunity of their offspring.

???

Because, in humans, both sexes are choosy,

rlly

one could predict that female facial attractiveness may also be associated with immune defence and sex hormone levels.

Y

However, to our knowledge, studies testing association between female facial attractiveness, immune defence and stress hormone levels are lacking. Studies linking facial attractiveness with indices of health have led to mixed results:

Where’s “health” on a blood test?

while certain studies

cherrypicker

have found some evidence

no
measurement error

that facially attractive women are healthier [5–7], other studies have found no association [8–10].

method?

Rantala et al. [11] found that the link between facial attractiveness and immune response in men was mediated by their facial adiposity, not their masculinity (facial masculinity was however associated with immune response, independently of facial adiposity). Thus, we could expect that adiposity in women is associated with the strength of immunity and attractiveness. The aim of this study was to test whether facial attractiveness in women is associated with the strength of their immune response, circulating levels of the stress hormone cortisol and adiposity.”

Proof you don’t publish Asians and assume they’re all smart.

This is in the Royal Society.

Guess the race of the diversity hire running this English historical society now?

Estrogen is inflammatory. Testosterone is anti.
(So guys bitching about women with endometriosis are idiots, they have more).

HOWEVER

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991007083730.htm

“Braude’s new idea is that testosterone signals infection-fighting white blood cells to go out of the blood stream and into the skin. He says it’s also possible that testosterone merely triggers the stress response, and other steroids from the adrenal gland then execute the redistribution.”

a woman with elevated testosterone won’t be more attractive

women are not men!

Study: Women like men (not testosterone)

TLDR: Looks count, bitch!

Chants: D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A., D.N.A.

Shall we?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180507074239.htm

“Data from almost 600 participants show that women’s perceptions of male attractiveness do not vary according to their hormone levels, in contrast with some previous research.”

Told. You. So.

A better question, how did I know this?

Years ahead of time.

(Apart from my own sample size of numero uno).

They aren’t controlling for male beauty!

In an ATTRACTIVENESS study.

It isn’t just something nurture, perceived, externally, it’s innate, it’s nature!

It’s BONE STRUCTURE.

HORMONE CYCLES DON’T DAMAGE THEIR EYE SIGHT!

The natural looks of a man draw the woman, it’s genetic fitness FFS!

(And no, packing on the muscle doesn’t really change your face).

“”We found no evidence that changes in hormone levels influence the type of men women find attractive,” say lead researcher Benedict C. Jones of the University of Glasgow.

You know, I know this might sound controversial, but someone told me once that, well, water is wet? Big if true.

Who might women find more attractive?

The richer ones? The weirder ones?

or

THE MORE ATTRACTIVE ONES.

[Fuck’s sake, people.]

“This study is noteworthy for its scale and scope — previous studies typically examined small samples of women using limited measures,” Jones explains. “With much larger sample sizes and direct measures of hormonal status, we weren’t able to replicate effects of hormones on women’s preferences for masculine faces.””

With a solid method, lookism is real.

Accept it.

We don’t like a higher-T lesbian compared to a low-T man, do we?

LOGICALLY.

They’re scared to offend ugly men. It’s the current year.

Your beauty is objective and the opposite sex care.

Sorry if the social construct upsets you but we can’t help evolution, cry in a safe space free of GI Joes to trigger you about your terrible stature.

Link: Psychopathia Sexualis

Strange that Project Gutenberg doesn’t carry this title in English, isn’t it?

https://archive.org/details/PsychopathiaSexualis1000006945

The first edition of Psychopathia Sexualis (1886) presented four categories of what Krafft-Ebing called “cerebral neuroses”:

paradoxia — sexual desire at the wrong time of life
anesthesia — insufficient sexual desire
hyperesthesia — excessive sexual desire
paraesthesia — misdirected sexual desire (e.g., homosexuality/bisexuality, sexual fetishism, sadism, masochism, and pedophilia)

Fluoride and ADHD

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/17/abstract

A factor perhaps but I don’t think so.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/what-youre-not-allowed-to-say-about-addadhd/

ADHD is largely an American disorder and is much less prevalent elsewhere. This impression was reinforced by the perception that ADHD may stem from social and cultural factors that are most common in American society.

Specifically its divorce system.

Alienation of affections

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/28/jilted-husband-awarded-8-8m-after-suing-wifes-lover.html

I wrote a post ages back on the old laws that protected marriage.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/which-laws-kept-marriages-intact/
“Protection from adultery is the crucial means of safeguarding marriage for future generations.”

Protection from cheats is one.

Marriage is a contract. Yes, you should be held to your oath of monogamy.

Holding the seducer responsible doesn’t divide the house.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/std-free-blood-tests-before-marriage-kept-it-good/

Also counts under criminal conversation. “Open marriage” cucking is effectively already illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversation

Way more expensive than a hooker.