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?

“Natural” products

I don’t want people to misunderstand when I post about things like aluminium.

I am well aware of this “everything’s a chemical” spiel.

BUT

Everything is nature.

People hate me for pointing this out but even the urban environment, is still AN environment. It’s an ecosystem. Pigeons and rats have been evolving into and for this environment, as have humans.

We don’t take to it as well because our brains are more complex (and the genes that produce features such as our brains) so “cocktail effects” must be observed too (post-Industrial Revolution we have a high level of pollution which includes chemicals in the soil – in the food). When a rat’s brain goes wrong, it starves or dies randomly. It doesn’t really matter. When our brains go wrong, we have birth defects, people going postal or nukes destroy the planet. Human behaviour is important to study when it comes to chemicals and obviously this relates to health.

I am not being paranoid or anti-chemical in the scientific sense.

Mixed race isn’t a race

Must I really point this out?

1,000 words

They’d be scared to put me on trial because they’d be forced to admit I’m correct.

On court records for the next thousand years.

It felt churlish to point this out before, I considered it obvious.

We use the term race to be polite, technically they don’t have one.

However, circumstances compel me to explain.

They believe in superiority but not race (mixed isn’t a race).

That is irrational.

The rhetoric that “mixed race are superior” is absurd on many levels.
Here’s one, the most biological and side-stepping value judgements.

A few sharper ones claim to be raceless, this is true.

As updated for clarity:

A race evolves over millennia in precise environments and overcoming specific (natural) selection events, it’s like saying you invented a primary colour. A human group can’t evolve in ALL/NO environment, especially with no advantageous mutational benefit to the organism’s fitness (why I emphasize health).

Mate selection requires informed consent. Medicine isn’t telling them about these things until it’s too late and they experience the problems firsthand. With no warning.

Naturally, not knowing the information (usually they are never told!), they’ll tend to blame themselves as individual parents when it’s really the mating strategy combination. It used to cause health problems in royalty too, since they’d marry across vast distances. Repeating the behaviour made it cumulative. They became too inbred by outbreeding too much, narrowing to a smaller and smaller niche of potential breeding partners with every generation.

There are no separate human groupings (sub-species) made from pre-existing groups! It’s logically impossible! It’s a little like cutting a slice of cake and acting like it’s a new, whole cake. The genetic tree doesn’t sprout from air!

It’s called a phylogenetic tree and I made you one to illustrate my point.
See? I care.
This is the easy to read version because it fits well on the timeline of history.

Rest of the edit:

Genetically, they’re creating niche sub-subraces with severely restricted breeding opportunities (explaining the IVF rates) and I’ve yet to see a mixed race fertility study go into grandparents and great-grandparents, which could already be done.

Maybe it was done and never published.

Cult of silence.

Parental attitudes of mixed children would also be a thrilling read.

As a niche group whose rarer, more recessive mutations are swiftly lost in the blend, we would expect their fertility overall to drop with each generation (this includes mixed White and could explain secular America below replacement level).

A Northern Italian subrace man mixed with an Austrian subrace woman is mixed race (of the White European thede) but we never think of it that accurate way, do we?

We think of a more PC form of mulatto, which is narrower and limited as an idea.
(50% “black”/50% “white” and up to two generations applicable tops).

They’re toying with the definitions of the levels.

Again, because I love you. I want you to understand. Origin of the Species isn’t on the national school curriculum, causing me to write in full earnest. Someone must tell you.

Illustrated:

Subraces you have likely heard of includes Celts, Picts, Basque, Angles, Saxons, Normans, the Cornish and so on.

The modern concept of “mixed race” is false in every conceivable permutation.

Tell me, where do they fit in? On the tree, show me. Where’s the root? Nobody is allowed to ask about the details because it’s political, it isn’t scientific.

A liger is neither a lion nor a tiger. Those are exclusive categories.

We’re defining them by their parents for linguistic convenience.
They are a mix of their parent’s race/s (evolved identity) but they themselves as an individual organism don’t have one.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of novel sub-subraces. Precise combinations. It depends the fine-grain you want. The mixed part itself is also a category error because it lumps them all in together.

An individual whose mixture is of Celt, Basque, Alpine and Nord heritage has nothing in common neither biologically nor culturally with a combination in one individual of Sub-Saharan African, Aboriginal Australian, Inuit, Yayoi and South American.

Yet they’d lead you to believe this (lie).

It’s called a voting bloc.

Sometimes you can destroy many group’s unique interests by making them sacrifice for a larger group they don’t truly belong to (Empires fall).

Politically, they’re being played because each type will have its own issues and needs and this means none can truly be studied (similar to how most clinical trials are done on men and there are medical problems* applying their findings to women).

*fatal problems

Subraces arose naturally in evolutionary history, they evolved. Their mutations are stable because they’ve weathered thousands of years of events including war or since gone extinct.

This artificial combination called both mixed (too ambiguous) and race (just no, too specific and wrong) when it is neither, is novel (practically born yesterday, unproven) and in mutational terms, that isn’t a good thing.

Surely people deserve to know this information as teenagers or earlier before they consider how to marry?

A lot of people, when thinking of who should father/mother their children, consider the child’s health their primary concern. This is too important to ignore. Studies must be conducted, the burden of proof is directly heaped upon those making the positive claims e.g. sunny Pollyanna health and life outcomes, magically.

From what little I can find on the subject, the evidence points in quite the opposite trajectory.

Whatever happened to consent?

Information first!

It’s a clear public interest case especially where healthcare is taxpayer funded.
Assuming you want governments lead by science than superstition?

While I’m here “there’s one race, the human race” is bullshit, I trust you knew that too?

“Human race” predates Darwin’s work and the formal classification of species.
e.g.
http://classicalpoets.org/lord-byrons-romantic-ode-to-the-ocean-2/
“That I might all forget the human race,
And, hating no one, love but only her!”

Charles Darwin was a toddler at publication.

Homo is our genus, sapiens our species. Humans/humanity/mankind is a species.
We have a race (or not). We are always a species.
If you want to deny your brain, (sapiens), go ahead!
It’s totally unscientific to say “human race”, in fact, it’s anti-science.

Congratulations, if you use that term seriously you’re a Creationist.
A liberal Creationist.

Atom predates particle physics too, STFU.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/Atom

An ancient term of philosophical speculation (in Leucippus, Democritus); revived scientifically 1805 by British chemist John Dalton. In late classical and medieval use also a unit of time, 22,560 to the hour.

Read more.

“Just being a Negro doesn’t qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine.” [Dick Gregory, 1964]

I have.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thioda#Old_Saxon

So in conclusion, yes, contrary to another lie, the idea of race has always existed.

Racial erasure is a form of genocide. Race is exclusive as a sub-category of species. No false equivalence here today, thank you. One is not zero, blue is not red and water is not fire.

Anglo- peoples (please research others at your leisure) simply called it something/s else.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thede#English

Americans are too uneducated to bloody check!

Sorry, I’ve revealed my power level, haven’t I?

Edit: to really put the cat among the pigeons, advocates of a raceless world are genophobic.

Contrary to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genophilia and scientific.

They personally fear breeding with their own kind but an extension of the term would easily apply to a strong sociosexual aversion to one’s own people, culture or kin. Expansions happen all the time if there’s a need in behaviour (see ‘gay’).

OR geno-cidal, a willful termination of their group included, which we knew.

Medically, they would be suffering from:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xenomania#English

What “Native” American?

This again.

Why?

Because I can.

“Native American”, they cant presumptuously.

Allow me to continue dispelling this myth.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away

ASIAN.

“This week, two major studies of the DNA of living and ancient people try to settle the big questions about the early settlers: who they were, when they came, and how many waves arrived. But instead of converging on a single consensus picture, the studies, published online in Science and Nature, throw up a new mystery: Both detect in modern Native Americans a trace of DNA related to that of native people from Australia and Melanesia. The competing teams, neither of which knew what the other was up to until the last minute, are still trying to reconcile and make sense of each other’s data.”

ASIAN.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-search-first-americans-links-amazon-indigenous-australians-180955976/

Australasian, work with me here.

“The prevailing theory

bullshit

is that the first Americans arrived in a single wave, and all Native American populations today descend from this one group of adventurous founders. But now there’s a kink in that theory. The latest genetic analyses back up skeletal studies suggesting that some groups in the Amazon share a common ancestor with indigenous Australians and New Guineans. The find hints at the possibility that not one but two groups migrated across these continents to give rise to the first Americans.”

And they murdered the real natives they found there. Don’t mention that. Must have happened.

““Our results suggest this working model that we had is not correct. There’s another early population that founded modern Native American populations,” says study coauthor David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard University”

Also, suggests multi-regional hypothesis.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/multiregional_hypothesis.htm

AGAIN.

Unless you’re going to be claiming they wuz Africans too?

The funny part of the “everyone wuz African” rhetoric is the unfortunate logical consequence – they implicitly argue non-Africans are more evolved.

Who were the original Americans?

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/mastodon-bones-humans-north-america

130, 000 years ago?

Typical of Europeans and Neanderthals.
https://www.livescience.com/60088-stone-age-cannibals-engraved-human-bones.html
https://www.inverse.com/article/44462-neanderthal-art-engravings-culture

The Left are the ignorant ones

I’ve never had to explain shadow banning to a right-winger.

It’s always the left wing.

You can explain in five different ways.

They still won’t get it.

“But I posted it, people can see it!”

Really.

It’s only up FOR YOU.

TO MAKE YOU THINK YOU AREN’T CENSORED.

To trick you into using a service that won’t serve you.

This means you won’t seek out or make competition.

It’s anti-competition and hence, illegal.

Done?

Good.

Another point:

Just because they write something in a shitty Terms of Service doesn’t make it legally valid.

It has to end up in court and be maintained, which almost never happens.

Otherwise they could take all your rights away because TOS.

Anyone can write a TOS. You can write a TOS. It means nothing.

So no, instagram don’t own your photos and if they use your copyright for a profit, you can and should sue. You didn’t negotiate terms and they didn’t expressly pay on a photo by photo basis. They can’t deprive you your IP rights as a content creator. Same with YT videos.

They are a hosting service with delusions of ownership.
On the DailyMail, a celebrity’s selfie will have the copyright logo and …”Instagram”.

No?

Challenge that, Trump.
The copyright is created when the photo is made, there is no transfer without a specific contract and exchange of money. No.
They use this data, sell it and things you always own (even after death) like your likeness can be used for deepfakes and AI “research”. Informed consent in experiments means you must know what you’re entered into, study by study, with an option to opt out. They stole the data for research so it isn’t scientific and none of it actually counts.

They are acting as an illegal government, over-ruling the real one.

That’s why their stock price is so high.

Silicon Valley’s social media will go down in history as the biggest attempted intellectual property theft in human history. They don’t own your crappy poetry, your book reviews, NONE OF IT.

Things also turn invisible, disappear entirely from the selected page the FIRST time you load it (because who loads twice) and Twitter decides to unfollow people for you and follow other people on your behalf if you’ve been away from it for a length of time and presumably, won’t notice.

Make an offence for digital gaslighting?