Diabetes caused by… make-up??!

While the thots are eating their aluminium like good little morons, there’s a great causative agent of diabetes lurking in all those shitty “highlighters” that do the same thing anyway (compare Dior ingredients to Topshop).

It’s in things everyone consumes like toothpaste.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180620125907.htm
And candy, and food, and paper….

Is somebody trying to poison us?

Obviously.

In the mid-20th century, titanium dioxide pigment replaced highly toxic lead-based pigments. It became the most commonly used white pigment in paints and in foods, medications, toothpaste, cosmetics, plastics and paper. As a result, annual production of titanium dioxide has increased by 4 million tons since the 1960s.

Who bought it beforehand?

Who bought all the titanium before bringing it to market as ‘safer’?

According to the World Health Organization, the number of people with diabetes has quadrupled during the past four decades, affecting approximately 425 million people, with T2D comprising the majority of recorded cases. Although obesity and an aging population are still considered major factors leading to a rise in T2D cases worldwide, Heller’s study suggests that increased use of titanium dioxide may also be linked to the rapid rise in the number of people suffering from the disease.

Huh.

“The increased use of titanium dioxide over the last five decades could be a factor in the Type 2 diabetes epidemic,” Heller said. “The dominant T2D-associated pancreatic particles consist of TiO2 crystals, which are used as a colorant in foods, medications and indoor wall paint, and they are transported to the pancreas in the bloodstream. The study raises the possibility that humanity’s increasing use of TiO2 pigment accounts for part of the global increase in the incidence of T2D.”

Why are Government buildings the same damn white colour?

We know we can breathe that shit in.

Given the wide-reaching implications of his findings, Heller is keen to repeat the study, but this time using a larger sample. “We have already begun a broader study,” he said. “Our work isn’t over yet.””

You heard it here first.

Eat your aluminium, thots

That’s right, smear on a lipstick full of shimmery bullshit. Including lead (and wonder why girls are depressed). [Literally eating lead.]

The Victorians ate arsenic but this is worse. Arsenic temporarily improved the complexion.

Using the term ‘mica’ for what’s essentially powdered foil suggests women wouldn’t want it if they knew what it was.

It isn’t like there’s a connection between dissected and tested Alzheimer’s plaques and aluminium deposits, is there?

Why are the Boomers raised on cans of this stuff seeing an explosion in Alzheimer’s rates?

As always, at first, go to the ‘officials’. Find out the Party Line.

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/risk-factors-and-prevention/metals-and-dementia
Although aluminium has been seen in amyloid plaques”

K.

“there is no solid evidence that aluminium is increased in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease.”
Whew, what cognitive dissonance.
It’s literally forming those plaques that ARE the disease but nbd?

Solid evidence – like a solid chemical analysis of solid plaques in the solid brains of solid dead people with Alzheimer’s?

Look at the hustle to move those goalposts.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070813185007.htm
“Because some people with the disease had aluminum deposits in their brains, it was thought that there was a direct connection…”
Well… yeah.
That’s proof.
There’s no negative evidence possible for that to stop being proof.

It’s literally in their brains.

“However, after many years of study, no conclusive evidence links aluminum to neurodegenerative disease”
Bullshit, 2007.

I detest scientism. Look at these papers and tell me what’s ‘conclusive’.

(Apart from donations of mega-corps to Super PACs to prevent this mega-lawsuit).

“A multi-institutional team of researchers has defined for the first time how metal ions bind to amyloid fibrils in the brain in a way that appears toxic to neurons. Amyloid fibrils are linked to the development of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Creutzfeldt-Jakob. Although metal ions, most notably copper, can bind to amyloid in several specific ways, the researchers found that only one way appears toxic.”

But how, ‘critics’ argue, could this possibly occur? What’s the mechanism? Nobody has proven a mechanism….?

2011:

“Link between Aluminum and the Pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease: The Integration of the Aluminum and Amyloid Cascade Hypotheses”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3056430/

“In particular, the link between aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease has been the subject of scientific debate for several decades. However, the complex characteristics of aluminum bioavailability make it difficult to evaluate its toxicity and therefore, the relationship remains to be established.”

Uhuh. Isn’t that your job?

If it’s impossible, why are you getting paid?

“On the contrary, aluminum is a widely recognized neurotoxin that inhibits more than 200 biologically important functions and causes various adverse effects in plants, animals, and humans.”

True.

Mounting evidence has suggested that significance of oligomerization of β-amyloid protein and neurotoxicity in the molecular mechanism of AD pathogenesis. Aluminum may play crucial roles as a cross-linker in β-amyloid oligomerization.

Here, we review the detailed characteristics of aluminum neurotoxicity based on our own studies and the recent literatures. Our aim is to revisit the link between aluminum and AD and to integrate aluminum and amyloid cascade hypotheses in the context of β-amyloid oligomerization and the interactions with other metals.”

But HOW could this POSSIBLY operate? – intellectually dishonest douches.

Note the prestige of journal. International Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, those hacks.

But on a MOLECULAR level…. – douchecanoes.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jms.739
“Quantification of the Aβ peptide in Alzheimer’s plaques by laser dissection microscopy combined with mass spectrometry”

It’s behind a paywall but it’s there. Check the academic pirate bay.

http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2000/articles/2000-v15n01-p021.shtml
It’s been known for a while.
2000: “Aluminum has been identified as a neurotoxin for over 100 years.”

So stop using it in food, cosmetics, deodorant, cookware and cans?

Their use actually came in well after it was a known neurotoxin. Because that isn’t dodgy.

Reference for that sentence:

Doelken P:Naunynschmiedeberger. Arch Exp Pathol Pharmakol 40: 58-120 cited by Crapper McLachlan DR., Lukiw WJ, Kruck TPA, Aluminum, altered transcription, and the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Environ Geochem Health, 1990; 12(1-2): 103-114.

Link for that: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01734059

Opening paragraph.

“The etiology of some, if not all, cases of Alzheimer’s disease is linked to a mutation in the proximal portion of the long arm of chromosome 21∶21q11.2 → 21q22.2. While the functional consequences of the mutation are unknown, we speculate that one consequence of the mutation is loss of the natural barriers and intracellular ligands for aluminum. As a result, aluminum gains access to several brain sites including the nuclear compartment in certain neurons of the central nervous system.”

I know both my shit and my bullshit.

1990. Who owns the aluminium? That’d be a fun tour of genocide.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ana.410310310
1992 laser study, note prestige of journal.

What the fuck do they know, right, reddit?

“Selective accumulation of aluminum and iron in the neurofibrillary tangles of Alzheimer’s disease: A laser microprobe (LAMMA) study”

“In addition, probe sites directed to neurons identified in snapfrozen cryostat sections from 2 subjects with Alzheimer’s disease revealed similar spectra with prominent aluminum‐related peaks, confirming that our findings are not related to exogenous contamination through fixation, embedding, or other procedures prior to analysis. This study further confirms the association of aluminum and neurofibrillary tangle formation in Alzheimer’s disease.”
1992.

But I guess I’m just scared of non-stick pans, where’s the evidence?

The guys who complain about make-up

are also the ones who’d complain if a woman smells like anything other than floral body lotion.

Like, they’ll criticize women for being fat but also being “high maintenance” i.e. not fat.

Nah-uh!

By ancient standards, you’re more decadent than a French king.

Think how poofy you’d be.

 

You sleep on fluffy pillows, on stitched mattresses, with plush blankets, having used liquid soap, shampoo, conditioner, toothpaste, deodorant, a comb, an electric razor, central heating/air conditioning, with a glass of cold milk waiting in your refrigerator if you wake up thirsty. You think this is nothing and feel entitled to this and more.

 

Who’s the vain one? When are these guys dispensing with all their vanities?

First up, the smartphone! Ultimate vanity symbol! Don’t need that!

Right….?

Right guys?

No, you won’t give up modern comforts so STFU lecturing everyone else.

Do it yourself first and then you might have something to signal with.

 

Being attractive isn’t a sin! These embittered boys are like SJWs and want everyone else to stop making an effort because they’re too lazy! (Covert narcissism, their ego is triggered because they stand out for not making the effort).
R-types want an equalist playing field, remember? Equal outcomes. They actually believe it’s better we’re all equal in stench and skin ailments (skin cancer exists) than feel insecure some dude next to them on the train is wearing nice jeans and a cool cologne.
Men against make-up, for a third-world society looking and smelling like shit.
It already does, in my opinion, let’s not make it worse. The average person makes less effort with their appearance than at any time period before in all human history.
Fashion history exists, whether you read it or not.
Porn taught you “make-up” (please define make-up, guys who can’t spot eyeliner) is a sexual invite and you’re pissed the fiction is fake. That isn’t the world’s fault. That’s your fault for being dumb. (They also think natural beauty is a sexual invitation because addicts are gullible idiots).
What other people look like and how they groom their body has nothing to do with you. Stop being so shallow and obsessing over it.
Grooming is a basic primate instinct. If you don’t have it, you’re clinically depressed.
They look at a naturally pretty girl and think she’s a bitch for wearing lipstick – who’s sinning here?
Jesus himself went off on one at the person who dared call his oil bath vain. There is a spiritual bond between how we treat ourselves (with respect) and how we act in the world (decently).
How dare any of you Americans (and it’s always Americans) shame people about simple standards of appearance?
I’ve been to your country enough times to know you have Fuck-All to be proud of in the appearance stakes.
Romans 12:1, NKJV. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service
1 Corinthians 10:31, NKJV. “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”
I Corinthians 6:19-20, NKJV. “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
And there’s nothing sinful about having a woman’s body either, God made that too. To insult a woman’s natural form is to blaspheme God’s design.
Genesis 1:27, NKJV. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Beautification is not a sin, and never has been (there are plenty of Biblical references about good, moral wives looking good too and being the pride of their husbands) it’s about a First World living standard and a longer lifespan, pride is the sin. Like presuming to judge other’s non-silicon appearance and the body/Temple God gave them…
If you look at the history of cosmetics, it’s always been primarily about health because, guess what? Healthy people are more attractive! Cosmeceuticals are not a new thing! Only in the past couple of centuries have they been separated off. Why? Legal reasons. Lower standards for non-medical products to hit the market or that they couldn’t prove the really subjective claims e.g. radiant smile. What’s that? How do you medically prove that?
These would be the “men” who attack other men for wanting to make the best of their appearance.
Leave them alone and join a pro-ugly group, you losers.
Sorry attractive people enjoying their life make you sad, but this isn’t a company’s fault, it’s evolution. [Explain sexual selection without attractiveness, I fucking dare you.]
Since it’s none of your business unless it’s your wife, join a monastery if attractive things frighten you. Do you balk at flowers and smiling babies too?
If everyone went back to smelling like ass and swamp crotch, you’d still be bottom of the barrel and whine about it. Fitness still exists.
Sports are as decadent as Hollywood but the guys claiming models shouldn’t be paid for what nature gave them never ever apply that logic to the genetic freaks known as athletes.
They’d only be happy in the world of Harrison Bergeron because pretty people couldn’t oppress them by comparison. Dya wanna ban Photoshop too? You do, don’t you?
It’s basic etiquette to look good and act good too.
This isn’t an either/or, don’t try to spin a false dichotomy out of this.
Looking like a slob is a sin as much as being it. It’s literally a sin to apply sloth to your personal care habits.
When are you banning mouthwash for making men seem more attractive than their natural oral bacteria (including the likes of Herpes) might suggest?
Jesus never used mouthwash. QED according to you.

Hating make-up isn’t new

It’s old as the hills.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A85852.0001.001/1:4?rgn=div1;view=fulltext;q1=Beauty%2C+Personal+–++Early+works+to+1800

“A discourse of auxiliary beauty. Or artificiall hansomenesse. In point of conscience between two ladies.”

Here, male authors try to “satirize” the conversation as happening between women.

To cover the fact they just don’t like it, when they don’t need to like it.

Get over it.

Not your woman? Not your problem.

If only the ancients had a term for this specifically, to tell prissy people like this to STFU.

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

Uh…. yeah, they did.

Women are fussier about looks and presentation than men could ever be, that’s why we do so many things. If we’re allowed to impose preferences, men would never stop complaining about it.

They literally circlejerk the same question for millennia.

Why do women do it?

You answered your own question there, didn’t cha?

It isn’t as if it’s a modern trend or unrelated to health. They never say to stop cleaning your armpits or brushing your teeth or tweezing brows or using skin creams.

Do you think women like scruffy modern rapper lookalike men?

ruffian

The hideous shorts? The obnoxious deodorants and colognes that invade our personal space?

Madam,

I Am not more pleased to see you look so well, beyond what you were wont, than I am jealous (to be free with you) lest a per∣son so esteemed, as you are for modesty and piety, should use some colour or tincture to advance your Complexion; which indeed I take to be no better, than that odious and infamous way of Painting; every where in all ages so much, and so justly spoken a∣gainst both by God, and good men; being a most ungodly practise, though generally (as they say) now used in England (more or less) by persons of quality; who not con∣tent with Natures stock of Beauty, do (not by a fine, but filthy art) adde something to the advantage, as they think, of their Com∣plexions: but I fear, to the deforming of their souls, and defiling of their Consciences.

Men care so much because their visual systems are over-active, it’s nothing to do with women. Blaming us for breathing in your direction isn’t temptation, it’s personal weakness. We should be able to walk around looking feminine safely.

Either that or we dress like men and you still complain.

We can bring back public standards but men dropped the ball earlier and harder. No more PJs in public, no low-hanging jeans, bring back waistcoats and about five layers of stuff to pick up a pint of milk, fine. That’s fine by us.

When was the last time you wore silver collar stays?
Oh, and they have to be silver, you don’t want anyone to think you’ve “let yourself go” (see: America).

There’s no such thing as natural beauty, it’s a marketing con. Humans have pores, wrinkles, oil and sweat. I notice they never complain about deodorant, female menstrual and cleaning products, shampoo and conditioner, perfume or body sprays…. in other words, they’re fussy hypocrites. If they wanted a natural beauty, we’d be covered in so many reeking bodily fluids saturating a LOT of body hair that they would be able to smell us a mile off.

Gross? Yeah. Leave the beauty products alone, it isn’t for the sake of our own noses and eyes. It’s considerate.

Update: the title was too subtle. They hate it because women do it. That is the be-all and end-all on the subject. Anything women and women only do, they have a problem with. I’m sure it’s all a coincidence and they’re very conveniently principled against anything feminine. Methinks the “men” (mostly gay) protest too much?

I’m sure they don’t want women to drop all their feminine habits so they and their T of the LGBT fame can steal it and with it, the straight men they long for, the ultimate catch?

(Pay attention fools).

Ancient Romans wore lipstick, nobody gave a shit. Most pomades and other preparations are good for you (eyeliner was the ancient sunglasses, lead paint was SPF). There are ancient men discovered wearing hair gel. We may or may not personally like it (tastes differ) but we don’t tell you to stop it or stop selling it. That’s called respect for men. If you want to look that way, on your head be it.