Thus the clowning of 'the experts™' continues, as Norway now considers telling pregnant women not to use these products while 'public health™' officialdom doesn't reflect on modRNA (ab)uses
Pregnant 'people'.... The wokery is insane. Only women (biological) can be pregnant.
The hypocrisy of the medical world is testing. This is one reason why I avoid the UK NHS ag all costs. I sliced my finger at work quite bad yesterday, I thought for a time that I would need stitches. But after weighing up the 16 hrs waiting time and the amount of sickness in the hospital I decided to deal with it myself.
It's not merely the hypocrisy that's mind-boggling, but it's the partiality of 'journos™' and other 'scienctists™' who participate in these performances. It's a shame.
Recommended: tar soap and tar shampoo. Lidl sells it in some stores here in Sweden, it is quite popular among people of Finnish or Baltic origin and is basically normal soap with tar added to it.
Doesn't "de-fat" your skin or hair, but removes dirt, and doesn't smell much if anything at all.
And of course, for something to affect you, it must enter the body either through an orifice or by breaking the skin - don't drink shampoo or eat soap and you'll be fine.
And after shave, deodorant, and make-up can easily be avoided too. No-one needs to use it, and all of such products (as well as most normal commercial soaps and shampoos and creams and other magical ointments) are made in such a way that once you do start using them?
Your skin's natural balance and function as well as your hair's "health" and your perspiration are all thrown out of whack so you have to keep using product.
Me, I use tar shampoo and a piece of pumice and a sweat scraper. Zero skin problems, zero hair problems, zero beard problems And avoiding chlorinated tap water helps too, of course.
I only use soap, I haven't used deodorant for years, and I don't have any skin/beard/hair problems either.
As to tap water, if you live in bigger cities, odds are your tap water is highly contaminated by all kinds of things (partially stuff that's not measured, e.g., synthetic hormones from the pill).
I live in a valley and there's but three farms further up the road; we don't have street lamps, our farm is at the edge of cell phone reception, and our tap water comes from the spring a bit further up the valley. (The farm has a small reservoir which has not been in use since the 1970s, but my future plans are to set up a well so I can, if needs be, get water from our well.)
Trust me, they do measure contaminants such as artificial hormones, medical residue and other stuff (cocaine f.e.). It's just that you really have to dig and phone and ask for such reports/data.
Usually, the best bet is to speak directly to the national geological survey institution at a major university - they keep maps, test-records, graphs and charts and all plants must report their findings to them, eventually. In Sweden, that's the SGU at Lund university, don't know what the Norwegian one is called.
I do know however that all the Nordic nations have had an increasing degree of co-operation between all such institutions/departments since the 1970s:
Denmark, the issue is to have enough clean water for people and for agriculture, plus erosion of the coastline.
Norway, the issue is too much water; washing away soil, causing mud/land-slides and so on for obvious reasons.
Finland, the issue is hydro-electric power, canals, dams, rivers and lakes and how to not pollute while still having forestry and paper industries.
Sweden, hydropower and tap water for the major cities (esp. Stockholm) plus heavily fluctuating groundwater-levels on Gotland and Öland, and pollution from old industries. A famous (here) example is the water in Teckomatorp in Skåne. In one area laced with dioxine, kreosote, and other nastiness because a local factory used to produce Hormoslyr - aka Agent Orange, which was sprayed on every railroad in Sweden from the 1950s to the 1970s).
I rattled off all of this since I was in Lund in September and happened to have a chat with a Danish hydro-geologist, plus my brother did his doctoral dissertation on water and pollutants, so I've absorbed some basics via osmosis, almost.
None of this is surprising, but reading it reminded me of an old blog post by Peter Turchin (which seems to have disappeared from the Internet) about pants. Yes, pants. Apparently, they are not very healthy for male genitals. The reason men started wearing pants to begin with was cavalry. It's pretty inconvenient to go into battle on horseback if you're wearing some sort of tunic. Hence, pants. Naturally enough, the practice (the wearing of pants, that is) spread due to being associated with high status. Nowadays, there are groups advocating for male skirt wearing in the name of preserving male reproductive health. Turchin's comment? They are right, but it simply doesn't matter! A guy in a skirt (or tunic, whatever) simply invites laughter from women, and so wearing a skirt will in fact harm a man's reproductive success, despite being good for his testicles.
And what's that got to do with your post? Sure, minimizing the use of these products will indeed improve a woman's health (and that of her offspring), but it'll hurt her reproductive success by making her less attractive to men. If you succeed in convincing your daughters not to use these products, then don't go around complaining about having no grandchildren.
Oh, and BTW, the weird among us figured this out a long time ago and used it strategically. A family wasn't in the cards for me for a variety of reasons, and uncommitted relationships (to say nothing of one night stands) did not interest me in the slightest. Therefore, I didn't want male attention. How does a thin girl with no obvious "defects" (open sores, etc.) avoid male attention? Easy! By wearing no make-up, having a boring haircut (no hair sprays or any such things), wearing baggy clothes and flat shoes. (Now go do some research on high-heeled shoes.) In other words, doing all the healthy stuff. :-) It is a great way to signal "I'm not interested!" And it works quite well, I can tell you that.
Of course none is surprising, and, yes, you're third paragraph is also a wonderful summary of what to do.
As to the high-heels, is there anything specific you'd like me to research? I was planning to do something about microplastics in washing machines before too long…
Oh, high heels are terrible for back/feet, that's all.
But my point is: by doing all the healthy stuff, a woman does essentially take herself off the mating market. Which is fine if that's what she wants to do (raises hand), and less fine if she doesn't. None of this is particularly new, though. Consider corsets or (in China) foot binding. Terrible practices both, but took a very long time to eliminate, since unilateral rejection of them would lead to worse mating prospects. And then there was all that lead in cosmetics...
(1) They already had a partner. Is "all-natural" how they met and originally paired up with that partner? Or did they simply stop using these products while pregnant?
(2) It's not at all a problem to find enough such women for a *study*. Think about it. Say you want to do a study on schizophrenia. So, you find 100 people with schizophrenia, plus 100 people without to serve as a control group. Does that mean that half the people in the population as a whole have schizophrenia? Of course not.
Anyway, I don't mean to make any "impossible" claims. It's obviously not "impossible." It'll just make it harder, that's all.
Pregnant 'people'.... The wokery is insane. Only women (biological) can be pregnant.
The hypocrisy of the medical world is testing. This is one reason why I avoid the UK NHS ag all costs. I sliced my finger at work quite bad yesterday, I thought for a time that I would need stitches. But after weighing up the 16 hrs waiting time and the amount of sickness in the hospital I decided to deal with it myself.
Of course it's insane--woke is madness.
It's not merely the hypocrisy that's mind-boggling, but it's the partiality of 'journos™' and other 'scienctists™' who participate in these performances. It's a shame.
Hope your finger gets better soon!
Recommended: tar soap and tar shampoo. Lidl sells it in some stores here in Sweden, it is quite popular among people of Finnish or Baltic origin and is basically normal soap with tar added to it.
Doesn't "de-fat" your skin or hair, but removes dirt, and doesn't smell much if anything at all.
And of course, for something to affect you, it must enter the body either through an orifice or by breaking the skin - don't drink shampoo or eat soap and you'll be fine.
And after shave, deodorant, and make-up can easily be avoided too. No-one needs to use it, and all of such products (as well as most normal commercial soaps and shampoos and creams and other magical ointments) are made in such a way that once you do start using them?
Your skin's natural balance and function as well as your hair's "health" and your perspiration are all thrown out of whack so you have to keep using product.
Me, I use tar shampoo and a piece of pumice and a sweat scraper. Zero skin problems, zero hair problems, zero beard problems And avoiding chlorinated tap water helps too, of course.
I only use soap, I haven't used deodorant for years, and I don't have any skin/beard/hair problems either.
As to tap water, if you live in bigger cities, odds are your tap water is highly contaminated by all kinds of things (partially stuff that's not measured, e.g., synthetic hormones from the pill).
I live in a valley and there's but three farms further up the road; we don't have street lamps, our farm is at the edge of cell phone reception, and our tap water comes from the spring a bit further up the valley. (The farm has a small reservoir which has not been in use since the 1970s, but my future plans are to set up a well so I can, if needs be, get water from our well.)
Trust me, they do measure contaminants such as artificial hormones, medical residue and other stuff (cocaine f.e.). It's just that you really have to dig and phone and ask for such reports/data.
Usually, the best bet is to speak directly to the national geological survey institution at a major university - they keep maps, test-records, graphs and charts and all plants must report their findings to them, eventually. In Sweden, that's the SGU at Lund university, don't know what the Norwegian one is called.
I do know however that all the Nordic nations have had an increasing degree of co-operation between all such institutions/departments since the 1970s:
Denmark, the issue is to have enough clean water for people and for agriculture, plus erosion of the coastline.
Norway, the issue is too much water; washing away soil, causing mud/land-slides and so on for obvious reasons.
Finland, the issue is hydro-electric power, canals, dams, rivers and lakes and how to not pollute while still having forestry and paper industries.
Sweden, hydropower and tap water for the major cities (esp. Stockholm) plus heavily fluctuating groundwater-levels on Gotland and Öland, and pollution from old industries. A famous (here) example is the water in Teckomatorp in Skåne. In one area laced with dioxine, kreosote, and other nastiness because a local factory used to produce Hormoslyr - aka Agent Orange, which was sprayed on every railroad in Sweden from the 1950s to the 1970s).
I rattled off all of this since I was in Lund in September and happened to have a chat with a Danish hydro-geologist, plus my brother did his doctoral dissertation on water and pollutants, so I've absorbed some basics via osmosis, almost.
These chemicals do diffuse through the skin, that's the whole point
None of this is surprising, but reading it reminded me of an old blog post by Peter Turchin (which seems to have disappeared from the Internet) about pants. Yes, pants. Apparently, they are not very healthy for male genitals. The reason men started wearing pants to begin with was cavalry. It's pretty inconvenient to go into battle on horseback if you're wearing some sort of tunic. Hence, pants. Naturally enough, the practice (the wearing of pants, that is) spread due to being associated with high status. Nowadays, there are groups advocating for male skirt wearing in the name of preserving male reproductive health. Turchin's comment? They are right, but it simply doesn't matter! A guy in a skirt (or tunic, whatever) simply invites laughter from women, and so wearing a skirt will in fact harm a man's reproductive success, despite being good for his testicles.
And what's that got to do with your post? Sure, minimizing the use of these products will indeed improve a woman's health (and that of her offspring), but it'll hurt her reproductive success by making her less attractive to men. If you succeed in convincing your daughters not to use these products, then don't go around complaining about having no grandchildren.
Oh, and BTW, the weird among us figured this out a long time ago and used it strategically. A family wasn't in the cards for me for a variety of reasons, and uncommitted relationships (to say nothing of one night stands) did not interest me in the slightest. Therefore, I didn't want male attention. How does a thin girl with no obvious "defects" (open sores, etc.) avoid male attention? Easy! By wearing no make-up, having a boring haircut (no hair sprays or any such things), wearing baggy clothes and flat shoes. (Now go do some research on high-heeled shoes.) In other words, doing all the healthy stuff. :-) It is a great way to signal "I'm not interested!" And it works quite well, I can tell you that.
Of course none is surprising, and, yes, you're third paragraph is also a wonderful summary of what to do.
As to the high-heels, is there anything specific you'd like me to research? I was planning to do something about microplastics in washing machines before too long…
Oh, high heels are terrible for back/feet, that's all.
But my point is: by doing all the healthy stuff, a woman does essentially take herself off the mating market. Which is fine if that's what she wants to do (raises hand), and less fine if she doesn't. None of this is particularly new, though. Consider corsets or (in China) foot binding. Terrible practices both, but took a very long time to eliminate, since unilateral rejection of them would lead to worse mating prospects. And then there was all that lead in cosmetics...
I know, it's not all easy, but I'd point to the fact that those women in the study all successfully mated…
No doubt, but two points:
(1) They already had a partner. Is "all-natural" how they met and originally paired up with that partner? Or did they simply stop using these products while pregnant?
(2) It's not at all a problem to find enough such women for a *study*. Think about it. Say you want to do a study on schizophrenia. So, you find 100 people with schizophrenia, plus 100 people without to serve as a control group. Does that mean that half the people in the population as a whole have schizophrenia? Of course not.
Anyway, I don't mean to make any "impossible" claims. It's obviously not "impossible." It'll just make it harder, that's all.
They are poisoning us slowly and they are poisoning us fast.
All day round, year-in, year-out.
They hate us.