...
.
|
|
Modern science
has told us
that it is genetic;
why look?
That the Human
Genome Project failed to turn up
a.‘bald
gene' has simply confused researchers.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// |
But MONEY MATTERS
and at least one .gov
site
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
may be deliberately
spouting malarkey:
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
geneticsthread
in SoreEyes forum discusses a .gov
è
site
...paid for by taxes... that tacitly argues
against
the NO 'bald gene'
finding of the Human Genome Project. It simply
doesn't mention it. Why?
Perhaps for the reason penned by my grandmother
in a handwritten letter:
@Folklore
says "balding comes from the mother."
At the .gov site, an educator, MSc (Master
of Science),
made this
concluding remark:
"In general, it is
probably easier for scientists to secure funding
for research
into serious
medical conditions than for research into cosmetic situations
like baldness
that do not have a huge impact on people's health."
Huh?
MENTAL
HEALTH conditions...caused by baldness...are apparently inconsequential.
Also inconsequential,
then, are the MILLION$$$
spent on wigs, hairpieces, reweaving, transplants... Never
mind economic and social opportunities denied because of
"cosmetic situations".
And what about Even
babies are balding these days.
|
Some advertising STILL says it is genetic.
Why? $$$$$
Shouldn't
VERY IMPORTANT science research
paid for by taxes...the
Human Genome Project...
be critiqued by
verifiably ethical Scientists with PhDs?
Was this
a fluke or a NEW .gov government activism
on behalf of chemicals,
a MAJOR source of taxes
and election
campaign contributions?
FDA does NOT regulate chemicals
used in hair care
products so...WHO, WHAT, WHY...was the
motivation for
minimizing the importance of the
NO 'bald gene' finding?
News Media
ought quiz
that site's Director, a PhD,
and the GAO
(Government Accountability Office).
But
News Media WON'T
ask questions as their
chemical product
AD REVENUES are huge.
Chemicals,
News
Media,
and
Government
are an axis
of greed that is now, in effect,
The Cause of Baldness.
The "axis
of greed"
has
been through this before:
Until
the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1915,
chemicals in consumer products
were not
investigated by the government
at all.
LEAD,
arsenic and mercury were common ingredients.
It took twenty years worth of documented
medical complaints
to even get LEAD
banned in the use of face paints;
an increasing number of women were
ending up blind
or paralyzed; many more died.
"Hope
in a Jar, The Making
of America's
Beauty Culture,"
by Kathy Peiss
Book
Review of
"Hope in a Jar, ..."
|
|
How
long will it
now take Congress
to
"get the
lead out" of their asses ...again...
and
end balding and graying ???
It is precisely
Congress' shameless greed ...in acceptance of
chemical industry
trinkets ("cost of doing business")...
that yearly condemns
tens of
millions more
to a lifetime
of cosmetic degradation.
Chemicalized
babies are the rule,
not the exception.
Baby Shampoo
with SLS strips
floor wax.
And baby product
fragrances are chemical concoctions.
It
stinks; like smiling, cologned congressmen.
RETURN
SLS
(Sodium
Lauryl Sulfate)
to
what it does best:
degrease
car & truck engines & garage floors.
A popular phrase at "genetic baldness" sites:
"Genetic baldness is caused by the body's
failure to produce new hairs
and not by excessive hair loss. ..."
Hey, guys! Sodium
Lauryl Sulfate
is THE primary cause
of that "failure to produce new hairs".
You've likely heard the contraceptive
phrase popular before birth control pills: "Where
salt goes, nothing grows."
Guess what? "Where acid goes, nothing grows
either."
 Fortunately, fireplugs
work without hair.
90 years
after enaction of the Pure Food
and Drug Act of 1915,
DEADLY
N
CHEMICALS
ARE STILL
in Cosmetic and Hair Care products.
And AGAIN
Hazards have
been identified and reported...but NOTHING
is being
done.
Why?
SAME REASONS
AS 100 YEARS AGO:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Government is
still
being bought
out
by chemical companies
and News Media still Smile
all the way to the Bank
but now with HUGE
Profits from chemical product ads.
Ask your Congressman
How
long will it
now take Congress
to
"get
the lead out" of their asses ...again...
 and
end balding and graying ???
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515 (202)
224-3121 TTY: (202) 225-1904
Write
Your Representative
A "lead-pipe
cinch" you'll be ignored.
A polite reply
means "Get lost.":
"I'm
truly sorry that your great-grandmother died from..."
An exampleì
of "double-talk"; a Congressman's second language.
They're all bilingual.
.. |
Meanwhile,
in the real world,
it's"business as usual":
$
$ $ $ $ hair pieces & wigs
$
$ $ $ $.hair care products
$
$ $ $ $ hair transplants
LIKE YOU,
most sellers
of hair products & services
DO NOT KNOW
that
balding and graying
NEVER
HAD TO HAPPEN.
BUT IT'S
NOW OVER!
pictures
pictures
pictures
Hair
Archaeology
G
G
G
a LINK there to
my Before & After
pictures
Forum
member ayokay has a psychology degree which includes
3
years of premed. After only
18 months,
46
year old ayokay gave up on regrowing his hair
and declared "going grunge" a failure.
His
remarks make clear that he seldom reads. Just below, there is
a
rebuttal excerpt by history graduate Cristove to ayokay.
NOTHING
in the forum suggests his goal??? of only 18 months was possible.
3 years of premed?
He should have taken 3 years of Remedial Reading.
|
Old-fashioned
Barbershops
will
soon be back!
Barbershop
Quartets
will
have new songs
Celebrating
the end
of balding
and
graying.
___________
Grandma
always said
Grandpa and his
basset hound
both
had
male pattern baldness.
Side by side, they
was
sad to see but you'd
howl..
Especially
when Grandma
put a bowl on his
head
so she could evenly
trim the sides.
____________
College students
could easily
END
balding
for
EVERYONE:
Easy.
Inexpensive.
|
|
Excerpt from Cristove rebuttal of
ayokay's
My
1 year experience...
Are teenagers now shampooing 20 times a day for some strange
reason?” Not necessarily,
but many are shampooing more often. We are bombarded by chemical agents
and for teenagers
the majority are targeted at hair. Gels, pomades, sprays, waxes—I’ve
even had friends that use
Elmer’s glue to spike. None of these products are good for your hair—in
fact, until a decade ago
many contained high levels of alcohol for fast evaporation-drying.
I remember when that practice
was stopped—because the industry actually admitted for a change that
something was doing harm.
Again, I don’t have articles for proof; no pictures either. You challenge
for statistician proof.
Yet you accept that shampoo is a necessity for a civilized smell. Soap
is not naturally occurring.
It isn’t mined, it isn’t caught. It is manufactured. The fact that
many scoff at the idea that it isn’t
needed is proof! When did we decide that we MUST shampoo? From what
I have been able
to pin down, most of the hair care products we know today—indeed, most
of our consumer
products—arrived only in the 1920s with the birth of the consumer culture.
If you disbelieve that
I encourage Lynn Dumenil’s “The Modern Temper.” Not to be flamboyant,
but I ask: what did
the caveman shampoo with? You suggest balding for thousands of years;
we don’t even have
a system of writing that goes back more than three thousand. And don’t
suggest the Egyptian
glyphs—they most assuredly did not tell the conditions of life in ancient
Egypt. From what we
have been able to translate—and that isn’t very much, even with the
find of the Rosetta Stone
a lot is lost in the three step translation from glyph to Greek to
English—mostly the hieroglyphics
tell the births and deaths of kings with the occasional burial rite
and major war or catastrophe.
As a final note, this I can testify to: “you wouldn't be walking around
with hair plastered to your
oily scalp.” I have not touched shampoo since June 25, 2003. Though
I have not seen dramatic
results, I have seen some. With regard to oil, and I believe most of
the serious grungers here will
agree with me, after no more than three months the increase of oil
reached equilibrium and quickly
dropped back to levels that were the same, if not less, than shampoo
levels. If anything, I have
days when I would like more oil, as I also quit my old use of pomade
at the same time. In short,
that you haven’t noticed this isn’t proof that you have been inconsistent
or untruthful, but it does
suggest to me that you have not been totally dedicated either.
|