TIL that Gwyneth Paltrow is not just a harmless grifter
TIL that Gwyneth Paltrow is not just a harmless grifter
Five patients with links to the spa had viral genetic sequences that closely matched.
I never went as far as to defend Gwyneth Paltrow, but after her Hot Ones appearance I created a post (which I will link in the comments) where I suggested that she's done no more harm than male grifters and that the dislike of her as a person was primarily due to misogyny. That's before I learned about her promotion of these unproven "vampire facials". Now an unlicensed clinic performing this procedure has given at least three women HIV. You guys were right and I was wrong.
I mean, yeah, she's to blame for promoting an obviously batshit crazy process, but she was NOT involved with any of the facilities distributing HIV. That's a bit of a stretch.
It would be like, I dunno, blaming your favorite tattooed celebrity because you got hepatitis c from some back alley artist.
I see what you're saying, but the treatment is unproven even under sanitary conditions and she probably helped make people aware of it using her largish social media platform. I say she deserves at least some of the blame.
So? When done safely perhaps it offers no benefit and very little risk - kind of like a tattoo
Maybe it does work. We don't know.
Tbf, it's more like the tattooed celebrity was promoting back alley artists. It's a weird middle ground
I understand that she said it was a good and helpful procedure.
I don't think it's at all fair to say she told people to go to unlicensed places
Your default assumption is that any criticism of a woman must be misogyny? Even when that woman's actions primarily impact women's health? Interesting.
Story time.
During a conversation amongst friends the topic of male on female violence came up. there was recently a stabbing attack in Australia where a schizophrenic man stabbed and killed multiple women in a Sydney shopping centre.
A female friend raised the statistic that 26 women had been killed in the first 114 days of 2024. She made a point of saying Every 4.38 days a woman is violently killed
I asked - because I didn't know - Is that like heaps more than last year?how many people would normally die in the same period?
She said "that's a pretty misogynistic thing to say”
So I googled it and I can't even find the homicide rate in Australia for 2024.
I am really fucking irritated about this. I assume she had assumed from my question that I was waving off the importance of gender in gendered violence but how that translates into misogyny is beyond me
People have their own agendas and biases.
Did you know that Conservatives in America perform 95% of the crimes in America?
This line of reasoning doesn't make sense. Haters being worse to women than men specifically because of gender has nothing to do with what that person actually does.
I don't disagree, but this kind of post isn't really in the spirit of TIL
I understand. I looked around for a "mea culpa" type of community but I couldn't really find one. Mainly wanted to get it on the record that I know what a boob I've been. Do you have a suggestion as to a better place to post?
Is this like, a penance thing? Or is this the first time you've found out you were wrong about something? Because I guarantee you, no one learned about this and thought, "man I bet that sgibson5150 person really feels like a boob right now!"
You’ll worry less about what people think about you when you realize how seldom they do.
You'll find out you were wrong again. If you're doing it right, it'll be a daily occurrence. If you learned you caused harm in the past, it's probably good to go back and try to make reparations. Otherwise, just be humbled and move on.
where I suggested that she's done no more harm than male grifters and that the dislike of her as a person was primarily due to misogyny.
I mean, I don't know about you, but I dislike most, if not all, grifters as people, regardless of their gender. They are shitty people.
I wasn't aware of her existence or that of the vampire facials, but this is some Carmilla stuff. Next they will tell you they need virgin blood.
Agreed. A bit skeevy on the face of it. I've often wondered if something like that is why Dick Cheney is still alive. "Bring in the next snackrifice!" Ugh.
In the show "Silicon Valley", a satire of it's namesake, there's a billionaire tech ceo (like Google level) who gets weekly blood transfusions from a college student in great health.
If you'd kindly adjust your tinfoil hat, there's a lot of conspiracy theories out there that blood transfusions from healthy young people are a regular "health service" used by the elite.
Here's a link to the Hot Ones post as seen from my instance.
So you were able to gloss over all of the actual scummy things she does for personal benefit...
And the one thing that changed your mind is something that had NOTHING to do with her?
It wasn't her procedure. It wasn't her spa. She has nothing to do with this.
This is like if I say "cycling is great, you should do it" (I like this facial), and then instead of buying a bike from a bike shop (licensed spa), you buy it from a shady bike thief (unlicensed spa with no records leaving unsealed blood laying around). And then it turns out the bike was stolen from a drug lords kid (HIV positive blood from unknown source). So when they see you riding it they shoot you (gets HIV).
There are many, many people at fault in a scenario like this. But, unbelievably, in THIS scenario Gwyneth actually isn't one of them.
This is rather uncharitable of you. I hear all the time that the problem with online social interactions is that people won't admit when they're wrong and frequently "double down". I'm here with an apology and a correction, and you find this unsatisfactory?
An apology, if sincere, is not dependent on the reaction of others
edit: at the same time, in the spirit of promoting a healthy behavior, others here, including me, could have phrased our content in more charitable ways. This commenter does have a point; but tweaking it might have changed the tone in a positive way, for example. Maybe this is a big deal for you to post! Why not receive it in a way that will encourage more of a desirable quality? Afa where to post this, an edit to your original post would seem like a more appropriate place. That's where the conversation and "error" occurred.
My critique is of your process, not your result. And, my thesis is that in the long term, developing and refining your how is actually more important than coming to a correct conclusion.
If you just are told what a correct conclusion is and you don't understand why, and can't even evaluate the validity of why, then you're you're just surrendering yourself to group think. This is how people get MAGA-ized or Jordan Peterson-ized and how they can't get out.
Hypothetically, let's say someone was staunchly pro-Israel, and NOTHING they were doing made you want to be critical of actions by them.
And then say that suddenly they changed their mind. Not because of the genocide they're perpetrating against the Palestinians, but instead because MTG was going off about "Jewish space lasers". Ok, sure, maybe it's "good" that interests have coincidentally aligned, but you're still not really a rational agent, and I can't really trust you to make ethical evaluations because your process is nonsensical.
It's more important to me, and for your role as a member of a functional society to be able to critically evaluate information than it is for you to simply "land" on a good conclusion by what is essentially random chance.
I do recognize it's difficult to admit that you've changed your mind. I am sorry, I do commend you for it. I even respect you for it.
Consider this just a call to action that I sincerely believe that you can improve your ability to self-assess and evaluate information critically and logically. Without someone explaining the weakness in your decision making process, you'd be missing an opportunity to consider and reevaluate your own processes.
There's a phrase for that: Counterjerking too hard. Judging by the reactions you're getting from this, seems you've done it twice in a row.
Remember, counterjerking is not a principled stance; those who stand for nothing will fall for everything.
No you didn't learn.
Just to be clear, did she recommend that specific clinic? I'm not a fan of her past work but I think it's a stretch to blame something like this directly on her.
The beauty and skincare industries have tons of claims flying around that are less-than-validated but going to a facility that uses basic precautions is probably still a good idea.
As an additional data point here, the American Academy of Dermatology Association still has a page up with more info about the procedure. It makes it clear that it's unproven but it's supposed to be your own blood that's used for the procedure. It ends with a recommendation to talk to your dermatologist to decide if it's right for you, much the same as any medical advice found online.
From their page:
"Few studies conducted in people
All these benefits have created high demand for a procedure that has little evidence to back it up.
Few studies have been conducted because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t require the large, complex studies necessary for new drugs. Since PRP uses needles and a centrifuge, the FDA classifies PRP as a medical device. The rules for medical devices are less demanding."
Still no worse than the worst of the male grifters.
Yeah!
Also true for the male grifters though. They aren't even close to the worst of the male grifters or even the worst of the women grifters.
🙄