Perfume Rant

Before I get started, I need to disclose that in general, I have never liked perfumes or the typical air fresheners that try to cover scents by overpowering them. That being said, I can appreciate a nice smell, especially natural ones. But too much makes it awful, especially artificial smells. That's the main reason I hate perfume. It's almost always too much.

When you smell the same thing for a long period of time, you get used to it and don't smell it any more. So here's a tip if you wear perfume. If you can smell it on yourself, you have way too much on.

Perfume is supposed to make you smell good. When you're wearing it, who are you trying to impress? No, seriously, that's something to think about. Because if you wear it to work and your spouse is not there, why? It's supposed to be a subtle scent for when you two get close. You catch a faint whiff of something nice and want to get closer. That's how it's supposed to work.

Why do you wear perfume? I hope it isn't to cover body odor. The reason you wear it is to hopefully have people think well of you by observing that you smell nice. Newsflash: you may be turning more people off than on. The people who can't smell because their nostrils are already chemically burned out may think you smell nice. But the rest of us around you are left gagging, trying to breathe. No, we don't think you smell nice. You stink.

There is perfume in so many products, and most of us don't even give it a second thought. Even stores are using scent to identify their name brand (read this). But this is a problem for those of us who are more chemically sensitive.

There's perfume in soap, household cleaners, shampoo, conditioner, toilet paper, car wax, fabric softener, new cars (yes, it's perfume), shaving cream, antiperspirant, toothpaste, food, diaper wipes, and urinal cakes. I'd like to breathe at the same time I pee, thank you. Can we please get rid of those awful urinal air fresheners? They already said "no" at work, but I thought I'd just mention it here again.

Did you notice I mentioned there's added fragrance in food? This company has 600 food grade scents available. Really? We can't be happy with the natural delicious smells of food?

Most people who wear perfume are oblivious to the subtle signs that they're wearing, well, not just too much, but way too much. Let me help you out with this list.

If people hesitate to get too close, you may be wearing too much perfume.

If people turn away from you mid-conversation and start walking away, you may be wearing way too much perfume. 

If people avoid any kind of physical contact with you for fear of contamination, you may be wearing way too much perfume.

If I can smell it in the hallway you walked down ten minutes ago, you're wearing way too much perfume.
If I find it hard to breathe when I'm following you, you're wearing way too much perfume.

If I can follow you by smell, you're wearing way too much perfume.

If you have to wear a no smoking sign because your perfume may catch fire, you're wearing way too much perfume.

If you've ever seen a little St. Elmo's fire around your body after getting a static shock, you're wearing way too much perfume.

If the EPA has declared your bathroom a super-fund site, you may be wearing way too much perfume.

Ok, maybe the last three are exaggerations, but seriously, if I can tell where you've been, you're wearing way too much perfume. Speaking of where you've been, have you ever smelled your hands after pushing a cart through Wal-Mart? That's the mixture of the previous shoppers' perfumes. Nasty.

Rant over. Now go try some unscented products for a change. We chemically sensitive types may not think to thank you, but at least we won't curse you for gagging us.

Muscle and Joint Formula

I'm publishing my muscle and joint formula so that you can enjoy its benefits. Since I'm not selling it, it doesn't fall under the censorship of the FDA. That means I can say that in my experience, it relieves pain. I'm exercising my first amendment right to say this.

Get an empty 5 ml roll-on bottle, like this.

Here's the list of oils and how many drops of each to add to the bottle.

basil 10
birch 5
cinnamon 6
cypress 10
eucalyptus 4
geranium 10
helichrysum 2
lavender 4
lemongrass 10
lime 10
marjoram 10
rosemary 10
vetiver 1
white fir 10
wintergreen 5

Some other oils that also may be helpful if you want to make your own formula.
ginger
nutmeg
patchouli

Apply topically to the skin. Gently rub it in. There's no need to massage it in, or work it in.
 
A word of caution when using essential oils. Don't use on numb areas. Don't use on parts that have low circulation, such as feet on a diabetic person.

If you get it on a sensitive area and it starts to have a burning sensation, apply and rub in some coconut oil, or olive oil, (or any cooking oil you have in your pantry) to dilute the essential oils.

Review of Nike Free 5.0 iD Men's Running Shoe

Nike Free 5.0 iD Men's Running Shoe Review
STYLE # / COLOR #: 653713-991
SIZE: 10
COLOR: Multi-Color/Multi-Color
YEAR: 2014

My feet are flat and narrow. If you look at my wet footprint, you see the whole foot. So anything I say about fit only applies to people that have the same weirdness that my foot is. Along with the flat feet, I also pronate.

Day 1: Wednesday, October 22, 2014
When I first put them on, I thought "I would not have bought these at the store, had I tried them on first." It seems that the back of my heel sinks in too far, putting more pressure on the front of my heel. Without tightening the laces much at all, the laces seemed tight. There's a little too much room around my toes. Even the picture of my order below looks like the toe area is a little too roomy.

Computer generated image of Nike Free 5.0 iD, customized on nike.com

I spent the extra money to customize these shoes because I've always liked the way Nikes fit and feel, but I really don't like their color schemes. The super-bright colors, and obnoxious fluorescent highlights draw too much attention to my feet. I don't want to have to say "hey, my face is up here. You can look at me when we're talking, not my shoes".

The colors available on nike.com are still mostly obnoxious, with no earth tones, so I went with a gray/black look.

Here's a picture of the actual product. Since I ordered mine, they have changed the pattern for the base color, so you can't order your shoes to look exactly like these any more. The deep royal blue is actually much darker than it appears online, and without a hint of purple in it.

After wearing them the first few hours, they were still comfortable, and the unevenness I felt in the heel wasn't bothering me even though I could still notice it. I went for a short jog, and they felt good. The sole felt grippy on the concrete. My feet felt stable while jogging in these shoes.

The tongue is surprisingly thin. The top part feels like thin suede leather, but I'm pretty sure it's synthetic. The flywires hold the laces firmly, so you can't get more than the first loop of laces tight by just pulling on the ends.

Taking out the insert, I saw that they added some color for me on the threads that hold the top to the sole. But I had no idea why there was a hole in the center of each heel.

Right shoe, shown with insert removed

Left shoe, shown with insert removed

Day 2: Thursday October 23, 2014
After I put these on this morning, my left heel felt like it was in a hole again. The right heel felt fine. I'm beginning to think there's a manufacturing defect in the left sole. Or my foot is misshapen. (See my disclaimer at the top of this post.)

I had to loosen the laces again, and then they weren't so tight. I'm used to tightening laces when I put shoes on. With these, I need to just tie the laces without tightening them. Most shoes are a little too wide for me. These seem narrow in the laces, and wide in the toes. But they're shaped more like a real foot than any of the other shoes I have ever had.

After all day in these shoes, I feel fine, so I must be related to the princess from "The Princess and the Pea".

Nike Free 5.0 iD country of origin

The sole is very flexible because it's not only soft, it also has deep slices cut into it in a hexagonal pattern. Most shoes have a layer of hard rubber on the bottom of the sole. These have small areas of hard rubber. The dark patches in this photo are the hard rubber areas. If you want to sneak up on someone, these are the shoes for you. They're quiet. I'm wondering how unevenly they're going to wear with my pronation. If they could move the hard rubber from the outside edge to the inside edge of the heel, that would work great for me.

Black areas on the sole are hard rubber

My feet sweat, even when they're cold. So at the end of the day, I pulled the insert out and it was moist. I could see moisture on the top of the sole where the insert was. Judging by how soaked the insert was, and how wet it was underneath the inserts, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to take out the inserts at the end of the day and let them dry out.

The inserts are cloth-on-foam, with an OrthoLife stamp under the arch. The other markings are OD-39, MS10, WS11.5, probably indicating size.

Sole insert, bottom side

Sorry about the lines in the photo. That's an interference pattern between my flashlight's LED flash rate and the phone's CCD scan rate.

Day 3: Friday October 23, 2014
At the end of the day, I think I'm getting used to these shoes. I'm liking them more. I wouldn't recommend a flat-footed person buy them without trying them on though. Maybe the Free 3.0 would be better if you're looking for a thinner, minimal shoe. Or the LunarGlide 6 would be a good choice for stability for flat feet. But for our arched brethren, I think these shoes would be awesomely comfortable.

One thing I really like is how I can take corners running at high speed and the shoe is still stable without having to tighten up the laces. Part of the stability comes from the sole being thin. For an opposite example, think high heels, the paragon of instability. Like a low-to-the-ground sports car, these shoes corner well. I like the light weight. There's just enough shoe there to do everything a running shoe needs to.

Day 365: October 21, 2015
After about a year of daily use, these shoes are about worn out. The insoles got holes in them, so I replaced them about a month ago. The soles are wearing down. I put them through the washing machine a couple times during the year. The mesh has one hole in it. But no seams are separating, and the glue is still holding them together. If they fit you and are comfortable, I'd recommend them. Personally, I'll try something different next time that fits my oddly shaped feet better.

Truth Censored

If natural medicines are so safe and effective, why don’t we already know about them and use them?

Because of the rule of the game. Here is the rule of western medicine:

A product cannot be sold with any claims to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease without FDA approval, even if there are scientific studies supporting such claims. Any such claim makes the product an illegal (unapproved) drug, such as cherries sold with a reference to a scientific study showing they reduce inflammation. Because of the obvious stupidity of this law, the FDA has granted that certain products may use certain approved phrases, such as “heart healthy”. Here’s an example from their website:

Labeling that links a specific food to a statement such as "Heart Healthy" contains both the substance element (reference to a specific food) and the disease-condition element (implied reduction in risk of heart disease) of a health claim. Health claims may be used on the label or labeling of a food only if claims about the nutrient-disease relationship involved have been authorized by FDA in a regulation.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm053455.htm

Why don’t supplement manufacturers get their products approved by the FDA to make such claims? 

Because it costs about a billion dollars to get a drug approved with the FDA. Then anyone can sell the supplement with the claim because natural substances are not patentable. Why would a company waste a billion dollars so their competition could benefit?

Actually, I think the question we should ask is why is western medicine so anti-natural medicine? Part of the answer may be greed. I think the industry leaders would rather create a solution that requires a lifetime of dependency than heal a patient and lose a customer. 

Because of rule #1 in the above list, the FDA is actively involved in suppressing knowledge of natural cures. 

Drugs heal. Poisons harm. Right?

Consider the difference between using nutrition to heal, and drugs. I did some research to find out how most drugs work. Most drugs work by inhibiting a certain enzyme reaction in the body. The dose is set to regulate how much of the reaction to inhibit. Compare the mechanism of how drugs work to how poisons work. I also researched how poisons work. They work by inhibiting a certain enzyme reaction in the body. Did you catch the difference between how drugs and poisons work? Drugs use a set dosage to limit how much of the enzyme reaction is inhibited. Inhibiting all of the enzyme reaction may result in death, depending on what enzyme it is. 

Now, healing by nutrition takes a different approach. While drugs interfere with the body's chemistry, nutrition supports it. When someone is deficient in a nutrient, just getting that nutrient can heal them. Yes, even in America, we have people that are nutritionally deficient. It's not because of a lack of calories. There are plenty of calories in the standard American diet. But there is a definite lack of nutrients in the standard American diet. 

I like to use the analogy of nutrition to building a house. You can give the workers a dumpster full of scrap (junk food) and they will work with what they have, but the house isn't going to be what you call a quality build. You can give them MDF (an analogy to processed food), or real wood. A variety of building materials are needed.

Aren't patent medicines safe and more effective than natural remedies because they have been studied with clinical trials that prove their safety and effectiveness?

Because of the enormous cost to get a drug approved, it limits the kind of drugs investigated for marketing to artificial (man-made) substances. Natural substances are studied, but only with the goal to isolate an effective compound that can be made synthetically. The studies of natural substances by pharmaceutical corporations are generally not published. The failed clinical trial results are also generally not published. 

The so-called safety of a drug has a broad definition. Running across a freeway can be safe if you wait for a break in the cars. The side-effect list is necessary to read because these are the symptoms that happened to people during clinical trials. They may try to play games with the statistics, but I wonder why my son gets every side-effect listed on a drug. I don't think the side-effects are as rare as they claim. 

Then there's the concept of active placebo. This basically invalidates every study in which one was used. An active placebo is designed to create side-effects. I think that invalidates the definition of placebo. I encourage you to research this topic.

Effectiveness is also stretched. If you can show a statistical improvement, compared to placebo, then the drug is considered effective. The problem with this approach is that you can design an experiment where you roll dice ten times with your left hand vs. ten times with your right hand. The hand that has a higher average is considered more effective. If you run enough trials, you are bound to get the results you want. That's why recent studies have shown than anti-depressants are no more effective than a placebo, except in cases of very severe depression. The most effective treatment for depression doesn't make money because it's not a patented formula or a trade secret, so it's not prescribed. It's exercise and proper nutrition. 

What's better?

There are studies on using natural substances and nutrition for healing. They are not marketed because there's no money to be made. You need to do your own research to find them. Using food as medicine sounds ineffective to the lay person. Is this attitude because of marketing tactics? I contend that simply using proper nutrition is much more safe and effective (in the vast majority of cases) than drugs. But no drug can approach the safety of using food as medicine. I wonder if people knew the truth about modern medicine, would they consider that a drug is a poison? Would they choose poisons as their first method of treatment, rather than looking for what nutrient is missing in their diet? Rather than suppressing symptoms with poisons, consider healing the cause with nutrition.