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
I don’t disagree, but this kind of post isn’t really in the spirit of TIL
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still no worse than the worst of the male grifters.
