plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20313 stories
·
20 followers

I’ve Read 3,000 Studies About COVID: Here’s What You’re Ignoring That Could (Still) Harm You or a Loved One | by Augie Ray | Dec, 2025 | Medium

1 Share

I’ve Read 3,000 Studies About COVID: Here’s What You’re Ignoring That Could (Still) Harm You or a Loved One

Six years ago today, on December 31, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) Country Office in China was informed of several cases of a pneumonia of unknown etiology that seemed connected to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. We all know what happened next. What most do not seem to know is that research continues to accumulate as to the chronic and long-term risks of repeated COVID infections. I’ve read the findings, discussions, and conclusions of more than 3,000 studies, including over a hundred published just this month, and I wish more people appreciated the risks they’re taking.

People hearing what I’ve learned often jump to the false dichotomy of either doing nothing to protect yourself or returning to the dark days of being isolated at home with business and school closures. No one is suggesting you need to stay home. I don’t! But what I’ve taken from the medical research I’ve reviewed is that I need to be a little more aware of and careful about the risks I choose to take. Maybe, after reading what I have to share, you may decide the same.

Before continuing, I’ll also acknowledge that I am not a medical professional, but you don’t need to be one to understand much of the research. Even if you don’t know the difference between P53 (a tumor-suppressing protein that is downregulated by COVID), C-reactive protein (a protein that rises following COVID infections and signals inflammatory processes), or T cells (a type of white blood cell that protects you from disease and is reduced after COVID infections), you can still learn from the hard work of thousands of medical researchers studying COVID’s longer-term impact.

I will first share some plain-language conclusions, and then, for those with more curiosity, I’ll share links to hundreds of studies validating those conclusions.

What We Know About COVID Infections and Reinfections

Everyone already knows the good news: COVID no longer fills up hospitals. And, while it still caused around 20,000 U.S. deaths in the past twelve months (a number that is certainly undercounted), severe acute illness causes substantially fewer hospitalizations and deaths than in the early years of the pandemic. Thanks to some immunity created by a combination of prior infections and vaccinations, COVID is no longer a “novel” virus but one against which our body has some incomplete defenses. That does not mean it’s safe to be repeatedly reinfected with COVID, however.

Now, the bad news. Research and data tell us that:

  • COVID isn’t “just the flu” — it surges twice as often, never goes away, and is associated with much greater health risks than influenza: COVID never became a seasonal virus; unlike influenza, which surges once a year each winter, COVID causes two significant waves of infections annually in the US. Moreover, while influenza infections virtually disappear much of the year, COVID is always circulating, per wastewater analysis, an effective measure of viral risks. We also can see this in hospitalization data — in the first week of September 2025, COVID hospitalized 2.6 of every 100,000 Americans, while, at the same time, influenza hospitalized 90% fewer people. Moreover, multiple studies that compare the risks of influenza (which most of us get every eight to ten years) and COVID (which many get every two or three years) find that COVID causes a much greater risk of chronic symptoms lasting three to six months or longer. For example, a study published two weeks ago found COVID was associated with significantly higher (76%) 30-day all-cause mortality compared with influenza. (You’ll find dozens of additional studies on COVID and the flu at the end of this article.)
  • Each COVID reinfection increases the risk of Long COVID and chronic health problems: If COVID was just a minor acute viral illness, it might not be terribly concerning that it is always present and surges multiple times a year, but reinfections bring accumulating health risks. The fact COVID can cause longer-term health problems should come as no surprise, since we already knew that about other viruses. For example, Epstein-Barr is one of the most common human viruses in the world, and long after one recovers from acute mononucleosis, an EBV infection can raise the risk of cancer. We shouldn’t take any viral infection as lightly as we do, but with COVID, a virus that reinfects people quite commonly, the risks are greater. Dozens of studies find that the more you get COVID infections, the higher your risk of Long COVID. (You’ll find many links to these studies at the end of this post.)
  • Long COVID is not a single condition but a blanket term for different types of dysfunctions: Many seem to think Long COVID is an imagined disease, but in fact, it’s a recognized condition by the CDC, WHO, and even the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which recognizes Long COVID as a condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, there are reasons people may be confused by Long COVID. It’s a new condition, and research is still lacking. Medical definitions of Long COVID can vary, although most define it as symptoms persisting three or more months post-infection. There are no established diagnostic criteria nor a single biomarker to diagnose Long COVID. And it’s possible there never will be a single way to define and diagnose Long COVID, as recent studies find that the condition we call Long COVID isn’t a single disease but has different phenotypes. Various studies find that people with Long COVID have a wide variety of health issues that can be clustered by chronic respiratory, neurological, cardiovascular, fatigue, pain, or multi-system involvement.
  • There is no known treatment for Long COVID, many people recover slowly, but some suffer for years: Researchers are feverishly trying to establish treatments for Long COVID, but there is no approved treatment. There is no way to prevent or combat Long COVID besides avoiding another COVID infection. Many with Long COVID find they recover from their lingering Long COVID symptoms over the course of months. Others are not so fortunate, suffering from serious, debilitating, and long-lasting conditions.
  • Even if you feel recovered from an acute COVID illness or chronic Long COVID, the virus can leave your body with subclinical damage that can cause profound health concerns over time: The term “subclinical” refers to a disease that is not severe enough to present symptoms, but subclinical problems can still be very serious. Research tells us COVID can leave many with subclinical damage to immune, cardiovascular, neurological, or respiratory systems. COVID infections are associated with a higher risk of major cardiac events, impaired immune systems, brain damage, psychiatric issues, sleep disorders, and autoimmune diseases such as diabetes. Early research also suggests COVID may also be oncogenic (meaning it encourages the development of cancer), but it will take more years of research to conclusively establish a link. (Again, you’ll find some pertinent research links at the end of this article.) No one knows how four or five COVID infections may damage the body, harm well-being, or encourage chronic illness, but what we do know about COVID infections should urge us to more caution.
  • Although the risk of a COVID infection has been declining in recent years, we could yet see significant waves of infections. Over the last two years, COVID surges in the U.S. have been on a steady decline, thanks to the immunity we’ve accumulated from prior infections and vaccinations, along with the lack of a major new COVID mutation. We cannot count on that continuing, however. A new and highly mutated COVID variant (BA.3.2, nicknamed “Cicada”) has begun to gain traction globally. While most COVID variants are caused by minor mutations as the virus spreads from one person to the next, BA.3.2 is very different, having developed over the course of years within the body of an immunocompromised person who was unable to defeat the virus. As this new variant spreads and mutates further, COVID vaccination rates are plunging, with just 16% of U.S. adults and around 7% of children receiving the 2025/26 COVID vaccine. The declining vaccination rate, in combination with the threat from a new, highly mutated variant, could bring greater surges, more infections, and more Long COVID suffering in 2026. (It’s happened before — the largest wave of COVID infections was not in 2020, the first year of the pandemic, but in winter 2021/22 when the first Omicron variant spread widely.) Adding to the risks are two enormous global (possibly “superspreading”) events in 2026 — the Winter Olympics in Milan in February and FIFA 2026 in North America this summer — which could spread COVID and accelerate its evolution.
  • Vaccines are generally safe and effective: There is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there about COVID vaccines. On the one hand, the COVID vaccine is associated with some risks, and vaccine effectiveness against infection drops quite substantially within three to six months after a jab. Neither of those are reasons to avoid vaccination, however. COVID vaccines, as with all vaccines and medications, have some risks — I mean, have you tried to read the warnings that come with your OTC or prescription medication recently? — but studies have established the overall safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Moreover, while it’s disappointing the vaccine effectiveness against infection declines so rapidly, the data is quite solid that COVID vaccines provide more lasting protection against serious illness and may decrease the risk of Long COVID. Below, I provide a list of studies about the impact of COVID vaccinations, but one recent study deserves special attention since it evaluated four-year mortality across an enormous population of 28 million people, and it found, “no increased risk of 4-year all-cause mortality in individuals aged 18 to 59 years vaccinated against COVID-19.”

When I share this sort of information, one common response I hear is that if people were really getting less healthy due to COVID reinfections, we’d surely see the signs. Like, for example, an abrupt change in disabilities that started growing in 2021 and continues to rise? Or, maybe we’d see an unusual rise in cancers since the start of the pandemic? Or, perhaps younger people would start dying of heart attacks at younger ages? And if our immune systems were being damaged, wouldn’t we see a rise in infections such as measles, pertussis, and influenza? Obviously, broad population-level changes in health are complex and are due to multiple causes, including declining vaccination rates, but evidence is all around us that the health of many is changing.

Small Precautions Can Go a Long Way to Prevent an Acute illness, Long COVID Symptoms, or Serious Chronic Health Problems

When we ended the global health emergency, leaders said we could do so because we were armed with the tools we needed to protect ourselves. Then, we promptly ignored or ended those tools. Genomic testing, which helps to inform us of significant new variants, has decreased to disappointingly miniscule levels. Vaccines, which diminish infections and protect against serious illness, are disregarded by most. Wastewater testing, an effective tool for monitoring risks, is ignored. And, when wastewater tells us risks are high and rising, few make any changes to their behaviors. But, as I noted earlier, the answer isn’t to lock yourself at home but to become aware of the risks and react sensibly.

There are a couple of simple things to do to decrease our risks all the time, without any significant adjustments to our behaviors:

  • Get vaccinated, as recommended. The current U.S. administration may cast doubts on vaccines, but the CDC still recommends an annual COVID vaccination! At the current time, most Americans haven’t received a vaccination in two or three years, significantly raising their risks of infection. And, more infections encourage larger surges, more COVID mutations, and larger numbers of people dealing with Long COVID issues.
  • Improve the air we breathe. At home, at work, and elsewhere, we can do more to improve the quality of the air we breathe. Personally, we can open windows and use air purifiers to reduce infection risks. Also, we can urge business leaders, school officials, and others to implement safe air practices in communal spaces. The more we improve the air we breathe, the more we reduce illnesses and protect ourselves and our families.

There are also small actions we can take to ensure we and our families stay healthy, particularly during surges. When wastewater testing alerts us to increased risks, we can:

  • Socialize with friends at home versus meeting in crowded bars and restaurants.
  • Dine and socialize outdoors rather than indoors with crowds.
  • Stay home when you’re sick. Don’t make your illness someone else’s chronic health risk.
  • Wear a mask when commuting, traveling, or attending events.

None of this suggests you lock yourself in isolation. Knowing the risks can lead us to commonsense decisions that minimize our risks while still allowing us to enjoy life. People have adopted an attitude that COVID infections are inevitable, so they should do nothing to prevent them. That makes as much sense as saying auto accidents are inevitable, so why wear seatbelts? And, if you can change your plans or put on boots due to threatening or inclement weather, then there is no reason you cannot learn to adjust plans or wear a mask when infection risks are high.

I believe we’re in the “smoking era” of COVID. For decades, we had a growing awareness of the risks of smoking, but that didn’t mean everyone acted on that knowledge. About 42% of adults smoked in 1965. By 1989, it fell to 30%. In 2013, it was 19%. Today, just 11% of Americans report they smoked in the past week. Even with the dangers of smoking well known, it took decades for people to act, and in those intervening decades, millions suffered and died unnecessarily due to their smoking habits. Now that COVID’s risks are becoming established, will it take decades for people to act, and must we wait until millions have chronic illness or disability before we do so?

I can’t answer that question, but here’s an even better one for you: What will you do with this knowledge? Were the smart ones the people who ignored the risks of smoking and increased their chances of cancer, COPD, and death? Or were the smart ones the people who acted before others, reducing their risks and doing what they could to lead a longer, healthier life.

Links to the Details on COVID’s Risks

Some of you may not believe the conclusions above. This lengthy section is full of links to data and research that validate the risks of COVID. If you haven’t yet been convinced, here you go:

COVID infections are riskier than influenza infections: People are infected much more often with COVID, and COVID is not “just the flu”:

  • “The research found that over 1 in 3 patients had one or more features of long-COVID recorded between 3 and 6 months after a diagnosis of COVID-19. This was significantly higher than after influenza.” 2021
  • “Compared with seasonal influenza, covid-19 was associated with increased risk of mental health outcomes in people who both were and were not admitted to hospital.” 2022
  • “The death rate at 30 days was 5.97% for COVID-19 and 3.75% for influenza.” 2023
  • “the COVID-19 group had a significantly higher risk of the composite outcomes during all-cause ED visits, hospitalizations, and deaths when compared with the influenza group (27.5% vs. 21.7).” 2023
  • “Over 18 months of follow-up, compared to seasonal influenza, the COVID-19 group had an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·51 [95% CI 1·45–1·58]), corresponding to an excess death rate of 8·62 (95% CI 7·55–9·44) per 100 persons in the COVID-19 group versus the influenza group.” 2024
  • “Beyond the first 30 days after infection, patients with COVID-19 were at increased risk for incident AIRD (autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases) compared with… influenza-infected control patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.30).” 2024
  • “In this large real-world study, COVID-19 infections were associated with a 2.3-fold risk of developing AKI (acute kidney injury), a 1.4-fold risk of CKD (chronic kidney disease), and a 4.7-fold risk of ESRD (end-stage renal disease) compared to influenza.” 2024
  • “COVID-19 represented a greater disease burden than influenza, with more hospitalisations and deaths, and more severe disease primarily among non-vaccinated and comorbid patients.” 2024
  • “PICU (Pediatric intensive care unit) admission rates and oxygen support needs were similar in both groups. When the virus was COVID-19, it had 7.8 times higher risk of mortality compared to influenza.” 2024
  • “Influenza had lower odds for requiring ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality compared to COVID-19 only.” 2025
  • “COVID-19 was associated with more severe disease outcomes, including long-term mortality, compared with influenza or RSV.” 2025
  • “COVID-19 represented a greater disease burden than influenza, with more hospital admissions and deaths, and more severe disease (primarily among non-vaccinated people, those with comorbidities, and male patients).” 2025
  • “Among study participants with a documented infection, SCV2-positive participants had nearly twice the odds of ongoing symptoms as influenza-positive participants.” 2025
  • “COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of long-term renal dysfunction compared with influenza.” 2025
  • “Among hospitalized SARI (severe acute respiratory infection) patients, the odds of severe outcome were higher for SARS-CoV-2 patients compared to influenza-positive patients for all periods, while the odds of death were higher for two periods.” 2025
  • “Risks of post-acute cognitive impairment and fatigue/malaise were significantly higher post-COVID-19 vs influenza (cognition: aHR = 1.34; fatigue/malaise: aHR = 1.75).” 2025
  • “Compared to influenza, COVID-19 was associated with diplopia and CN (cranial nerve) VI palsy.” 2025
  • “COVID-19 is associated with markedly higher short-term mortality than influenza across diverse clinical and demographic subgroups.” 2025

Each COVID reinfection accumulates risks:

  • “Compared to no reinfection, reinfection contributed additional risks of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.17, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.93–2.45), hospitalization (HR = 3.32, 95% CI 3.13–3.51) and sequelae including pulmonary, cardiovascular, hematological, diabetes, gastrointestinal, kidney, mental health, musculoskeletal and neurological disorders.” 2022
  • “Reinfection seems associated with more prevalent severe long-term symptoms compared to a first infection.” 2023
  • “In the Omicron cohorts, the estimated proportion of PASC positivity was greater among reinfected participants compared with participants with 1 reported infection.” 2023
  • “The cumulative risk of long COVID as well as of various cardiac, pulmonary, or neurological complications increases proportionally to the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections, primarily in the elderly.” 2023
  • “We report a consistent increase in the risk of persistent symptoms after reinfection compared to first infection. All post-acute COVID19 symptoms mentioned in the WHO clinical case definition appeared more common after reinfection than after a first infection, after matching by age, sex and date of infection.” 2023
  • “Canadians reporting two known or suspected COVID-19 infections (25.4%) were 1.7 times more likely to report prolonged symptoms than those reporting only one known or suspected infection (14.6%), and those with 3 or more infections (37.9%) 2.6 times more likely.” 2023
  • “Overall, these results demonstrate significant worsening of depression, stress, and anxiety symptoms coupled with improvements in attentional control abilities over time for repeatedly COVID-19-diagnosed individuals.” 2024
  • “Long COVID-19 was more prevalent when subjects had reinfections (p = 0.02) and less frequent when they had a complete vaccination scheme (p = 0.05).” 2024
  • “Compared to those with one SARS-CoV-2 infection, reinfected patients were at a higher risk of asthma (3.0; 1.32–6.84), COPD (3.07; 1.42–6.65), ILD (3.61; 1.11–11.8), and lung cancer (3.20; 1.59–6.45).” 2024
  • “Overall, by 12-months, 17.4% of first-positives and 21.9% of reinfected CYP (children and young people) fulfilled the research consensus Long Covid definition.” 2024
  • “For individuals with infection counts of two or more times, there was a statistically significant increase in general symptoms, cardiovascular symptoms, and neuropsychological symptoms. Additionally, the total distress score was notably higher in this group.” 2024
  • “The cumulative risk of APC (post-COVID-19 illness) increases with the number of infections from 13% with one infection, to 23% with two infections and reaching 37% for three infections.” 2024
  • “Both having Long-COVID at the 1-year follow-up and contracting a second infection were significant risk factors for presenting with Long-COVID at the 2-year follow-up.” 2024
  • “Re-infected patients exhibited lower levels of brain activation and excitability compared to single-infection patients.” 2024
  • “Participants with reinfection were associated with a higher probability of reporting headaches (OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.06–2.25), loss of or change in smell and/or taste (OR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.27–2.83), impaired sleep (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.02–2.35), and brain fog (OR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.12–2.76).” 2024
  • “Participants reporting multiple COVID-19 infections have a significantly higher prevalence of long COVID with the highest prevalence of severe long COVID (PR: 1.84, 95 % CI: 1.21, 2.80) compared with people that reported only one COVID-19 infection.” 2024
  • “Here we show that reinfections increase the likelihood of reporting Long COVID, which increased 2.1-fold from one to two infections.” 2024
  • “The multivariate regression analysis indicated that having two infections posed a significant risk for many long COVID symptoms, and the risk ratio increased exponentially when the number of infections exceeds two.” 2024
  • “Those infected with Covid-19 twice or more were more likely to have Long COVID than those infected once.” 2024
  • “The risk of developing post-COVID-19 syndrome increased for those… experiencing reinfections (OR 2.405, p < 0.001), while SARS-CoV-2 vaccination halved the risk (OR = 0.489, p = 0.004).” 2024
  • “The participants who had a history of COVID-19 re-infection were 3.94 and 2.81 times more inclined to an inferior psychological and social QoL score, respectively in comparison to individuals who had not.” 2024
  • “Participants with multiple infections (1.41 [1.33–1.50]) had a higher risk of any PCC compared to those with a single infection (1.10 [1.09–1.12]).” 2024
  • “We found a significant association between the risk of experiencing PASC and multiple SARS-COV-2 infections (RR = 1.41 [1.14–1.74]).” 2025
  • “Among patients with COVID-19 infection requiring hospitalisation, COVID-19 re-infection was associated with increased post-acute mortality and morbidity compared with first-time infection.” 2025
  • “Risk-benefit analysis showed that a higher number of pre-existing comorbidities and multiple SARS-CoV-2 infections were the factors most strongly associated with increased probability of long COVID at six months post-infection.” 2025
  • “Objective memory scores decreased significantly with increasing number of COVID-19 infections for the diagnosed long COVID group.” 2025
  • “The odds of long COVID increased with reinfections (odds ratios for one reinfection 2.592 [95% CI: 2.188 to 3.061]; two or more: 6.171 [3.227 to 11.557]; all p < 0.001).” 2025
  • “Children and adolescents face significantly higher risk of various PASC outcomes after reinfection with SARS-CoV-2.” 2025
  • “Our final model identified significant associations between long COVID and two or more COVID-19 infections (OR = 23.725, 95% CI: 5.098–110.398, p < 0.0001).” 2025
  • “For long COVID, older age (OR: 1.63, 1.38–1.93), female (OR: 1.19, 1.03–1.38) and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection (OR: 3.56, 2.63–4.80) were risk factors; while number of COVID-19 vaccine doses (OR: 0.87, 0.81–0.94) was a protective factor.” 2025
  • “In elite judo athletes, reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 cause more severe respiratory dysfunction compared to primary infection, with notable impairments in maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and MEP by −14% and −13%, respectively, at 3 months.” 2025
  • “The cumulative risk of long COVID increased with the number of reported COVID-19 infections, rising from 13.7% (95% CI, 13.1%–14.4%) for a single infection to 37.0% (33.0%–40.9%) for 3 infections in the online survey, and from 11.8% (a single infection) to 29.5% (≥3 infections) in the telephone survey.” 2025
  • “In individuals reporting their first infection during the Omicron wave, the odds of reporting ≥3 symptoms after the most recent infection was higher in those reinfected than in those with a single infection (weighted adjusted odds ratio, 1.54).” 2025
  • “Among individuals with multiple infections, the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased depressive symptoms.” 2025
  • “The risk of Long COVID doubled for every additional confirmed positive COVID-19 test.” 2025
  • “Long COVID prevalence was 3–10 times higher in individuals with three or more infections than in those with only one recorded infection.” 2025
  • “The rate of Long COVID diagnoses has been increasing with each successive Omicron variant, which is particularly notable as there has been less follow-up time for variants such as Omicron BQ.XBB.” 2025
  • “A significantly higher number of symptoms (were) reported by LC patients with three reinfections (M = 8.39, SD = 2.63), compared to those who experienced only one (M = 6.14, SD = 2.76; p =.002), or two reinfections (M = 7.00, SD = 2.87; p =.015.” 2025
  • “Participants who had experienced two or more episodes of COVID-19 were 1.42 (95 % CI 0.98–2.05 and 90 % CI 1.04–1.95) times more likely to report severe symptoms compared to those with only one episode.” 2025
  • “Reinfection was associated with a significantly increased risk of an overall PASC diagnosis (U09.9) (RR 2·08 [1·68–2·59]) and a range of symptoms and conditions potentially related to PASC (RR range 1·15–3·60), including myocarditis, changes in taste and smell, thrombophlebitis and thromboembolism, heart disease, acute kidney injury, fluid and electrolyte disturbance, generalised pain, arrhythmias, abnormal liver enzymes, chest pain, fatigue and malaise, headache, musculoskeletal pain, abdominal pain, mental ill health, POTS or dysautonomia, cognitive impairment, skin conditions, fever and chills, respiratory signs and symptoms, and cardiovascular signs and symptoms.” 2025
  • “Among 2054 workers (1308 women, 746 men) aged 40–69 years, 486 developed Long-COVID (23.7%). Individual risk factors were… previous symptomatic vs. asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infection (3.32; 2.19–5.06 for mild/moderate, 9.60; 6.10–15.1 for severe/critical).” 2025
  • “Reinfection increases long COVID risk; however, the absolute increase after reinfection is smaller than that observed after a primary infection.” 2025
  • “REST-Q (Restorative Sleep Questionnaire) scores decreased with increasing number of infections.” 2025
  • “Compared with the first SARS-CoV-2 infection episode (reference), patients who experienced a second episode had higher odds of dyspnea (adjusted odds ratio; OR = 7.61; 95% confidence interval CI = 1.54–37.66).” 2025
  • “The increase in IFN-γ in patients who had multiple episodes of COVID-19 may indicate persistent and possibly exacerbated immune activation after reinfections.” 2025
  • “Hospitalization and COVID-19 reinfection significantly increased the risk of PASC, with reinfection raising odds more than 11-fold.” 2025

COVID vaccines are safe and effective:

  • “Data from 40 health care systems participating in a large network found that the risk for cardiac complications was significantly higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination for both males and females in all age groups. These findings support continued use of recommended mRNA COVID-19 vaccines among all eligible persons aged ≥5 years.” 2022
  • “COVID-19 vaccination protects against adverse maternal–fetal outcomes, with booster doses conferring additional protection.” 2023
  • “This study found a significantly lower rate of mortality among individuals with myocarditis after mRNA vaccination compared with those with viral infection–related myocarditis.” 2022
  • “The risk of death decreased with the number of COVID-19 vaccinations.” 2023
  • “The risk of developing post-COVID-19 syndrome increased for those with more symptoms in the acute phase (OR 4.24, p < 0.001) and those experiencing reinfections (OR 2.405, p < 0.001), while SARS-CoV-2 vaccination halved the risk (OR = 0.489, p = 0.004).” 2024
  • “Full vaccination and booster were associated with significantly lower risk of PCC compared to no or partial vaccination.” 2024
  • “COVID-19 vaccination reduced the risk of post-COVID-19 cardiac and thromboembolic outcomes.” 2024
  • “The pooled analysis found no significant increase in the risk of myocarditis among vaccinated pilots compared to unvaccinated pilots.” 2024
  • “No increased risk of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular events was observed up to 180 days after any mRNA vaccination dose in the Omicron era; vaccination attenuated post-acute cardiovascular risk in older adults. The risk-benefit ratio of vaccination remained positive during Omicron.” 2024
  • “The incidence of neuro-ophthalmic consequences following infection with COVID-19 is hundred-folds higher and associated with more harrowing systemic effects than vaccination against the virus.” 2024
  • “The odds of brain fog significantly decreased with increasing vaccination rates.” 2024
  • “Our data suggest that the increased risk of non-inflammatory CNS disorders following COVID-19 vaccination is lower than the risk conferred by COVID-19 infection.” 2024
  • “The pooled OR (odds ratio) for receiving a new antidepressant prescription was higher for unvaccinated individuals than for those vaccinated.” 2024
  • “Vaccination protects against adverse maternal–fetal outcomes and is now the most effective intervention for improving neonatal morbidity due to SARS-CoV-2 and can be administered at any time during pregnancy, with booster doses conferring additional protection.” 2024
  • “Vaccination during pregnancy correlated with reduced symptoms and no hospitalizations.” 2024
  • “For long COVID, older age (OR: 1.63, 1.38–1.93), female (OR: 1.19, 1.03–1.38) and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection (OR: 3.56, 2.63–4.80) were risk factors; while number of COVID-19 vaccine doses (OR: 0.87, 0.81–0.94) was a protective factor.” 2025
  • “Vaccination offers substantial protection against long COVID.” 2025
  • “Receipt of at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine lowered the odds [aOR (95% CI)] for unexplained sudden death.” 2025
  • “Importantly, recent large-scale studies have found no link between COVID-19 vaccination and SCA in young adults. Instead, prior COVID-19 hospitalization and modifiable risk factors play a more significant role.” 2025
  • “C19V (COVID-19 vaccination) was not associated with an increased RR of vascular access interventions at any post-vaccination time point. However, C19D (COVID-19 disease) was associated with an increased RR after the first month (RR: 1.5–1.8) with the risk persisting for at least 4 months post-infection.” 2025
  • “Vaccination against SARS-Cov-2 appeared to imply a higher overall recovery rate for all neurological symptoms.” 2025
  • “Full COVID-19 vaccination significantly reduced the risk of POD (postoperative delirium).” 2025
  • “Full COVID-19 vaccination may be linked with improved long-term outcomes in glucose regulation and cardiovascular stability. Conversely, unvaccinated individuals experienced ongoing glycemic dysregulation and an increase in hypertension prevalence.” 2025

COVID increases cardiovascular, neurological, immune system, and other risks: Rather than continue to post a long list of studies and links, I invite you to visit my spreadsheet of 3,000 studies. You’ll find ample evidence that COVID damages hearts and blood vessels, raises risks of embolism, strokes, and heart attacks, impairs the immune system, damages brains, increases mental health disorders, creates risks in pregnancies, damages kidneys, impairs sleep, raises the risk of diabetes and other autoimmune diseases, and is associated with changes that may encourage cancer:

I hope this information might help you to better understand the continuing risk of COVID and, perhaps, bring a little more safety into your life. Stay safe, friends.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

The Anti-Cosmetic Surgery Essay Every Woman Should Read

1 Share

Welp, another major female celebrity just copped herself a completely new face. That’s right, thirty-six year old Hollywood crone Emma Stone recently got her face snatched so tight that she’s now twinning with OG Iron Chef chairman Takeshi Kaga. Welcome to Kitchen Stadium: the special mystery ingredient on tonight’s episode is (the divine) feminine insecurity. Allez cuisine!

the first successful woman-to-woman asian transfusion. science is so beautiful.

Any time a young, attractive female celebrity gets noticeable plastic surgery, I see a wave of Substack articles on the topic from women authors. The tone of these pieces is mildly probative, but always polite and measured. They so beautifully skim the surface and touch on broad topics like the pressure women feel to stay young and beautiful in the Information Age, something that resonates with every bitch with a pulse.

My problem with these essays is that while they softly lament the Great Yassification of women, they always stop short of declaring that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Upon close inspection, these pieces really don’t say much at all other than “I feel sad everyone looks the same now.” Oh, well. I get it. I too have engaged in this type of safe discourse. To go further opens you up to angry, defensive comments from hit dogs and allegations of Helen Lovejoy “won’t someone please think of the children!” hand-wringing that no woman wants to be associated with in the days of Cool Girl internet apathy.

But I really don’t care about either of those things, so let me clearly state my thesis: I believe one of the biggest existential threats to modern women is the beauty-industrial complex, that is the vast network of corporations that manufactures and sells us an endless slew of products, services, images and ideologies intended to destroy our self-worth for the benefit of shareholders. Its inky tendrils have slithered into all corners of American culture and wrapped themselves around our minds and bodies. One of its strongest arms is elective cosmetic surgery—something I believe is especially corrosive to women’s mental, financial, spiritual, and bodily health.

I’ve organized my thoughts on this subject into ten parts. It is a 30 minute read but it may very well change your perspective entirely. If I am found dead shortly after publishing this piece, please know that I did NOT kill myself. But only because “cool but rude” Substack juggernaut Freddie deBoer said it was cringe.

  1. Feminine Narcissism and the Infatuation with the “Inferiorized Body”

In the 1970s, feminist philosopher Sandra Bartky coined the term “feminine narcissism” to describe the process whereby women are encouraged, both directly and covertly, to become so excessively preoccupied with their appearance that it leads to a pervasive self-alienation, a sense of shame, and a greater awareness of one’s own “deficient” body. This “inferiorization” is not inherent, but rather is a product of societal pressures, particularly the beauty-industrial complex which glorifies the female body while simultaneously depreciating it, forcing women into a state of perpetual self-scrutiny and control. She writes:

“Knowing that she is to be subjected to the cold appraisal of the male connoisseur and that her life prospects may depend on how she is seen, a woman learns to appraise herself first. The sexual objectification of women produces a duality in feminine consciousness. The gaze of the Other is internalized so that I myself become at once seer and seen, appraiser and the thing appraised.”1

The woman so becomes a prisoner of the Panopticon. Because the “gaze” is everywhere all at once, the woman learns to constantly self-monitor and police her own body for any perceived “flaw,” resulting in an intense self-objectification of, and alienation from, her physical being.

Most of Bartky’s essays were written over thirty-five years ago, well before the age of social media and, for want of a more eloquent expression, long before the shit totally hit the fan. Social media simultaneously encourages, rewards, and punishes self-objectifying behavior in women. Its entire purpose is to foster an endless cycle of watching and perceiving; one that constantly besieges the participant with images of her own face and body, and contradictory images of what she is not (the Other). Bartky met her end in 2018 at the ripe age of eighty-one; unfortunately, she was never able to expand her work to address the impact of the internet on this “feminine narcissism” and our infatuation with the inferiorized body. But if she could will her spirit down from the heavens to speak to us for a single moment, I have no doubt what the message would be: log off.

  1. The Inferiorized Woman as Perfect Consumer

how funny would it be if i paywalled the rest of this (jk here’s a share button instead)

Share

On its webpage dedicated to “The Power of Women,” the very cool American Consumer Counsel notes that women account for 80% of consumer purchasing and “are the most powerful consumers on the planet.” The ACC also notes that “Women as consumers are a force to be reckoned with.” Hell yeah, sister [Hulk Hogan voice].

Yes, bitches be shoppin’ so much that Morgan Stanley has decided that it’s no longer “the economy,” it’s the SHEconomy.

Feel empowered yet? No? That’s because contrary to what your TV tells you America does not run on Dunkin. It runs on fear. Studies have shown that the vast majority of consumer purchases are driven by emotional responses rather necessity, the largest driver being the primal fear of missing out that “taps into our evolutionary need for resource acquisition and social belonging, creating urgency that bypasses rational evaluation.”2 Unsurprisingly, excessive purchasing is also positively linked to anxiety and depression.3

If a happy consumer is indeed a bad consumer, the inferiorized woman is more valuable than gold in today’s America. Once we are infected with the disease (the belief that our bodies are deficient and must be improved), we can be sold the cure. The antidote for our inferiorized bodies is a never-ending slew of cosmetic surgery, makeup, serums, cleansers, pharmaceuticals, moisturizers, spray tans, cosmetic dentistry, hair masques, hair removal, manicures, facials, the list goes on. New (or at least “improved”) products and services are “invented” each and every day to keep the great SHEconomy churning.

Gen Z women are spending massively more on cosmetic products and procedures (including “prejuvenation” procedures) than any previous generation, likely due to social media use and increased depression/anxiety caused in no small part thereby. Despite the occasional anecdotes you’ll hear from people claiming that a nose job or a mommy makeover “fixed them,” empirical evidence suggests that cosmetic work does not improve long-term happiness,4 and that it actually increases symptoms of depression and anxiety.5 And when the consumer fails to find the relief she was deceptively promised, she is simply advised to consume more.

This is how the beauty-industrial complex feasts on the lifeforce of women, including our most vulnerable demographic. Walk into any Sephora; it will be full of literal children. “Pottery Barn Teen” now sells a $199 mini skincare fridge to help our girls store their favorite beauty products. Yes, even their night cream peddled by celebrity dermatologist Dr. Howard Murad, a man who has inflicted so much psychic damage on teenage girls I heard Michigan State University is planning to invite him to step-in for Larry Nassar.

corrupt her brain while it’s still young and malleable; like her skin may it stay smooth forever

The beauty-industrial complex is also working hard to brainwash women into viewing expensive and extreme beautification procedures as a mere extension of routine female grooming. Fillers, Botox, and and micro-needling are to be treated no differently than a haircut or manicure. Easily accessible GLP-1 drugs can supplement, or simply become part of, our diet and exercise routines.

Chic MediSpas like my neighborhood’s own “PLSTK” now ravage our cities like a locust plague. Because women constitute upwards of 95% of their clientele, it is entirely within our power to snuff out these parasites with the tip of our boot if we so desire. But that would require a radical physical, mental, and spiritual effort. Indeed, it would require us to stay at home and not spend hundreds of dollars to have needles jabbed into our flesh. We are simply not ready for such a challenge.

no doubt in my mind this is what the lobby to HELL looks like. ushered into perdition by the demon JUVEDERM who, after tormenting you with microneedling for a limitless eternity, swivels an iPad with a leering grin: your option to tip 30, 40, or 50%

“PLSTK” (an enterprise so evil vowels asked to be removed from it) specializes in facial harmonization procedures because, well, your natural face is a cacophony of SHIT. They also offer rejuvenation services because your natural face looks so haggard an elderly Appalachian man in overalls is trailing you with a shotgun muttering “time to put’er down.” The list goes on and on: weekly GLP-1 injections, fillers, neurotoxins, PDO thread lifts, Kybella, body contouring, hydrafacial, laser hair removal, laser facials, and more. ⁠ The roster grows by the day, it seems. Our beautiful, perfect Fantasy Self waiting to break free once we find the right cream, diet, serum, injection, surgeon. A freshwater mirage glimmering in the sweltering desert, just a dune or two away.

Western women have come to enjoy unprecedented liberties over the last century and let me just be the first to say: it’s been awesome. In my thirty-eight years on this earth, however, I’ve seen some truth in Sartre’s statement that for many, radical freedom is not a source of relief but of anguish. At the feet of liberty lay the existential dread of being solely responsible for one’s actions and choices in a world not anchored by any predetermined values or fixed human nature.

It is an uncertain time. I cannot help but feel we’ve reached an inflection point in human history. Some days it feels like we are standing on the precipice of a cliff that we’ve been slowly inching towards since we first perfected the steam engine and spinning jenny nearly three centuries ago. Now, it seems, we can finally see over the edge.

Many have voiced similar feelings. Yeats warned of the dangers of the Industrial Revolution and withdrew into his mythologies. Bartky wrote of consumerism displacing the family and religion as the chief behavioral regulator in our society. In the late 1970s, British Occultist Peter J. Carroll predicted an impending dark age where “ideas about a person’s place in society, roles, lifestyle, and ego qualities will lose their hold as the cohesive forces in society disintegrate;” a period where “lifestyle consultants will become the new priests of our civilization.”6 Climate change, war, artificial intelligence, political extremism, economic scarcity, work that feels dehumanizing, the gamification of dating/mating, and—most importantly—phones that connect us to everything, everywhere in a way that is neither natural nor healthy. I have immense empathy for anyone who feels crushed by the weight of the modern world, especially those who have not yet discovered the necessary coping habits and philosophies.

Much to the delight of corporations everywhere, women are retreating deeper into their bodies more than ever. In her feminist manifesto “The Second Sex,” philosopher Simone de Beauvoir theorized that feminine narcissism is one of the three “bad faith” responses to the anguish of complete freedom in this chaotic world. She wrote that self-objectification provides “an illusion of a fixed identity;” it offers a temporary sense of tranquility and deludes the woman into believing she is alleviated from taking responsibility for the authentic, challenging choices posed by her freedom and subjectivity.7

Unaware that they are being sold a Great Lie, women are led to believe they will find happiness in physical beauty and perfection, that such perfection can be achieved, and perhaps worst of all—that there is much integrity in the mental and physical labor expended in pursuit of it.

Evidence of the Body Cult’s growing foothold is everywhere: the exponential growth of the billion-dollar beauty industry; the proliferation of social media accounts broadcasting the poster’s shopping habits, skincare routines, workouts, make-up looks, daily outfits, and, most importantly, everything she eats and shits out in a day; the popularity of “looksmaxxing,” surgery, and skincare forums that have millions of users; the ubiquity of evil MediSpas that are not just endemic to my beloved New York. For every one article criticizing consumer culture or this terrible beauty-sickness, there seem to be thousands more cultivating it. Nearly all of these are written by women for women. “Wellness culture” receives no pardon. It too is an agent of the beauty-industrial complex, though it disguises itself better than most.

Our bodies have become the altars of a new religion. Our beautification and self-care rituals are sacraments, no different than “the typical obsessive compulsive features of much religious behavior.”8

What is the endgame of all this fanaticism? As Carroll noted, a cult only ends in one of two ways: consumerism or a police raid.9

  1. The Body Cult as Mind Control

To be psychologically oppressed “is to be weighed down in your mind; it is to have a harsh dominion exercised over your own self-esteem.”10 The purpose of psychological oppression is obvious:

“it serves to make the work of domination easier by breaking the spirit of the dominated and rendering them incapable of understanding the nature of those agencies responsible for their subjugation. This allows those who benefit from the established order of things to maintain their ascendency with more appearance of legitimacy and with less acts of overt violence than they might otherwise require.”11

In this way, the Body Cult serves as a targeted form of mind-control. It is a mental sand trap, a hazard carefully constructed to keep women disenfranchised in two primary ways: first, by restricting the most powerful means of modern influence (money); second, by atrophying our mental faculties until we are small-minded, powerless things (terminal SMOL BEAN / tumblr BABY DEER syndrome).

Studies have shown that the self-objectification Bartky described has dire consequences for women. It increases feelings of shame; increases intentions to have cosmetic surgery; exacerbates anxiety regarding appearance and safety (i.e., fear of sexual assault); reduces the experience of “flow” (peak motivational states in which one is fully absorbed in a rewarding activity); decreases awareness of internal bodily states (access to inner physical experiences; e.g., hunger cues or sexual arousal).12 Research has also shown that self-objectification can lead to impaired performance in math, sustained attention and impulse/inhibitory control, and working memory.13

Plainly speaking, it makes you detached, anxious, stupid, and unhappy.

All of these consequences “contribute to the disproportionately high rate among women of three psychological disorders: unipolar depression, sexual dissatisfaction and dysfunctions, and eating disorders.”14

This is not random. It is a system designed to keep women trapped in an eternal hamster wheel of low self-worth and misery; to starve them spiritually while keeping them fat and fed on a diet of beauty gunk, Shein junk, PopSlop, and TikTok. It is a system designed to prevent us from rising above the sea of shit we are born into. From becoming thought leaders. From cultivating healthy relationships. From exceling in academia/our professions. From being happy.

i have a dream. a dream of a society where a woman’s self-worth is derived not from her flesh, but from her inherent UNIT VALUE
  1. The Trojan Horse of Choice Feminism

Since women were routinely deprived of autonomy for virtually all of civilized human history, the popularity of ultra-positive “choice feminism”—the belief that any choice a woman makes is inherently empowering—is not surprising. Not only did this view offer restitution for the wrongs of the past, it tantalized us with a unified vision of feminism, one free of sisterly infighting. A pink pussyhat utopia where no one thing could ever be bad for women, just different.

But with time, its shortcomings have become abundantly clear. Choice feminism fails because it prioritizes personal consumer acts over all others by assuming all choices are made with equal freedom and awareness. It also discounts (if not entirely disregards) how heavily our choices are influenced by well-established and inherently exploitative systems.

the “inferiority laser” being blasted into women’s brains 24/7

Most of us have become numb to the degree we are indoctrinated on a daily basis by the beauty-industrial complex. But every once in a while you have a lucid moment, like I did just last month. During my morning run, I was assaulted quite violently by a giant Hailey Beiber advertisement selling me her stupid plastic FACE as much, if not more, than the stupid plastic CHASE SAPPHIRE RESERVE CARD.15 As I stared into her cursed, vacuous Baldwin eyes and overfilled frog lips, a wave of despair washed over me. Even if you log off (something I’ve heard is possible), you can never truly escape this shit. If you think about it—actually think about it—for more than 60 seconds, your spirit will break in half like an expired Twix bar.

aw fuck it, just handsmaid tale us already. sure we’d have a rough go of it but, in the end, i know we’d come out stronger

At best, choice feminism is misguided and ineffective. At worst, it is a Potemkin village, a clever trick that uses the appearance of “progress” to camouflage its true, more sinister purpose: preserving the consumerist status quo.

we did a thing!

There is a shocking dearth of contemporary criticism of the beauty-industrial complex and, more specifically, the deeply troubling normalization of cosmetic surgery/injectables among modern women. I believe this is largely because of choice feminism and its corollaries. Choice feminism works in tandem with adjacent philosophies to form a complex set of “ideologies” which can even sustain internal contradictions: “Live and let live,” “mind your business,” and the especially vile “omg let people enjoy things!” have all seamlessly worked together to fragment our society into a billion individual consumer choices, each equally worthy and unassailable as the next.

The staunch defender of these doctrines is the Nice Girl Gestapo (the “NGG”). While admission is open to all, the prototypical member looks a lot like me: she is young(ish), educated, progressive, and American. In these left-leaning female spaces I have observed intense social-policing from the NGG on any type of remotely critical opinion that is not sugar-coated in some bizarre “<333 aw love ya girlie” saccharine vanilla glaze. They will scold you for being rude, tell you to mind your business, and dismiss your opinions as bigoted and problematic.

“Hating like a man!” is one of my new favorite soft girl insults, which I saw most recently on an Instagram comment on a photo of Miley Cyrus that simply read: “CHOPPED.” But as I ruminated on the exchange and the absolute ghoulish photo of Miley’s face, “CHOPPED” didn’t feel anything like hate to me. Rather, it struck me as nothing more than a public declaration of sanity in the face of psychic terrorism. A lorica prayer muttered by a woman who suddenly found herself staring into the Mouth of Madness.

Like a priest signing the cross in the face of the demonically possessed, she types “CHOPPED” to rebuke the brain worms that have chewed through the frontal lobes of 90% of our female celebrities and rich housewives. Worms that, thanks to trickle-down SHEconomics, are more accessible than ever and have now set their hungry eyes on us lowly proles.

i rebuke you, brain worms! i also rebuke american eagle outfitters!

Only weeks ago, I attempted to rebuke the worms here on my perfect little web page. I restacked a well-written yet predictably milquetoast “I Miss Emma Stone’s Old Face :(" article and stated my firm conviction that women who undergo these elective cosmetic procedures are engaging in self-mutilation. I was of course hit with accusations of being mean, classist, transphobic, and, most importantly, bigoted against women who may or may not have had their faces violently ripped off by a disgruntled showbiz chimpanzee (you don’t know anyone’s backstory!).

There was certainly a time in my life when getting smacked with one of these labels would have distressed me, even if it came from a random internet stranger. But these scolds are now hurled so indiscriminately at the first whiff of anything that makes someone “uncomfy” that they have become entirely weightless. If I am ever called such things, I simply recoil in terror as if King Arthur himself is barking “Ni!” at me.

do your worst

Aggressive female voices and different perspectives are important for many reasons, if nothing else than to prevent dangerous echo chambers. You may be inclined to side with the NGG yourself after reading this. Many may leave this essay thinking “she made some salient points, but I simply can’t support an author who negatively comments on women’s faces, even ones pumped full of Big Pharma Goo.” But our temperance has proven useless. This rough beast relies on our politeness and passivity to perpetuate itself and grow stronger. We arm ourselves with flyswatters when what we need are flamethrowers.

In truth, I’ve always hated “be nice!”-ism, particularly the type I constantly see weaponized against other women in online spaces. These women are just turncoats to me. They are the old guard; low-level enforcers of hegemonic masculinity. They are rank-and-file female orcs serving the will of Sauron. And by Sauron, I of course mean the same forces behind the American Consumer Counsel telling women to obey, conform, and CONSUME. And if you feel so compelled to leave a comment here calling me a bitch or a cunt as some have done before, please understand that these words, too, have become lighter than air.

7. Notes on Feminine Duty and Hypocrisy

I was once a troubled young thing, unsure of myself and my place in this strange world. In my early teens I struggled with situational depression and loneliness. During these formative years my mother, having moved in with a new boyfriend some distance away, was not particularly present in my life. We slowly reconnected over the course of my mid- to late 20s and, with patience and understanding, eventually became wonderfully close again.

While she was proud of the woman I had become, she struggled to reconcile our changed dynamic with her memories of me as her baby girl. By twenty-seven I was stable for the first time in my life. I no longer viewed, wanted, or needed her as a source of guidance. This bruised her ego and filled her with a melancholy longing for a “do over” she knew in her heart was not possible. But even if things had been different I’m not sure she had the tools to guide me through adolescence when she was, in many ways, still trapped in adolescence herself.

A casualty of the isolated nuclear family, I had no sisters, close female cousins, aunts, or grandmothers to turn to. My father, an alcoholic who hated himself only slightly less than he hated women and children, was of no use. If that fucker had been on the Titanic he would have kneed toddlers in the face to skip to the front of the lifeboat line and the Unsinkable Molly Brown would have been a popsicle well before dawn.

Like many lonely girls I looked to female musicians to fill the matriarch-sized hole in my heart. I listened to Dolores O’Riordan sing of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. I became enamored with the indomitable Sinead O’Connor, a woman who, after protesting the abuses perpetrated and concealed by the Catholic Church, not only endured the harassing jeers of thousands at a BOB DYLAN tribute concert but found the courage to sing in spite of them.16 But most of all I loved Tori Amos, an artist whose discography is littered with songs about female empowerment in an unforgiving world.

You can imagine my surprise when nearly two ago I was confronted with online photos of Tori with the tagline “BOTCHED.” The pictures have mostly been scrubbed from the internet, much like the video of Tyra Banks pretending to be homeless for a day which lives on only in screenshots and the collective shadow memory of millennial girls and gays. The photos of Tori’s new face broke me a bit. I felt as though I had watched the Dalai Llama emerge from the Tsuglagkhang Complex with a head full of hair plugs, toilet bowl veneers, and calf implants. From that day forward, I lost some respect for her as a woman and artist that I have never been able to replenish no matter how many times I listen to Boys for Pele. Yes, I know: celebrities are only human. Kill your idols. A sobering life lesson for young Father_Karine. For so many of us, these idols were all we had.

me when GRIMES got $100k worth of dumb plastic surgery and impregnated by a clump of human sourdough starter

But there are still glimmers of hope in the darkness. Last week my husband and I had the thrill of sitting at the table adjacent to that of Joel Cohen and Frances McDormand at a restaurant upstate. I couldn’t help but steal glances of her throughout the night. She’s currently sporting a mohawk for some new project and has an undeniable aura about her. Her face, full of wondrous intensity and the evidence of a life well-lived, has apparently never been defiled by a needle. She is one of the few outspoken opponents of cosmetic surgery and procedures like Botox and fillers in Hollywood.

In one 2014 interview for the New York Times, McDormand said “I have not mutated myself in any way. Joel and I have this conversation a lot. He literally has to stop me physically from saying something to people — to friends who’ve had work. I’m so full of fear and rage about what they’ve done.”17 Scream it from your lungs, Frances. Shake us. Wake us. We need to hear it. These “enhancements” are absolutely destroying the arts (and our minds & bodies in general), and I firmly believe that Robert Eggers should go to prison for subjecting us all to Nicole Kidman’s frozen, mask-like face in the 11th century epic period drama “The Northman.” Heed my words, Yorgos Lanthimos. I can easily stop myself from watching reality TV trash where a good chunk of the women barely register as human looking to me,18 but this crap is now infiltrating the mainstream and indie film industries so much it churns my stomach.

What duty do we have to each other? I think back to my darkest days and how I yearned for a reassuring voice that said “This is really silly. Dangerous, even. You don’t need to do this.” What hope do women have if we’re not willing to have those conversations? What hope do women have when we refuse to demand accountability from public figures? From our mothers? Our sisters? Our friends?

If my mother ever told me she intended to get “work done,”—as if her loving face was nothing more than a beat-up Chevy—a tiny crack would form in my heart and rend the ventricles apart slowly over the course of several weeks. If it was my daughter instead, I have no doubt that entire process would unfold over mere seconds. If my girlfriends confessed the same to me, I would run through the CliffNotes version of this article. And if all logic and reason failed to sway them, if they were so ensnared in the Great Lie, I would then appeal to their infantile vanity. I would abandon all vestiges of feminine decorum, assume my final form, and scream in their faces that all of these procedures LOOOOOK LIIIIIKE SHIIIIIIIIT immediately before detonating the vest.

Share

Even if you’ve never read a book or been to a museum in your life, you know by now that beauty standards are capricious things. One year big breasts are all the rage, the next the itty bitty titty committee is back in power. I have it on good authority that next year so many female celebrities will have their arms and legs amputated that the Met Gala will look like a bunch of sparkly jellybeans rolling around on a movie theater floor. Today the “luxe lean” Pilates girl body is the gold standard, but tomorrow it may very well be the “I KNOW he ate a cheese!” JERRY triangle.

you may not be ready to admit it, but this is the ideal female physique.

Yes, we all saw the “How It’s Made” episode where Kim Kardashian got her BBL sucked out by an industrial hoover vacuum and turned into ersatz flan to feed orphans for a tax write-off. We all watched the faces of Jennifer Lawrence and Chrissy Tegan morph into the moon emoji and then shrink back to normal after they got their filler dissolved and pretended like nothing ever happened. But Pepperidge Farm remembers. I at least have some respect for Courtney Cox who, after dissolving her fillers, publicly denounced them for exactly what they always are: “a total waste of time.”19

As Bartky noted, “the disciplinary project of femininity is a ‘setup’: It requires such radical and extensive measures of bodily transformation that virtually every woman who gives herself to it is destined to some degree to fail.”20 This is also to some extent because with the exception of pure, authentic YOUTH—which can never be replicated no matter how much Madonna bathes in the blood of teenage runaways—the definition of “beautiful” is ever-changing and constantly at odds with itself.

I firmly believe we will look back on the “the filler and facelift era” with all the ignominy of the dust bowl farmers who, hypnotized by the prospect of UNLIMITED WHEAT, over-plowed hundreds of miles of protective native grasslands until their children’s lungs became so blackened with dirt that they could do nothing but impotently weep while their offspring suffocated in their sleep.

“Quickly, Sylvester, fetch me young blood at once! My façade crumbles with the rising sun!”

And yet there is a more profound futility to these exercises, one that transcends fads, cultures, and time itself. You cannot prevent your own decay. Even those most loyal disciples of the Body Cult will succumb to time. What will you have to show when the well runs dry?

“All is Vanity” Charles Allan Gilbert (1892)

Vengeance gods exist in virtually every religion, their purpose to shower fire and brimstone down on mortals who overstep their bounds. The Greeks, in particular, excelled at punishing hubris like no others. The stories of their mortal victims, now committed to the great library of human knowledge, will long outlive the empires that birthed them. We recall the stories of Narcissus, lured to his death in a reflecting pool by the goddess Nemesis. Of Arachne, transmuted into a spider and condemned to weave forever by Athena. Of Sisyphus, Tantulus, Icarus, Achilles.

The vengeance gods persist even now in the year of our lord Goldman Sachs. Each year, they select a few women to disfigure through vanity surgery as a lesson to us all. In 2004, it was Tara Reid. In 2007, it was my girl Tori. In 2015, it was ex-supermodel Linda Evangelista whose abdomen was allegedly turned into a lumpy old beanbag by a CoolSculpting® machine.

Out of all the ways to become disfigured in this life, elective CoolSculpting has got to be the most humiliating, second only to “mauled by chihuahua named Taquito” and “mint green Vespa accident.” The most unfortunate part of the Linda Evangelista CoolSculpting debacle for me was actually not the distorted flesh (which actually wasn’t that bad IMO). It was watching the very public and painful unraveling of a woman who, as a model and confirmed high ranking member of the Body Cult, seemed utterly unable to cope with what had happened. If anyone is wondering, the “cure” to botched CoolSculpting is apparently two separate and quite expensive invasive liposuction procedures.

Linda’s story is not unique. One personal anecdote before we go: Last year, a coworker of mine suffered a bout of ptosis after having some Botox injected into her face, something she apparently had done for several years without incident. This time, however, the injections caused her left eyelid to droop so much that she looked like she was suffering a mild stroke. Though I pitied her, I couldn’t help but appreciate the irony of her paying $500 to be injected with Big Pharma Goo only to be upsold $200 worth of prescription Upneeq® eyedrops to correct the side effect, which, of course, was properly disclosed in the paperwork.

When her condition only marginally improved over the next few months, I knew for sure: her eye had been quartered, skewered with cocktail picks, and served to the laughing vengeance gods on a shimmering silver platter.

There has been a cheeky little resurgence of films examining “the Woman’s Condition” as of late, but it speaks volumes that the most powerful film in this genre is, in my opinion, the first of its kind.

Based on a novel of the same name by Jean Redon, “Eyes Without A Face” (1960) follows a brilliant plastic surgeon determined to restore the beauty of his daughter Christiane’s disfigured countenance. To accomplish this, he kidnaps young women and holds them hostage at his secluded château in the French countryside where he attempts to graft the victims’ peeled off faces onto that of his daughter. Time and time again the surgery fails, leaving the victims’ flesh to slowly rot off his daughter’s face and condemning her once more to the emotionless mask that hides her mutilated figure.

The film’s denouement is a tragic one, but it does not deny viewers their satisfaction. Following multiple failed face grafts, Christiane suffers a psychotic break from guilt and alienation. After stabbing her father’s assistant, she frees the dogs and doves upon which her father has also been experimenting. Unmoved by her father’s death at the jaws of the abused dogs, she calmly strolls deep into the woods with a single dove perched upon her hand. The film ends there.

Christiane’s oppressor was not a particularly subtle one, just a flesh and blood incarnation of the patriarchy itself. But it’s 2025. What happens when ours is not so obvious? When our villain is not our own father telling us we must be perfect and beautiful, but something more akin to a poisonous, odorless gas? Our own thoughts, the images on our phone/tv/computer, our very culture itself?

To me, the ending represents Christiane’s radical rejection of “civilized” society altogether. As she slowly recedes into the forest, we feel at peace that she is finally free even though she will always remain disfigured.

On my last rewatch, I began to ponder my own relationship to New York, a city I feel has been gripped by consumerism more than it has ever been in my 15+ years of living here. I think about relocating closer to nature, away from the material sensationalism that has such a stranglehold on this place and so many of its denizens. Some Shangri-La far outside the walls of Panopticon, away from the neon glow of the “PLSTK” sign down my block, and, most importantly, out from under the all-seeing eye of the Chase Sapphire Leviathan HAILEY BEIBER.

i lost my left leg to a botched lymphatic drainage massage in 2012

Anyway, thanks for reading my 7000 word Substack essay on why I am no longer waxing my bush or whatever. If you came here expecting something more lighthearted and not another “mah culture” thinkpiece, rest assured I plan to return to my regularly scheduled “comedy” programming for my next post.

And if this piece did not resonate with you; if it sounded like the ramblings of a mad woman crashing out over some dumb celebrity facelift, please remember: “a reality is just what we tell each other it is. Sane and insane could easily switch places, if the insane were to become the majority.”21

father_karine being hauled away for an extended grippy sock vacation in sick woman jail
Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Christian charities see spike in revocations for serious violations in 2025

1 Share
Christian charities see spike in revocations for serious violations in 2025
͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌     ͏ ‌    ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­

The Naughty List

The IJF dove deep on a year’s worth of charity revocations for serious breaches of tax law. Here’s what we found.


Read the story below or go to our website.

Get access to all of our unique investigative stories —

always fact-checked. Save 25%, subscribe now.  

(we’ll throw in a cool t-shirt)

The IJF's Featured Stories

Christian charities see spike in revocations for serious violations in 2025

By Bethany Lindsay

Christian organizations account for more than a quarter of Canadian charities that had their status revoked for serious tax law violations in 2025, marking a significant increase over recent years, according to an analysis by the IJF.


A total of eight out of 29 charities that have lost their registration since Jan. 1 2025 after an audit by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) were formed to advance Christianity, up from just 10 per cent in 2024. In comparison, three Jewish charities have lost their charitable status this year following audits, along with four charities supporting education and three charities formed to relieve poverty. 


“The numbers are high,” long-time charity researcher Don McRae confirmed in an interview with the IJF. “You don't expect churches to be doing things that are off, that are not following the rules.”


Continue reading

Copyright © 2025 Investigative Journalism Foundation







This email was sent to ywlpndcj80wccy8djyz5@kill-the-newsletter.com
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
Investigative Journalism Foundation · 192 Spadina Ave · Toronto, ON M5T 2C2 · Canada


Kill the Newsletter! feed settings

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Immigration and the Congressional Failure to Write Binding Law

1 Share

Or, a change in presidential administration should not lead to such qualitative changes in policy.

While this might be stating the obvious, what has struck me about the radical change in U.S. immigration policy is that much of it–not all of it–is legal and, other than a budget increase, has not been accompanied by significant changes in legislation. We have gone from a system, while convoluted, that still was open enough to encourage immigration to one which is not. Yet there has been no passage of the equivalent of the Asian Exclusion Act.

Instead, the immigration laws are labile enough to enable a qualitatively different immigration regime, simply at the whim of the executive (admittedly, with some assistance by the Republican Supreme Court judges). This implies bad legislation, since something like immigration policy–which obviously is of great interest–should be debated, not unilaterally decided.

One could argue this is part of a larger ceding by Congress of its Article I powers to the executive branch, but there are people who are smarter about that sort of thing than I am. Regardless, having major policy shifts (also see: tariffs) without passing legislation also means the stability of law and governance is non-existent, as many business owners here and abroad have discovered.

One more thing that will have to be fixed during the deTrumpification.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

9.0 quake in BC would kill thousands and cost $128 billion, report foresees

1 Share
A British Columbia government report foresees more than 3,400 fatalities and more than 10,000 injuries if an earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0 strikes off Vancouver Island.
Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Three things I’ve been thinking about: managing for means vs. extremes, slowing down, and divisiveness

1 Share

Hi friends,

Here are three things that have been rattling around my head this week. Ideas I’m sitting with, questions I’m pondering, or threads I might pull on in future posts.

These aren’t polished arguments. They’re the thoughts behind the scenes, the ones that shape what I write and how I think.

  1. We’re managing for means, not distributions.

I’ve been working on the final proofs of a paper that will be coming out in Nature Reviews Biodiversity in February focused on extreme events and river biodiversity under climate change. This was a huge effort that took a couple of years to put together, but what struck me during the process is not how much we already know but actually how much we still don’t know.

The thing I’m most concerned about is that we’re often fixated on means when the real world runs on variance and extremes.

Ecological impacts are rarely driven by the middle of the distribution. They come from tail events — floods, droughts, heatwaves — whose probability is shifting under climate change. As the means shift, so too do the variances and the chances of encountering extreme conditions. If we continue to manage for the middle, we’ll be unprepared for the real threats — extreme events, which can have irreversible impacts on ecosystems and humans alike.

Managing for the mean is choosing to be surprised by extremes.

(In the paid section: two more things I’ve been thinking about — one about slowing down as an intellectual strategy, and one about why I’m resisting pressure to be more divisive.)

Read more



Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories