Hemorrhoid Cream FIXES Eye Bags and Wrinkles?




If you’re like many people, you’ll do almost anything to maintain and restore your youthful self.

Getting older isn’t fun!

And the worst part is having the visible signs of aging being shoved into our faces in the form of wrinkles, saggy skin, acne, and dark spots.

Talk about embarrassing!

And on top of that, most people look to celebrities for their beauty advice.

I just saw a report yesterday from the Daily Mirror, that one actress actually applies Hemorrhoid Cream underneath her eyes to keep the wrinkles and bags away.

That is for sure something I WOULD NOT recommend to anyone!

The dangerous chemicals in these creams can irritate your eyes and skin. And on top of that, most of these creams contain hydrocortisone, which may make your skin “appear” to be tighter but can result in rashes, swollen skin, and redness.

Simply put… Stay away from BUM Cream for your eyes.

I care deeply about what I put both IN and ON my body.

You know the saying, “You are what you eat.”

The same goes for what you put ON your skin.

And if you’re applying creams or lotions to your skin that contain dangerous ingredients, eventually they will make their way into your body, which could be harmful to your overall health.

Luckily, there is 1 Superfood You Should Rub on Your Face VERY Single Day to Remove Wrinkles, Eye Bags and Saggy Skin =>

This 1 fruit slows the aging process and has been used for CENTURIES all the way back to Cleopatra!

The amino acids and antioxidants found in this natural Anti-aging superfood act like ‘rocket fuel’ for your body’s natural processes.

Discover the #1 Ancient Food you should Rub on your Face Every Day =>

And remember… Avoid the hemorrhoid cream for your eyes and don’t believe everything celebrities say.

To your beautiful and youthful glow!

Rogers








struction of the text". Writing for the The Classical Review, the Latinist E. J. Kenney said that this conclusion was "an altogether Herculean feat" but added that it "hardly prepare" readers for the large role these manuscripts played in editions of the Letters. Appearing in two volumes, Reynolds's edition of the Letters was based on the results of his monograph. For Kenney, the edition displayed "almost constantly sound" judgement of textual problems and had a critical apparatus without "serious inconsistencies". Although he criticised a number of editorial aspects, he concluded by writing that " edition will surely be for a long time to come the standard text of this undervalued work". Hijmans expressed a similar opinion while stating that Reynolds's work may not have provided the final assessment of all available manuscripts. Further critical editions In 1977, Reynolds publi shed a critical edition of Seneca's Dialogues. Having identified the Codex Ambrosianus (A) as the most important source of the text, he relied heavily on it and drew on the readings of younger manuscripts only where A showed signs of corruption. For Latinist D. R. Shackleton Bailey, the result was a text which surpassed that published in 1905 by the German scholar Emil Hermes. Shackleton Bailey further stated that "it seems unlikely that [Reynolds's text] can ever be greatly bettered". According to the reviewer Daniel Knecht, Reynolds was more willing than previous editors to posit cruces in places where the text was irremediably corrupt and to delete passages he considered inauthentic. Reynolds continued his work on Latin prose authors in 1991 with an edition of the collected works of the Roman historian Sallust. At that time, the standard text had been a 1954 edition by Alfons Kurfess in the Bibliotheca Teubneriana series. Reynolds innovated by limiting himself to reporting five manuscripts in passages where Kurfess had provided unnecessary detail. For Stephen Oakley, the Kennedy Professor of Latin at Cambridge, the greatest merit of the edition was its judicious provision of readings from less reliable manuscripts, which has led to the solution of a difficult textual problem in chapter 114 of Sallust's Jugurtha. The classicist Stephen Shierling considered the differences between the editions of Kurfess and Reynolds of "modest importance" but said the new text was "cleaner and more consis