Paraben & Nasties free shaving cream?

Could I totally agree with everything Chrisbell has written? Just because something is 'natural' means very little in itself as Chris has already said.

GOS ( Great Ormond Street Hospital) investigated Chinese topical remedies which were being prescribed for childhood eczema and shown to be working very well, and found, would you believe it, very high concentrations of potent steroids- the correct treatment but way too high a dose, especially for children.

Another problem with 'natural good, scientific bad' is that people start to believe absolute rubbish like homeopathy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

The Ben Goldacre book is excellent and I would also suggest 'Trick or Trearment' by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst ( a lecturer in alternative medicine) if you really want some insight into this subject.

To go back to the original topic, I personally think the jury is still out on parabens and I wish cosmetic companies would find alternatives to petrochemical derived chemicals such as SLS in their wash stuff.

Rant over!
 
spaceryder said:
Could I totally agree with everything Chrisbell has written? Just because something is 'natural' means very little in itself as Chris has already said.

GOS ( Great Ormond Street Hospital) investigated Chinese topical remedies which were being prescribed for childhood eczema and shown to be working very well, and found, would you believe it, very high concentrations of potent steroids- the correct treatment but way too high a dose, especially for children.

Another problem with 'natural good, scientific bad' is that people start to believe absolute rubbish like homeopathy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

The Ben Goldacre book is excellent and I would also suggest 'Trick or Trearment' by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst ( a lecturer in alternative medicine) if you really want some insight into this subject.

To go back to the original topic, I personally think the jury is still out on parabens and I wish cosmetic companies would find alternatives to petrochemical derived chemicals such as SLS in their wash stuff.

Rant over!
Click to expand...

Interesting - do you have a source for the GOS study - was it published in a peer-reviewed journal? If so, I'd be interested to read it, but trying to find it on Web of Knowledge or PubMed is going to be tricky without more info.

I did some cursory reading of abstracts from papers on the who paraben issue myself last night, and it seems that, broadly speaking, most of the concerns are around women's underarm deodorants and breast cancer. It seems that parabens can influence oestrogen receptors in breast tissue in vivo and in breast cancer cell lines in vitro; additionally, they have been found in breast tumours, suggesting that they can be absorbed by the body. There is also evidence to suggest that parabens in water can affect male fertility, but, as can be seen, the link to cancer in men is sketchy; what's more, the role of oestrogen receptors in breast cancer is itself not fully understood. In general, I'm pleased that parabens are being removed from traditional shaving products, with the caveat that shelf-lives and product stability may suffer, but I'm not obsessed about avoiding them to the extent of stopping using products that still contain them if I like those products.
 
chrisbell said:
spaceryder said:
Could I totally agree with everything Chrisbell has written? Just because something is 'natural' means very little in itself as Chris has already said.

GOS ( Great Ormond Street Hospital) investigated Chinese topical remedies which were being prescribed for childhood eczema and shown to be working very well, and found, would you believe it, very high concentrations of potent steroids- the correct treatment but way too high a dose, especially for children.

Another problem with 'natural good, scientific bad' is that people start to believe absolute rubbish like homeopathy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

The Ben Goldacre book is excellent and I would also suggest 'Trick or Trearment' by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst ( a lecturer in alternative medicine) if you really want some insight into this subject.

To go back to the original topic, I personally think the jury is still out on parabens and I wish cosmetic companies would find alternatives to petrochemical derived chemicals such as SLS in their wash stuff.

Rant over!
Click to expand...

Interesting - do you have a source for the GOS study - was it published in a peer-reviewed journal? If so, I'd be interested to read it, but trying to find it on Web of Knowledge or PubMed is going to be tricky without more info.

I did some cursory reading of abstracts from papers on the who paraben issue myself last night, and it seems that, broadly speaking, most of the concerns are around women's underarm deodorants and breast cancer. It seems that parabens can influence oestrogen receptors in breast tissue in vivo and in breast cancer cell lines in vitro; additionally, they have been found in breast tumours, suggesting that they can be absorbed by the body. There is also evidence to suggest that parabens in water can affect male fertility, but, as can be seen, the link to cancer in men is sketchy; what's more, the role of oestrogen receptors in breast cancer is itself not fully understood. In general, I'm pleased that parabens are being removed from traditional shaving products, with the caveat that shelf-lives and product stability may suffer, but I'm not obsessed about avoiding them to the extent of stopping using products that still contain them if I like those products.
Click to expand...

Don' have a reference to the GOS study as I read it in a textbook, but here's one from BCH (Birmingham Children's Hospital)

http://adc.bmj.com/content/88/12/1056.full.pdf

I agree with your views about parabens, and I too, try to avoid them but use in them in my favourites, eg Castle Fobes, although I may not replenish the stock when it runs out.

There is a growing body of evidence that chemicals from simple plastics, eg in water bottles, are similar to oestrogens and this may be causing a fall in male fertility and be a health hazard.

Not sure how we got this far off topic, but interesting nevertheless?
 
spaceryder said:
chrisbell said:
spaceryder said:
Could I totally agree with everything Chrisbell has written? Just because something is 'natural' means very little in itself as Chris has already said.

GOS ( Great Ormond Street Hospital) investigated Chinese topical remedies which were being prescribed for childhood eczema and shown to be working very well, and found, would you believe it, very high concentrations of potent steroids- the correct treatment but way too high a dose, especially for children.

Another problem with 'natural good, scientific bad' is that people start to believe absolute rubbish like homeopathy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

The Ben Goldacre book is excellent and I would also suggest 'Trick or Trearment' by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst ( a lecturer in alternative medicine) if you really want some insight into this subject.

To go back to the original topic, I personally think the jury is still out on parabens and I wish cosmetic companies would find alternatives to petrochemical derived chemicals such as SLS in their wash stuff.

Rant over!
Click to expand...

Interesting - do you have a source for the GOS study - was it published in a peer-reviewed journal? If so, I'd be interested to read it, but trying to find it on Web of Knowledge or PubMed is going to be tricky without more info.

I did some cursory reading of abstracts from papers on the who paraben issue myself last night, and it seems that, broadly speaking, most of the concerns are around women's underarm deodorants and breast cancer. It seems that parabens can influence oestrogen receptors in breast tissue in vivo and in breast cancer cell lines in vitro; additionally, they have been found in breast tumours, suggesting that they can be absorbed by the body. There is also evidence to suggest that parabens in water can affect male fertility, but, as can be seen, the link to cancer in men is sketchy; what's more, the role of oestrogen receptors in breast cancer is itself not fully understood. In general, I'm pleased that parabens are being removed from traditional shaving products, with the caveat that shelf-lives and product stability may suffer, but I'm not obsessed about avoiding them to the extent of stopping using products that still contain them if I like those products.
Click to expand...

Don' have a reference to the GOS study as I read it in a textbook, but here's one from BCH (Birmingham Children's Hospital)

http://adc.bmj.com/content/88/12/1056.full.pdf

I agree with your views about parabens, and I too, try to avoid them but use in them in my favourites, eg Castle Fobes, although I may not replenish the stock when it runs out.

There is a growing body of evidence that chemicals from simple plastics, eg in water bottles, are similar to oestrogens and this may be causing a fall in male fertility and be a health hazard.

Not sure how we got this far off topic, but interesting nevertheless?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I think the issue of oestrogenic substances is coming more to the fore, especially in terms of water quality in rivers, lakes and aquifers.

EDIT: Just read the linked article in BMJ - this seems a classic instance of the phenomenon I was describing earlier - parents trusting a "natural", "herbal" treatment, especially if it supposedly comes from the traditional medicine of the culture from which they or their families hail over the more heavily regulated Big Pharma product when, after analysis, it appears that the very thing they are trying to avoid by using a "natural" product may very well be present, and, potentially, in inadvisably high doses. It just proves that there's no guarantee that those involved in traditional medicine are any less likely to put profit margin above safety or transparency than the executives of GSK or any of the other multinationals - there are genuine people in both allopathic and traditional medicine. Perhaps the moral is caveat emptor, especially if regulation isn't stringent.
 
Interesting thread; and many valid points made on both sides of the camp. As regards water, which is a pretty basic necessity, does anyone know how much eostrogen is in the water and whether there is a reliable way to get rid of it? Any water filters that work, or are we all doomed?
Of course there are greedy people in every walk of life, and some who don't give too hoots what the results of what they do are, as long as they make a profit. What worries me is that the big drug companies put in/have to put in so much money to get a drug passed, that they may be unwilling to accept negative results, and try to bury them. We've seen with the tobacco industry how they manipulated 'scientific' studies for a very long time - I doubt Roche etc. are any different in their approach to what, at the end of the day, is business.
And if anyone doubts that, have a look at the food on sale.
Rant over. For now.:shy:
 
soapalchemist said:
What worries me is that the big drug companies put in/have to put in so much money to get a drug passed, that they may be unwilling to accept negative results, and try to bury them. We've seen with the tobacco industry how they manipulated 'scientific' studies for a very long time - I doubt Roche etc. are any different in their approach to what, at the end of the day, is business.
And if anyone doubts that, have a look at the food on sale.
Rant over. For now.:shy:
Click to expand...

You might wanna watch "The World According to Monsanto" sometime.
 
I don't think I could stand it Helveticum, although have a fair idea what it might entail - cover most of the planet in genetically modified crops, and Agent Orange the rest?
 
soapalchemist said:
I don't think I could stand it Helveticum, although have a fair idea what it might entail - cover most of the planet in genetically modified crops, and Agent Orange the rest?
Click to expand...

Pretty much spot on. It goes in depth on their methods too.
 
UKRob said:
Fascinating thread - the silence from the pro Ayervedicists is deafening from page 3 onwards.
Click to expand...

My silence on the thread is really down to the little couplet, "A person convinced against their will, remains a non believer still."

Having lived enough decades to see so much of what was taught to me as "scientific fact" when it was more accurately "working and speculative hypothesis" I retain an acceptance that just because a practise is not yet proven by blind comparisons or measurable standards currently available to us it may yet still be found to be valid. After all, even the brothers Fleming had to endure the opposition of the "scientific medical community " of their day when they first presented their systemic circulatory theories I believe. But then, what medically accepted fact of today wasn't strenuously opposed by the leading medical theorists of the time. From Lister & basic hygiene onwards the rebels of today with their far fetched hypothesis have become the establishment of tomorrow with their well demonstrated "scientific facts".

& no, I I'm not a paid up member of the flat earth society, nor when I have a headache do I search out and boil up White Willow bark in favour of generic aspirin. However I do remain grateful to the trained in China Doctor of Accupuncture who treated the shoulder separation I managed to inflict on myself with a disastrous projected ukemi at Aikido.

To each their own.

JohnnyO. \:icon_razz:
 
JohnnyO said:
UKRob said:
Fascinating thread - the silence from the pro Ayervedicists is deafening from page 3 onwards.
Click to expand...

My silence on the thread is really down to the little couplet, "A person convinced against their will, remains a non believer still."

Having lived enough decades to see so much of what was taught to me as "scientific fact" when it was more accurately "working and speculative hypothesis" I retain an acceptance that just because a practise is not yet proven by blind comparisons or measurable standards currently available to us it may yet still be found to be valid. After all, even the brothers Fleming had to endure the opposition of the "scientific medical community " of their day when they first presented their systemic circulatory theories I believe. But then, what medically accepted fact of today wasn't strenuously opposed by the leading medical theorists of the time. From Lister & basic hygiene onwards the rebels of today with their far fetched hypothesis have become the establishment of tomorrow with their well demonstrated "scientific facts".

& no, I I'm not a paid up member of the flat earth society, nor when I have a headache do I search out and boil up White Willow bark in favour of generic aspirin. However I do remain grateful to the trained in China Doctor of Accupuncture who treated the shoulder separation I managed to inflict on myself with a disastrous projected ukemi at Aikido.

To each their own.

JohnnyO. \:icon_razz:
Click to expand...

Well-put Johnny - this is why scientists, as opposed to the media reporting on science, dislike the word "fact" - after all, Newtonian gravity isn't termed a "fact" - it's a Theory as this is the highest level of certainty in science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom