Personal Care Truth - Latest Comments

Re: A Closer Look at Sodium Hydroxide

Dene Godfrey — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:08:44 -0000

There are far more than 80,000 chemicals, and far more than 200 have been tested, GRAS is NOT a grandfathering system for ALL untested substances. Thousands of different substances have been tested to varying degrees. If you are going to ask if I am serious, it is better to check that your own claims are correct first.

Re: A Closer Look at Sodium Hydroxide

Gilles Bkk — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:39:33 -0000

seriousy ? there are about 80.000 chemicals and about 200 were ever tested and the rest grandfathered as supposed to be SAFE... GRAS...

Re: Activated Charcoal – Particle Sizes

bold — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 03:53:37 -0000

Good information but even face masks use activated carbon as filtration medium---i think carbon particles may it be NANO are not by themselves reactive-- they do not carry any germ/bacteria/virus eyc--that means those do not induce ant ailments--if one weighs the pros and corn of using activated carbon as a purifier(water / air) its advantages are far more than risks--yes as a foreign body those may in long run create obstructions in lungs but activated carbon has been in use as filtration medium since centuries..principally speaking .there stands some possibility but there is no documented evidence so far.In absence of any filtration masks our natural body defensive systems can not cope up with modern day pollutants in air and water.

Re: The Impermeable Facts of Skin Penetration and Absorption

michael — Tue, 08 Aug 2017 18:46:27 -0000

Hello !!! I have an important problem to solve I have a skin disease called Morgellons worm .. Not nice in fact its now killing me and many thousands like me , we are the hidden epidemic no government wants to acknowledge and as yet no cure .... These worms grow up to 3ft and produce thousands of other worms ... I need to penetrate into the skin deep down into the fat a and sugar layer with a substance that can disintegrate the worm ASAP .....I have been experimenting and am ready to try and kill this worm infestation or die trying as the drugs just don't kill them all and are now killing me so I have no option but to enter deep into the skin with a deadly something ....... If this something enters my blood I am dead in 1 hour .... NANO NANO here I come !!!! Email protoneutrons@aol.co.uk that's me by the way.... By experimentation I found I had to brake down the skin elastin and collagen and dry out the skin off all oils ect .......... It made me look 500 years until I repaired the door that I had opened ! I had to flood enzymes made from green tea every hour over 3 days so I could truly get deep into the skin !!! I also had to use aspirin and strong VC .........My skin poor's looked like huge creators but I was in haha !! My next mission might kill me but that's ok as long as I kill the dam worms ....... I was once a very handsome healthy fit sexy man now I hide in fear of what I have become... When you experience 1000 worms crawling over your face under your skin from a few mm to over 1ft long you only then understand the situation I and many others are in .......... So there you have it if you want to get into the skin you need to open the door ....Yours truly a dead man walking ... lol xx

Re: Dimethicone :: What it is & My Opinion

I know better — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:05:31 -0000

What a load of unscientific rubbish.
To start off: skin does not respirate ('breathe') - if it did, no one would ever be able to go swimming, or diving, or indeed, take a bath! Skin is permeable to a lesser degree - sit in a long, warm bath and your skin will start to go soft and wrinkly, but you won't drown!
Skin does not rely on atmospheric oxygen to survive.
The molecular structure of dimethicone means that it produces a permeable barrier, it does not 'smother' the skin nor does it 'not allow the skin to do 4 of its 7 functions': whatever nonsense that means.
Most modern silicones are water-soluble.
Not great for a website that professes: 'Information based on scientific facts'. Generic, lazy, misinforming, BS more like.

Re: SKIN DEEP – Scratching Below the Surface

Mila — Thu, 06 Jul 2017 00:07:07 -0000

Hi Dene,
What is the best sources of information for the safety of ingredients in cosmetic products?
I didn't know that some companies are using mercury in their products. I have MTHFR and try to avoid all heavy metals. Also I have never been able to use some cleaning products, shampoos etc. They are too strong for me.It would be good to know trusted source for accurate rating.
I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Re: SKIN DEEP – Scratching Below the Surface

Mila — Thu, 06 Jul 2017 00:03:54 -0000

Hey Dene,

I wouldn't like to have any product with mercury for example because I have MTHFR. So what would you recommend when comes to safety of cosmetic products? what is the best sources of information for the safety of cosmetic ingredients,

Re: A Closer Look at Sodium Hydroxide

Andi Hairul Tayun — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 03:29:05 -0000

anybody can you help me please? this is my question( how sodium hydroxide would be contained ?)

Re: Exposing the Formaldehyde Myth

Doristhefaust — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:19:58 -0000

I am allergic to formaldehyde. It is terrible. I am becoming allergic to the man made world!'n

Re: Truth Seekers – Young Living Deposition

Amy — Wed, 24 May 2017 17:33:16 -0000

The Article that Kayla Fioravanti posted shows studies done over 20 years ago. All but one were written before either of the companies that she wrote about were even began and YL began in 1994. Using some scientific thought here, if these companies weren't around when all but 1 article was written it is therefore unfair to link either of their products to these studies. The only fair way to link them would be to have the pt who used them say that they used such and such brand of essential oil when they had the overdose or poisoning....and then you would have to do some research and see if it was possibly an interaction with some other medication that they are taking. So if you want to cite an article make sure that it isn't just in general and that is is relevant to today and don't demonize a company especially if they were not in existence when the articles were written and the oil in use was not of their brand. All essential oils are not equal. Generic and brand name drugs are essentially the same chemical, but the way they are manufactured is not the exact same and some patients are highly sensitive to this and can only use the brand name or a certain generic as all the others do not work the same. So in comparing apples to apples remember a Granny Smith Apple is going to taste dramatically different then a Red Delicious Apple....still apples just different......

Re: Squalane and Squalene

Rachel Temple — Tue, 23 May 2017 04:23:22 -0000

If anyone is still looking at this page, here is an update. Squalene from sharks actually comes from large dogfish that live in the very deep ocean. There are millions of them there, in fact they are considered a pest by some as they chew on submarine cables. They can only be fished using long lines, so uptake is very small and has no impact on numbers. Squalene is a very powerful oxygen conserver, which is why these fish generate huge quantities in their livers -- it makes life tolerable at the great depths. I have used squalene as a supplement for over 30 years, and have found it can turn health around amazingly, particularly good for the liver. The olive oil squalene is very hard to source without it being turned into squalane, which then loses it's internal health effects. I

Re: The Trouble With Making Your Own Sunscreen

Isavella Vellaisa — Thu, 04 May 2017 17:41:20 -0000

Yeah, I would loooooove to see your lab test results....! Otherwise it is just a story online...

Re: Preservatives In Cosmetics – Natural vs Synthetic

Gristle Von Raben — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:14:51 -0000

thank you

Re: Cosmetic Chemists Guide to Natural and Organic Cosmetic Standards

Victor Ivas — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 13:33:08 -0000

according to the National Organic Program a product labeled as "organic" must have atleast 95% organic ingredients in it. I stumbled upon this in some organic makeup review
http://makeupviews.com/best...
However, I'm not sure if there's any regulations regarding the "natural" label used on certain products. Are there any clear percentages of natural ingredients required for these "natural" products?

Re: Which is Safer – Phenoxyethanol or Water?

CJ — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:31:03 -0000

"100 divided by 100 = zero"

Safety factor = 100/100=1

Margin of safety = SF - 1

Re: The Impermeable Facts of Skin Penetration and Absorption

Natasha — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:18:40 -0000

As someone has switched to more plant-based products and seen a major improvement in my skin, I'm trying really hard to understand a balanced argument about the use of cosmetics products and their impact on our skin and overall health. I totally accept the argument that we cannot generalise and say natural = good and synthetic = bad, and it irritates me when I see the "if you can't say the ingredient, don't use it" message which has no credibility in my mind.

What I'm struggling with is that many of the articles I see (including this one) that argue how safe cosmetics are, refer to how the ingredients have undergone safety tests. But these safety tests (much like clinical trials for drugs) are run in very controlled environments, testing the ingredients in an "artificial" setting with healthy people, probably only using the product being tested. How does the testing take into account what other products a user is regularly applying to their body and what impact these might have, especially over the long term i.e. the wider usage context? This is the same as the concern I have with clinical trials of drugs - again these are tested in a highly controlled environment with healthy people not using any other medication over a finite period of time (otherwise a drug would never be approved - I get it - I've worked with the pharma industry for the last 16 years). In the real world usage of these drugs is very different and that's when we start to see issues with drugs - interactions, side effects that appear with long term use of a drug. That's the whole reason there's a yellow card system for reporting adverse events. I understand that cosmetics and pharmaceuticals aren't the same, but the principle around testing is the same. Are you seriously trying to tell us that there's not a similar risk with some of the ingredients used in cosmetic products when they're used in the "real world"? You state that most ingredients can't absorb into the skin and yet you mention that our body is this wonderful filtering system that gets rid of all these "toxins" that shouldn't stay in our body. If our body is filtering them out, how do they get in there in the first place if they're not being absorbed through our skin?? The issue is that there probably isn't any data to support the argument that some ingredients can be harmful to our bodies if they accumulate. But that's because the companies manufacturing these ingredients probably have no requirement to look at these wider effects, nor would they have any interest in funding something that may prove their ingredient is more harmful than we're led to believe.

My frustration is that I can't see credible arguments on either side - the likes of EWG are scaremongering telling us that everything we put on our bodies is likely to kill us. And then we have the other side telling us that the cosmetics we use are perfectly safe (and by the way, how do we know how impartial these people are? You say the EWG are lobbyists, but I'm guessing most cosmetic scientists work for cosmetics companies so how are they impartial?). I don't buy either.

Re: My Top Five Ingredient Recommendations for Chaotic Skin

Rebekah Osorio — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:22:08 -0000

What percentage of MSM and what percentage of activated charcoal would you suggest using in skin formulas?

Re: Preservatives In Cosmetics – Natural vs Synthetic

chaz0274 — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:30:17 -0000

Well, what "purposes do natural preservatives serve" other than marketing hype. If you can get efficacy and safety with a synthetic preservative, why would you have any natural preservatives at all? In my experience as a scientist who works with antimicrobials, most natural antimicrobials are just not that effective in inhibiting or killing microorganisms. As was pointed out in the other postings, synthetics are generally tested for effectiveness and safety much more thoroughly than things like grapefruit seed extract. Although some synthetics have been found to generate safety issues, such as Triclosan, generally they have been found to be safe (i.e.: phenoxyethanol, parabens). Whether they are synthetic or natural, they are all chemicals so the argument that natural ingredients are somehow better simply because they are natural is not supported by the science. So while, in some cases, when used along with synthetics, they MAY help, mostly they are just way to sell a product to the market segment that the particular manufacturers are targeting.

Re: Who is the Environmental Working Group (EWG)?

Lisa M. Rodgers — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:49:01 -0000

Thank you, @ItaMoon! I will correct it.

Re: Who is the Environmental Working Group (EWG)?

ItaMoon — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:21:38 -0000

Typo in 4th paragraph: "If an organization becomes too heavily vested in it’s grants to survive..." Should be "in its grants to survive". Otherwise, thank for this info. It's always good to ask questions.

Re: Natural is Safe and Synthetic is Dangerous: Truth is Safe and Myths are Dangerous

hafpuiuiafula auagsovui — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:29:40 -0000

Hello anyone have any other articles about how dangerous synthetic because i am doing a project on it

Re: Mineral Oil

James Cobalt — Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:56:08 -0000

1. It did not cause instant death.
2. The deaths were caused by impurities that were not properly filtered out as they had been previously, in large part due to budget cuts on filter material.
3. We've consumed genetically altered foods for thousands of a years and are healthier for it.
4. "...all these ancient scientists..." Those weren't scientists. You don't seem to understand the basics of science.

Re: Tea Tree and It’s Amazing Tumor Shrinking Power

CaliforniaGirlInaColoradoWorld — Sun, 25 Dec 2016 04:05:04 -0000

This is an old article but just wanted to put my two cents in. Tea Tree oil which has proven to be a true miracle from nature, will sadly never be used to its full potential in the USA. Big Pharma will not fund any research on anything that they can not patent and make maximum profit off of. Now if they could figure out a way to make the oil scarce instead of being able to buy it in any Walmart for Five bucks for six ounces, they would spend millions to exploit the "natural" right out of it! In most countries it's a staple in the family first aid kit. Yet few people are aware of it in the Good ole U S of A..Sad

Re: SKIN DEEP – Scratching Below the Surface

Dene Godfrey — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:14:04 -0000

Sorry Rebekah, but I have only just seen your comment. I would argue that the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) in the US and the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety (SCCS) in the EU are the best sources of information for the safety of cosmetic ingredients, especially the SCCS as they are entirely independent of the cosmetics industry, whereas the CIR is slightly less independent (although much more independent than it used to be!)

Re: SKIN DEEP – Scratching Below the Surface

Lisa M. Rodgers — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:24:37 -0000

Thank you for your comment, @Tulu Team. You have been misinformed. We do not test products for anyone. We are an information site only. We do not promote products, just provide truthful information based on scientific facts.