Anwser = Even a 3rd grader knows that the Body is made up of 75% water…we are naturally water logged.

This isn’t just a concern for women.

In 2005, the CDC found breakdown chemicals from two of the most common cosmetic phthalates in almost every member of a group of 2,800 people.
An advocacy group said it has obtained ingredient lists for nearly 15,000 personal care products.
In January, Consumer Reports tested eight perfumes, and it said the products all contained phthalates.

Here are the real facts that the cosmetics industry does not not want the people to know.

These are just a few of the ingredients found in commercial body soaps.

Your morning shower is actually a hazardous chemical shower. If you’re not choosing your body soaps carefull they are..most bathing products are made of animal products{Pig fat ect} a dead product…the skin is alive and can never be revitalized by using a dead product.
What are these chemicals, and are they really necessary for cleanliness? no thet are not.If you’re concerned about reducing the amount of dangerous chemicals and toxins you expose your body to, you need to know about typical body soaps.Eliminating processed foods, choosing organically grown, pesticide-free produce, and seeking out hormone-free meats from pasture fed animals is a wonderful start – but it’s not enough!
You can’t completely escape all the toxins your body is exposed to in our modern world, but you can make better choices wherever possible.
Do Unto Your Skin as You Would Into Your Body!Give serious thought to what you’d put on your skin — as much as you would to what you’d put into your mouth. Why? Your skin covers up to 20 square feet of your body and is a living, breathing organ. It is your body’s first line of defense against harmful substances.
Your skin is a protective mechanical barrier for your internal organs and muscles. It also excretes waste products and excess salts from your body through sweat and tears.Your skin is also meant to absorb substances that are good for you, like Vitamin D from the sun, or healing herbals, and essential oils.
So of course, your skin can also absorb substances that are BAD for you!{Wich dene denies}When your skin absorbs harmful chemicals, their toxins can lodge into your cells, tissues, and muscles, and eventually overwhelm your entire immune system. A weakened immune system can no longer do its’ real job of defending you against disease-causing viruses, bacteria, fungal infections like candida yeast, cancer, and many other serious conditions. Most important, doing everything you can to remove dangerous toxins from your body is essential if you want to create healthy babies! For more information on why some toxins could even be a cause of autism, ADD and other disorders, read: Why Your Body Needs to Cleanse, (and The Surprising Signs That it Cleansing) Part I Common chemicals in body soap can cause the following health risks1:

Benzaldehyde: Depresses the nervous system, brings on dizziness, vomiting, and sudden drops in blood pressure if inhaled.
Benzyl Acetate: Eye and lung irritant, and known carcinogen that has been associated with pancreatic cancer.
Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLS): Breaks down fats, and impairs the skins ability to maintain moisture. Classified as a “mutagen” meaning it can alter genetic material in cells.
Ethanol: On the EPA’s hazardous waste list! Can irritate the respiratory tract and cause vision impairments and loss of muscle control
Linalool: Narcotic substance that can harm your respiratory system and motor activity. Can also attract bees, which would be a problem for those of you allergic to bees.

Again, this is just a short list to give you an idea. The good news is, you have plenty of healthy natural soaps to choose from! Here are some tips for picking the best body soaps:

Feed your skin the best natural ingredients with these body soaps:

Dr. Bronner’s liquid soap for your body, hair and even your laundry!
Khadi natural body soaps for herbs that relieve tension, heal your skin and relax your moods with aromatherapy!
Read ingredient labels! Avoid animal or petroleum based soaps with artificial fragrances, or chemicals.
Look for natural soaps with organic herb, or plant based ingredients. They should contain pure essential oils, olive, palm or coconut oils as a base.

Miracle II soap is the best…it cures everything, including cancer.

Natural soaps are also better for our planet because they don’t harm the environment after they go down the drain!
We especially like these Khadi handmade body soaps with natural ingredients and pure essential oils proven to have healing effects on the skin:
Neem Tulsi Soap has skin healing properties.

Sandal Turmeric Soap is naturally cooling.

Rose-Sandal Soap relieves tension and tired muscles.

Jasmine Cheese Soap is relaxing, stress relieving and anti-depressive.
Try any of the Khadi natural body soaps for a dose of skin health AND aromatherapy!

Other great options are:

Dr. Bronner’s soaps which are organic,100% natural, scented with essential oils, and eco-friendly.
Thursday Plantation Tea Tree Skin Care Soap which is especially good for you if you suffer from acne, psoriasis, or any other skin infection.

Next time you take your morning shower, love the skin you’re in by “feeding” it a healthy diet of natural soap! It’s just one more way to support your overall good health AND the health of our planet.
Source:

1 “Coming Clean-The Hidden Dangers in Common Soap” by Siegel-Maier, Karyn. Originally published in Better Nutrition Magazine
http://herbalmusings.com/coming-clean-soap.htm

And one last thing that the commercial cosmetic industy wont tell you is that any soap with Parabens in them deplete the bodies Magnesium levels…turing the bodies Ph into acidic instead of Alkalin.

With regard to the studies carried out by researchers, you say to Kayla that there are “more than you know” – implying that YOU know, but she doesn’t. How do you have this information? How do you know that Kayla doesn’t know?

Your comment about millions dying from cancer has no scientific basis whatsoever and is invalid – there is no link to synthetic chemicals (or parabens in particular)simply from the fact that the world is different and that many thousands more synthetic chemicals are around. If you take the time to read the statements on the websites of ALL the major cancer research organisations (who do NOT have a vested interest in synthetic chemicals), you will see that they say that lifestyle is probably the major contributory cause to cancer in modern society. Many of the synthetic chemicals you and others like you abhor have contributed towards increasing the life expectancy from around 40 years (200 years ago) to around 80 years today. As I said in an earlier post, can you please explain how, despite the “toxic soup” of synthetic chemicals, as some have described it, we currently share this planet with 6 BILLION people – more, much more than at any other time in human history. Link? Perhaps the presence of so many synthetic chemicals is beneficial to humans. There is a stronger link to my argument that there is to yours!

How many so called researchers/companies that write these studies receive GENEROUS donations from the companies that want these studies written. .. more than you know.

You can argue and post what you think is fact all you want. But if you look around you and see millions dying of different types of cancer and look at what is different in the world from 100 or 200 years ago. Then you will see a link.

“The findings of parabens in tumour samples are additional results in line with the general hypothesis that there may be a link between oestrogenic compounds commonly used in underarm cosmetics and other consumer products and breast cancer. The results alone, however, do not suggest that these chemicals caused the tumours in these patients. Darbre et al.’s findings invite several questions: how did the parabens get into the breast, are they persistent and could they do harm? The answers require further research.”

Philip W. Harvey and David J. Everett
General considerations and conclusion from the Editorial of the Journal of Applied Toxicology where the research was published

“We are all exposed to all kinds of chemicals but it doesn’t mean that they all cause cancer. The question is here whether the chemicals would have an impact on the hormones, and also what level you would see in a healthy breast tissue. A causal link has by no means been proved.”

Karol Sikora, Professor of Oncology at Imperial College London
The Observer
Sunday, 11 th January 2004

“Although this is an interesting study the sample size is very small. No causal link has been found between underarm cosmetics containing parabens and breast cancer. There is also no robust population-based evidence to suggest a link. Should any notional risk exist it would be insignificant when compared to other avoidable environmental risks for the disease, such as obesity.”

Dr Richard Sullivan, Head of Clinical Programmes at Cancer Research UK
The Sun, The Star, Daily Mail, The Independent, The Observer
Monday, 12 th January 2004

“This extremely small study does not demonstrate a direct or causal link between deodorant or anti-perspirant use and developing breast cancer. Further research is needed to establish the source of the chemicals found in the breast tumour samples and what, if any, the relationship is to breast cancer.”

Delyth Morgan, Breakthrough Breast Cancer
Daily Mail, Daily Mirror

Monday, 12 th January 2004

“We conclude from our results that the above mentioned paraben esterase III of keratinocytes (a skin enzyme that breaks down parabens) is sufficient to completely hydrolyse the traces of parabens that may enter the skin from topically applied ointments.”

C. Lobermeier, C. Tschoetschel, S. Westie and E. Heymann
Hydrolysis of parabens by extracts from differing layers of human skin.
Biol.Chem. 377(1): 647-651 (1996)

I know nothing of your background either, but I suspect that you have never worked in the cosmetics industry, as your comments about my lies clearly demonstrate. My 5 “lies”, (according to your definition) are not lies in the least, and I am interested to understand on what basis you think that I am wrong, because you are making some rather sweeping statements in the way you condemn me. You make no attempt to justify your strong condemnation of each of thsoe points, and I think that I deserve an explanation as to why you think I am lying.

You are very good at cutting and pasting large swathes of text from (presumably) internet sources, but much of what you have posted is taken out of context, and some of it is simply inaccurate or wrong. You have posted so much information, it is not possible to address the comments on every substance, but they are mostly comments on the hazards of each chemical listed. It is not possible to assess safety on the basis of hazard alone – an understanding of the exposure is essential. Something that is toxic in high doses can be perfectly safe to use at lower concentrations. Fact.

A useful source of well-presented, non-hysterical information on various aspects of cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients may be found http://personalcaretruth.com

I strongly recommend this site – it also demonstrates how to conduct discussions without resorting to gross insults.

Finally – there may well be more terminally ill and sickly people around these days. Could this possibly be because we are all living a lot longer, and there are more people actually alive than ever before? If this “toxic soup” that we allegedly live in is so bad, how come more than 6 BILLION of us have managed to survive for so long (and live longer than ever before)? This argument just does not stack up!

There is a sort of inverse parallel with the controversy over the film Monty Python’s Life Of Brian (for those old enough to remember the 1970s). Thousands of people accused the film-makers of blasphemy, despite never having seen the film. In the case of Darbre’s 2004 study, many people believe in the findings implicitly – without ever having read the study!

I have read this study in careful detail many times, and I pose the following questions:

i) Was the rationale behind the study correct?
ii) Was the study carried out using sound experimental design?
iii) Was the interpretation of the results accurate and logical?

Was the rationale behind the study correct?

Dr. Darbre was informed several years prior to this work that very few deodorant products contain any preservatives, let alone parabens. A survey identified 3,324 new deodorant products launched in the 6 months preceding this study, only 12 of which contained parabens. This fact makes nonsense of the claimed adverse effects of parabens in deodorant products, although it cannot rule out a connection between parabens and breast cancer in isolation. Subsequently, when challenged with this information in an interview (Daily Mail, Jan. 13, 2004 p. 45) Dr. Darbre rather disingenuously said “most deodorants no longer contain the parabens because many manufacturers removed them 3 years ago”. This is simply not correct, as most deodorant products have never required preservation – there was no sudden change in industry practise in 2001. She has also since claimed that parabens have been removed from underarm products as a result of her study – also not true.
Dr. Darbre also claimed that the substances used in underarm products could migrate to the breast, thereby causing cancer. It is well-established that the blood and lymphatic systems flow away from the breast, so it is biologically implausible that substances would migrate in the opposite direction.

Both the central tenets of the rationale behind the study have no factual basis.

Was the study carried out using sound experimental design?

Benzylparaben is rarely used in personal care products, and the results were, unsurprisingly, all negative for this compound and may be discounted. All the blanks showed an apparent paraben presence and, on subtraction from the breast tissue reading, many gave a negative result leaving us with the novel concept of “negative parabens”. This occurred in 26 out of 120 data points (over 20%) – a significant number and sufficient to cause concern over the validity of the results. The presence of parabens in the blank samples was attributed to “the ubiquitous use of parabens as preservatives even in laboratory detergents and personal care products of the operators”. Parabens are not normally used as preservatives in detergent products, so this source of contamination is unlikely, but it may well come from the operators. One of the blank samples contained higher concentrations of parabens than 12 of the 20 tissue samples tested and, therefore, is it not possible that all the parabens detected were resulting from the personal care products used by the operators? The ratio of the parabens detected in the blanks was broadly similar to the ratio found in the tissue samples, which suggests that the source of the parabens was the same in both cases. It is difficult to imagine that the all the very different ratios and combinations of parabens used in the huge number of different personal care products should mysteriously average out to be similar in breast tumour tissue as it is in the contaminated blanks in this study. This suggestion is supported by several studies that have determined that parabens are completely absorbed, metabolised and excreted by mammals within approximately 24 – 48 hours. Furthermore, to assume that subtracting the blank data from the tissue sample gives an accurate paraben level in the breast tissue is not logical as it implies that parabens are present on the glassware used for the blank samples at exactly the same concentrations on the glassware used for the tissue samples. This cannot be assumed when one considers the wide variability of paraben concentrations within the blank samples themselves from between 19.6 – 61.4 ng/g. This is proven by the presence of so many negative values that are, of course, impossible. The mean total paraben concentration identified in the blank samples was 33.8ng/g and, whilst the mean concentration from tumour extracts was 54.8ng/g, the higher levels may be attributed to additional paraben contamination during handling and processing of the tissues that does not occur with the blank samples.

The use of only 20 tumour samples is extremely limiting in terms of statistical analysis, particularly in view of the enormity of what is being claimed for the results.

The medical history of the tissue donors was not considered as, as parabens are used as preservatives in several cancer treatments, this is a serious shortcoming.

There was no control using healthy human breast tissue for comparison.

The procedure should have been refined such that all blank samples contained no detectable parabens, and using many more tumour samples, so it is my conclusion that the study was not carried out using sound experimental design.

Was the interpretation of the results accurate and logical?

The conclusions of the study claim proof of bioaccumulation of parabens in human breast tumour tissue. Leaving aside whether or not the parabens were actually present in the tumour tissue, it is simply not possible to establish bioaccumulation using only one data point. This can only be achieved by monitoring over a period of time and observing an increase in the concentrations present and this study uses only a single data point. If the parabens truly are present in the tumour tissue, they may be simply background levels present during the metabolic process. The report then draws a comparison between parabens and PCB’s and OCP’s, quoting mean levels of 20, 267 and 707ng/g tissue respectively as further evidence of bioaccumulation of parabens (and wrongly claiming that these levels are similar – they differ by more than an order of magnitude). I believe that this proves precisely the opposite. Human exposure to parabens must be several orders of magnitude greater than exposure to PCB’s or OCP’s, yet the latter have significantly higher residual levels than parabens. If parabens were bioaccumulative, this would be reflected in mean levels significantly higher than PCB’s and OCP’s.

One of the most questionable aspects of the interpretation of the results is the use of a “corrected average level of parabens” suggested on the basis that 4 of the 20 tumours contained more than twice the true average level of total parabens and that only a 50% recovery of parabens was achieved during the analytical procedure. The “corrected average level” of 100ng/g was calculated using only the 4 highest results (and is, therefore, a gross distortion of the true figures), then doubling the figure based on the claim of 50% recovery. The recovery figure is based on spiking samples with benzylparaben and detecting 48.5% of the material on analysis. Benzylparaben was used because it was not otherwise detected in any of the samples. It is strange logic to base the % recovery on the one compound that was not detected and then to assume that all the esters have the same recovery factor. Benzylparaben is an aryl ester – the remainder all being alkyl esters – and the least representative of the group. It should not have been used to determine the recovery rate. It is also likely to have the lowest % recovery, leading to a greater distortion of the data. As methylparaben was present at 62%, this would have been best used to indicate the true recovery rate, but I would expect a difference in recovery for all esters as their solubility profiles are substantially different. The use of benzylparaben alone is both illogical and lazy. To assess the true analytical recovery, each individual paraben should have been tested. It is not methodologically acceptable to take the 4 highest results from a data series and use them to argue a case – this is distortion. Removing the highest and lowest data points as being the least representative would have been acceptable, but this was not done.

The distorted corrected average level of 100ng/g was then used as a comparator against studies (Okubo, T, Yokoyama, Y, Kano, K, Kano,I, Food Chem. Toxicol. 39, 1225 – 1232 (2001); Byford, J. R, Shaw, L. E, Drew, M. G. B, Pope, G. S, Sauer, M. J, Darbre, P. D, J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. 80, 49 – 60 (2002); Darbre, P. D, Byford, J. R, Shaw, L. E, Horton, R. A, Pope, G. S, Sauer, M. J, J. Appl. Toxicol. 22, 219 – 226 (2002); Darbre, P. D, Byford, J. R, Shaw, L. E, Hall, S, Coldham, N. G, Pope, G. S, Sauer, M. J, J. Appl. Toxicol. 23, 43 – 51 (2003)) that found levels of c. 150ng/ml of n-propyl, n-butyl and iso-butylparaben stimulated growth of oestrogen-dependant MCF7 human breast cancer (HBC) cells. This results in yet further distortion as the distorted average is then being compared with results for, essentially, different compounds as 62% of the total paraben level was methylparaben and a further 10% was ethylparaben, for which there are no data on their effect on MCF7 HBC cells. Therefore, only 28% of the comparator figure is an acceptable comparison as, based on many other studies, methyl and ethylparaben are significantly less likely to exhibit any oestrogenic effect than the higher esters. A more reasonable comparison would be to take the propyl and butylparaben components from the “uncorrected” average to give a figure of c. 5.6ng/g, which is significantly lower than the 150ng/g level claimed to stimulate growth of MCF7 HBC cells.

In the light of all the above factors I have to conclude that the interpretation of the results of the study was neither accurate, nor logical and grossly distorted.

All the points I have made above are based on fact and logic, and I challenge anyone to read this and then claim that Darbre’s study was good science. Is there any wonder that “mainstream scientists” dismiss this study? Much of the concern over parabens is based on this study having allegedly detected them in human breast cancer tissue, and there should be a huge question mark over the relevance of some of the adverse claims being made on the basis of this study.

Congratulations if you managed to read all of this, and I apologise for the length of the posting, but I feel that all this is relevant to the discussion.

Finally, for now, if you think that the skin absorbs everything put on it, how come people manage to swim in water for so long without becoming totally waterlogged? Ask any dermatologist about how much the skin can absorb – don’t rely on my word for it!