- Joined
- Friday February 3, 2012
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!
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!
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.
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!
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.
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?
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:
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?
hunnymonster said:So does that mean if you don't have moobs and don't use Proraso on your ballbag that you're safe then Chris?
hunnymonster said:So does that mean if you don't have moobs and don't use Proraso on your ballbag that you're safe then Chris?
Pig Cat said:hunnymonster said:So does that mean if you don't have moobs and don't use Proraso on your ballbag that you're safe then Chris?
< Gulp! > :s
Time I changed my lifestyle...
UKRob said:Fascinating thread - the silence from the pro Ayervedicists is deafening from page 3 onwards.
JohnnyO said:UKRob said:Fascinating thread - the silence from the pro Ayervedicists is deafening from page 3 onwards.
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:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?