~MOTHERS Protect Your Children~

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Organic Living, Nov 20, 2003.

  1. "Organic Living" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
    news:[email protected]
    Re: your barmicidal post..

    > The info you found below may sound ok to you.. But you might want to get

    your head around the fact that many products now have to lists ingredients
    in
    > personal care items from highest content, to lowest content. Both these

    ingredients are found in a range of products. You will usually find SLS in
    the top 3. (Both
    > forms are still widely used.. Like you say.. yes One is "clearly" MORE

    Toxic than the other.. Check next time your at the supermakret and see..)
    Secondly.. the
    > chemicals are the same in the fact that one is prepared from the other..

    Thirdly one of the biggest issues with these surfactants is a thing called
    synergy.. You can,
    > if you feel so inclined look further into it. In respect of brevity that

    one paragraph was enough to prompt someone to investigate for themselves. I
    would not be
    > recomending that anyone continue this lab study on their children.

    Especially new born babies.


    You say "the chemicals are the same in the fact that one is prepared from
    the other". Sodium dodecyl sulfate (this is a synonymous term to SLS, I'll
    refer to SLES as SLES for clarity) is a different chemical from SLES. This
    is a simple fact. You'll probably know that sodiumchloride is made from two
    extremely toxic chemicals, sodium (Na) and chlorine (Cl2). However, the fact
    that these two chemicals combine to form NaCl changes its properties
    dramatically. So, even if SDS and SLES are made from eachother, which I
    actually doubt, it tells you nothing about the properties of the resulting
    compound.



    --

    Robert Bronsing

    But that's okay, see the children bleed
    It'll look great on the TV
     


  2. WB

    WB Guest

    On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:44:06 GMT, "Markiosi Probertios1" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Organic Living" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> >
    >> > There is not enough fluoride in tooth paste to cause that.
    >> > Infants don't have teeth hence, no need for toothpaste.
    >> >

    >> Have you ever seen a 2 year old Child brush her little sisters "teeth"

    >like
    >> mommy does for her. Have you ever seen a grown adult go into toxic shock
    >> and seizures requiring her stomach to be pumped from accidently swallowing

    >a
    >> mouthful of of "bubbly Sulphates and Fluoride" toothpaste? Obviously

    >not.
    >> I dont know what you think you are defending people from by responding the
    >> way you do..

    >
    >Have you actually seen people go into toxic shock as you describe? Or, are
    >you relying on the sales literature your lying compnay is putting forth?
    >
    >> > > If fluoride wasnt poisonous it wouldnt be a Toxic Waste Product. Or

    >are
    >> > >you confusing hazardous waste with
    >> > >the natural element of Flourine, which is not used because its er..

    >> natural
    >> > >and costs a lot to find and process it..
    >> > >
    >> > >My opinion is that it is a bad and a useless chemical,
    >> >
    >> > Useless ? Then why did God put it on earth ?

    >>
    >> The Fluoride you are talking about IS NOT NATURAL.

    >
    >Does being 'natural' somehow make it special? If so, can you describe this
    >'special' property?
    >
    >It is a toxic by product
    >> produced in the same manner other synthetic chemicals are produced.

    >FLUORIDE
    >> used in our water supplies and toothpaste comes from the alluminium
    >> smeltring process.

    >
    >So? Is it dumped straigt in, or processed first? And, what is the doseage?
    >Is toxicity dose dependent?
    >
    >> It is NOT Natural and not to be confused with Fluorine.
    >> Fluorine is a trace element, and is not even a required element for human
    >> development.

    >
    >I see, so fluoride has nothing to do with fluorine. Since fluorine is all
    >natural, it is safe, right?
    >
    >> NON Biased Statistical studies, produced by independant
    >> research groups continue to demonstrate that the only noticable statistic
    >> change in regions with heavy "fluoride" consumption is miscarriage, birth
    >> defects and depression.

    >
    >When you say "NON biased" do you mean to say, people who support my
    >position? Sure you do.
    >
    >> If you take vallium from birth you are going to grow up to be one

    >depressed
    >> and misserable person as your natural endorphin centers slowly shutdown

    >due
    >> to the excessive synthetic happy juices running through your system.
    >> Valium, Prozac, Zoloft, Rohipnol.. Guess what is their key ingredient for
    >> development?

    >
    >Guessing is a poor substitute for knowledge. Care to expound on this?
    >
    >> > >let people research
    >> > >it for themselves and make the choice. A choice many of us don't have

    >as
    >> it
    >> > >is forced upon us in our water supplies anyway.
    >> >
    >> > You could use bottled water, or have a home filtering system.

    >>
    >> Yeh we made that choice long ago..

    >
    >Do you sell that, too?
    >
    >> > > I prefer to choose my
    >> > >medication.. Don't you?
    >> >
    >> > Loaded question.

    >>
    >> a loaded question for a loaded email..

    >
    >It is not email.
    >
    >> Btw - A you suggested.. Take a bath in a Tub of Fluoride, and count the
    >> seconds before you are dead.. Better off to just swill a cup of it. Then
    >> you will have a few minutes to say goodbye to friends and family.. See we
    >> all have choices.. Some just make the wrong ones.. But thats life.

    >
    >And you chose to be an internet spammer who sells a product based on fear
    >tactics.
    >
    >Some people would call that being a dirtbag.
    >
    >

    Well that about covers it.

    Just when I had the keyboard all warmed up and ready to go...
    --


    Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
    [email protected]
     
  3. Maybe since I am such an Idiot you would like to point how the post
    violated any of the rules presented in the FAQ.. I repeat, this is of
    relevance to people suffering infertility problems. If certain people choose
    to be offended by it then so be it. I can not determine how this
    information will effect everyone. People react differently. What you see
    as rude doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of others. I see you as
    extremely rude and judgemental.. You might be a nice person face to face..
    We can't all present information in the method most pleasing to every
    person.

    This post violates none of the FAQ guidelines.. In fact it meets them in
    presenting a valid issue.. Including the topic..
    -Discussion on low-tech methods of improving the odds of pregnancy.
    -Alternative medical methods (acupuncture, herbs, visualization . . .)

    You think I would bother trying to correct your arrogant stand, and defend
    your abuse for what? What don't YOU GET?

    Every person on this group has a common Goal. TO BECOME A MOTHER OR A
    FATHER! This issue effects all of us.. I am sorry you are such an arse
    about it. If I changed the Topic Header would it change the content?

    -L. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Organic Living" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Absolutely its relevant. The post contains some vital information that
    > > people deserve to know about. Did you miss the part about infertility?

    >
    > Listen you idiot - I'm not going to be nice, since you don't seem to
    > GET IT.
    >
    > QUIT CROSS-POSTING to the INFERTILITY NEWSGROUPS!
    >
    > Addressing a bunch of INFERTILE women as "MOTHERS" is RUDE,
    > INCONSIDERATE and HURTFUL.
    >
    > Not only is it against the FAQ, you are potentially harming women who
    > have deep emotional pain. Not that I expect you to care.
    >
    > -L.
     

  4. >First, stop posting in HTML.


    Whats wrong with HTML? Even you use it below.. It makes things more readable, and there is no difference in size to a small web page. Few Newsgroups even forbid its use now. This is a legacy concept back in the early days of the Web when many News browsers only supported text. Are you still using a Old DOS/Aplle IIE System along with your 20 Year Old Chem Research?

    >Second, prove that both are used, that the amount used is of a doseage which can be toxic.


    I don't need to prove anything. You can prove it for yourself. Like I said Go the supermarket. And Look on the back of the Shampoo Bottle and Baby Shampoos.. See for yourself.. Is that enough proof?


    Like you say.. yes One is "clearly" MORE Toxic than the other.. Check next time your at the supermakret and see..) Secondly.. the chemicals are the same in the fact that one is prepared from the other..

    >No, that is NOT true, as the studies I posted clearly show. they are NOT chemically the same. The only thing that is similar is the names, and, that is what lying spammers, like yourself, are relying on to shill for their lying companies.


    Of course they are Not chemically the same, or they would be the same chemical. They have similar effects and are closely related. Thus they were combined into the one group. I meant "They are the same in the fact that one is prepared from the other.." Just a different process is used. Which creates two different compounds i.e. two different chemicals, thus two different chemical names.. This relationship is WHY they have the similar effects and molecular structure.

    >What you are doing is propagating an urban legend:


    >http://www.snopes.com/toxins/shampoo.htm


    An urban legend for some, a true fact for others.. Like I said, this information is part of fertility treatment that gets better results than IVF.. But you don't seem the least bit interested in that..

    Thirdly one of the biggest issues with these surfactants is a thing called synergy.. You can, if you feel so inclined look further into it. In respect of brevity that one paragraph was enough to prompt someone to investigate for themselves. I would not be recomending that anyone continue this lab study on their children. Especially new born babies.

    >Talk about scaremongering.


    Yes be afraid. Fear is a natural emotion designed to keep us from harm.

    And lastly.. you have to be severely intellectually challenged by taking chemistry research data that has more than a 20year Old Date! You should have thrown in the Chemical report that said chemicals cannot penetrate the skin while you were at it.. Or those the early J.A.M.A. Studies that said Smoking did not cause cancer? Or that Mercury in baby teething gels was safe!

    >Can you point out where it has changed? I took the data from the NIH ToxNET website. It is the premier source for toxicology information.


    Premier source by who's standards? 20 year old Chemical research data is far from premier.

    You also might want to consider the ethics of companies that have "Not Tested On Animals" labels on products that contain these cocktails of toxic chemicals that were tested on animals too. But I am sure that wouldn't bother you.. But maybe others..

    >G-d put animals on earth so man could use them.


    I didn't think this would bother you.. There is a difference between "USE" and "Dominion Over".. A Big difference.. We have choice in our relationship with Nature. Some people choose to USE and ABUSE it.. Other prefer to work with it and cherish it. I see where you fit in.

    So please forgive me Mr Probertios for trying to help educate people about these issues as well as providing the same solution I use for myself and my family.

    >I never forgive lying MLM scammers.


    yeh whatever.. I think someone also said "Forgive and you will be forgiven.." So I forgive you for your arorgance and ignorance. Its just a shame Ignorance isn't painful.

    Solutions that have been a major part of successful infertility treatment, that the J.AMA has not even given 1 column centimetre of space to promote.

    >JAMA does not promote anything that does not past rigorous testing. Obviously, yours flunked.


    Not quite.. You have no clue..

    Wouldn't want to jeopardise all that money that pours into the industry from IVF treatment. Expensive isn't it! Who would have thought that going on an organic diet (Free from toxic pesticides and other nasties) coupled with detoxing your body and home would have better results than the leading fertility treatments. And for litteral pennies in comparison.

    >Another detoxer! I just love you detoxers.


    Hows the saying go..?

    All truth passes through 3 stages..First it is ridiculed.. Then it is violently opposed, then it is accepted as if it was known all along..

    >I am sorry to see you at stage 1.


    Yes shows you know nothing about medical/pharma politics or what is going on right now in the world, to violent opposition occuring against alternate health and the Pharma Monopolies trying desperately to reclaim back the 60% market share they have lost over the last decade to Alt treatments that actualy get results. This 60% market share has been distributed to many more small businesses and individul practitioners rather than a select few corporate giants who worship the bottom dollar, for more so than they are interested in your health and well being.

    Crawl back under your bridge troll, your a tool and am I not even going to bother with any further communication.. You have no real interest what soever in the issues presented.. For someone who claims to have been effected by them, you seem remarkably intolerant of anothers point of view who is also speaking from personal experience.


    >If I were you, I would be more worried about DiHydrogen Monoxide. It is a proven dangerous substance, and is found worldwide. The fact that it is all natural is no protectant. In fact, the discoverer of the danger of this chemical substance won a science fair!


    You are a total fool. Maybe we could be so lucky and you would believe the crap below.. Maybe you should do the world a favour and stop taking/using "Dihydrogen monoxide" yourself. Then we could all happily bury you in 3 days time.

    "He was a Man of Pride and Arrogance.."
    "Stubborn and Unrelenting.."
    "Rude and obnoxious.."
    "Supported animal cruelty for the benefit of his ilk.."
    "But at least he died practicing what he preached.."
    "Everyone has a good point.. He actually believed his own garbage.."
    "May He RIP.."

    --- OMG MORE HTML Above and Below.. Run for the hills.. ---

    Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
    Dihydrogen monoxide:


    a.. is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
    b.. contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
    c.. may cause severe burns.
    d.. contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
    e.. accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
    f.. may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
    g.. has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
    Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!

    Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

    Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:


    a.. as an industrial solvent and coolant.
    b.. in nuclear power plants.
    c.. in the production of styrofoam.
    d.. as a fire retardant.
    e.. in many forms of cruel animal research.
    f.. in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
    g.. as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
    Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

    The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.
     
  5. Bob Goodman

    Bob Goodman Guest

    "Markiosi Probertios1" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Organic Living" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > Re: your barmicidal post..
    >
    > The info you found below may sound ok to you.. But you might want to
    > get your head around the fact that many products now have to lists
    > ingredients in personal care items from highest content, to lowest
    > content. Both these ingredients are found in a range of products. You
    > will usually find SLS in the top 3. (Both forms are still widely used..
    >
    > First, stop posting in HTML.
    >
    > Second, prove that both are used, that the amount used is of a doseage
    > which can be toxic.
    >
    >
    > Like you say.. yes One is "clearly" MORE Toxic than the other.. Check
    > next time your at the supermakret and see..) Secondly.. the chemicals
    > are the same in the fact that one is prepared from the other..


    No, not even that. Lauryl sulfate is prepared by
    sulfonating/sulfating lauryl alcohol.

    Lauryl ether sulfate (laureth sulfate) is prepared by sulfating lauryl
    oligo(ethyl ether) alcohol.

    What is true is that lauryl oligo(ethyl ether) alcohol is prepared by
    ethoxylating lauryl alcohol.

    However, the biochemical activity of even sodium lauryl sulfate (known
    to biochemists as SDS, sodium dodecyl sulfate) could not be too great,
    because it is used in many biochemical experiments, and if it had
    profound effects in low conentrations, the results would be invalid.

    Typically SDS is used at high concentration as a denaturant in
    biochemical systems. If further work is to be done with the materials
    in a native state, the SDS is dialyzed away. However, scientists are
    not too concerned about trace amounts of SDS that may remain, as long
    as the concentrations are low enough not to affect the biologic system
    being studied.

    BTW, I have a patent on a bubble bath formula whose preferred versions
    use neither SLS (SDS) nor SLES. But it's not because of ridiculous
    claims of toxicity that I left them out!

    You may read more at http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.html

    BTW, I didn't test on animals because it wouldn't've done me any good.
    However, I have in the past used animals in research where
    appropriate.

    But at least now you know how I can write authoritatively on this
    subject.

    Robert































    > thought that going on an organic diet (Free from toxic pesticides and
    > other nasties) coupled with detoxing your body and home would have
    > better results than the leading fertility treatments. And for litteral
    > pennies in comparison.
    >
    > Another detoxer! I just love you detoxers.
    >
    > Hows the saying go..?
    >
    > All truth passes through 3 stages..First it is ridiculed.. Then it is
    > violently opposed, then it is accepted as if it was known all along..
    >
    > I am sorry to see you at stage 1.
    >
    > If I were you, I would be more worried about DiHydrogen Monoxide. It is
    > a proven dangerous substance, and is found worldwide. The fact that it
    > is all natural is no protectant. In fact, the discoverer of the danger
    > of this chemical substance won a science fair!
    >
    > Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills
    > uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are
    > caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen
    > monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes
    > severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive
    > sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting
    > and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent,
    > DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
    > Dihydrogen monoxide:
    >
    >
    > a.. is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid
    > rain.
    > b.. contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
    > c.. may cause severe burns.
    > d.. contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
    > e.. accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
    > f.. may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of
    > automobile brakes.
    > g.. has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
    > Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!
    >
    > Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every
    > stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is
    > global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO
    > has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and
    > recently California.
    >
    > Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
    >
    >
    > a.. as an industrial solvent and coolant.
    > b.. in nuclear power plants.
    > c.. in the production of styrofoam.
    > d.. as a fire retardant.
    > e.. in many forms of cruel animal research.
    > f.. in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce
    > remains contaminated by this chemical.
    > g.. as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
    > Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be
    > done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on
    > wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
    >
    > The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution,
    > or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic
    > health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military
    > organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing
    > multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare
    > situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it
    > through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many
    > store large quantities for later use.
    >
    > --
     
  6. sodium laureth sulfate also known as soap.

    kills marine organisms true
    kills germs also

    no safety guidelines
    why, because it is non-toxic.

    hyperbole and exaggeration.

    j

    organic living is preternaturally paranoid.
     
  7. "Say not the Struggle nought Availeth" <> wrote in message
    >>

    > organic living is preternaturally paranoid.
    >


    Yah, so they can SELL more products!
     
  8. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Organic Living <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Dear Mr Wright..
    >
    >Or should I say.. Mr Wrong..


    How original. How amusing. How puerile.

    >Firstly, we don't use an email address for posting, because bots pick
    >it up and add it to various mailing list. I think everyone knows
    >this. Secondly if you read the whole document you would have found
    >contact details. And thirdly.. Your OPINION is welcome but
    >it is just that an Opinion and an un-informed one at that.


    On the contrary, it's an informed opinion. I actually went to the
    trouble of looking up the MSDS for the various compounds. You, on the
    other hand, simply regurgitate MLM propaganda.

    >> But it's the usual set of lies about propylene glycol, SLS and SLES.
    >> Carefully worded to make them sound just awful. I could make water
    >> sound awful if I were as inventive as these jerks. (Which I actually
    >> am, but it's not worth the effort.)

    >
    >Again your uniformed opinion. Peoples health is worth the effort to correct
    >your gibberish.


    My informed opinion. And pardon me, spammer, if I don't see you as
    the selfless angel you see in yourself.

    >Not quite.. 1. Contact details were included. And these are NOT lies.
    >Unless Material Safety Data sheets Lie? These are industry records not our
    >own make believe.. This posted was posted to appropriate groups of interest.
    >So you don't see it as an important issue. Well many Including myself, do.
    >Again your misinformed opinion..


    Yeah, but unlike you, I actually read them. Which informed me that
    the substances you so revile are, in fact, not the health hazards you
    paint them to be. If they were, I'd have stopped using them myself.

    >> >DID YOU KNOW? In 1901 cancer was considered a rare disease. Statistics
    >> >show that 1 out of 1000 developed some form of cancer. Today, according
    >> >to the American Cancer Society, 1 out of 4 people develop some form of
    >> >cancer requiring medical intervention.

    >>
    >> That's because cancer is primarily a disease of older people. In
    >> 1901, life expectancy at birth was 47.

    >
    >Statistical Rubbish. You believe anything you are fed.


    That's very humorous, coming from an MLM regurgitator like yourself.
    What I said was true.

    Also, the recording of health statistics was nowhere near as good in
    1901 as it is today.

    >Go look into it
    >yourself. Like you say, anything can be presented in a negative fashion.
    >Just like these statistics often touted by the Pharma/Medico industry. The
    >statistical error comes from the fact that pre the Surgical Revolution over
    >the last 100 years There was a 1in7 chance of Infant Death at Birth and
    >another 1 in 7 chance of the Mother dying during birth. So we had 1 in 4.5
    >people dying at the average age of 10yr old. A huge statistical flaw when
    >making claims that We all get cancer now because were all getting older.
    >What rubbish. How many young men, women and children are dying of this
    >epidemic. Go do some real research, everyone knows the party line already..
    >Nothing new there. Although it keeps people from asking what the biggest
    >killer is in the western world?


    Heart disease. Next question?


    >> >TOOTHPASTE containing Fluoride is poisonous!

    >>
    >> That's why you're not supposed to swallow it, a precaution that anyone
    >> over the age of 7 should be able to handle just fine.

    >
    >Just like cigarettes, every does of this crap puts load on your immune
    >system.


    It does, eh? What does fluoride that you don't even swallow do to
    your immune system?

    >THE Proof is in the results people get when they make this life style
    >change. Argue all you want, Ill take my knowledge from Nature and the
    >results I see. Its clear you didn't even read the whole thing. The
    >fertility issue is extremely relevant and I have seen this method save a lot
    >of people pain and heart ache.


    I didn't comment on the fertility issue. Go complain to the people
    who did.

    >You like to you are "Almost Always correct.." geez gimme a break.. have a
    >nice life.. It will probably be a short one.


    Nope. Good genes. Barring accident, it would not be surprising if I
    lived to be at least 90.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  9. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Organic Living <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> There is not enough fluoride in tooth paste to cause that.
    >> Infants don't have teeth hence, no need for toothpaste.
    >>

    >Have you ever seen a 2 year old Child brush her little sisters "teeth" like
    >mommy does for her. Have you ever seen a grown adult go into toxic shock
    >and seizures requiring her stomach to be pumped from accidently swallowing a
    >mouthful of of "bubbly Sulphates and Fluoride" toothpaste? Obviously not.


    Doubt you have either. Toxic shock is caused by staphylococcal
    bacteria. Though I can believe that an overdose of fluoride would
    cause convulsions, I don't know how much it'd take.

    >The Fluoride you are talking about IS NOT NATURAL.


    Sure it is. It doesn't contain any antimatter.

    >Fluorine is a trace element, and is not even a required element for human
    >development.


    Nobody really knows about that. In mice and rats, it *is* required.
    For humans, we're not really sure.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  10. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Organic Living <[email protected]> wrote:
    >-=-=-=-=-=-
    >
    >
    > >First, stop posting in HTML.

    >
    > Whats wrong with HTML? Even you use it below.. It makes things more
    >readable,


    Not on text-based newsreaders, it doesn't. And it makes the posts
    more than twice as long.

    > >What you are doing is propagating an urban legend:

    >
    > >http://www.snopes.com/toxins/shampoo.htm

    >
    > An urban legend for some, a true fact for others..


    Yeah, like your body exploding if you consume soda and Pop Rocks, or
    gangs of people stealing your kidney in Las Vegas.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  11. Dear Bob..

    Thank you for clarifying.. My Statement above about them being similar in
    nature, i.e. My understanding of it was that SLES came from the sulfating,
    ethoxylating of SLS. etc whch you point out as being incorrect. I will keep
    that in mind when talking to people, howevere it still does not alter the
    overall issue presented..

    I have some much more recent and extensive studies which support the toxic
    issue, I will see if I can get them scanned, or at least point you to the
    source to check for yourself since you are into this kind of thing you might
    find it interesting and find an edge for your own business. I am not
    questioning your own research, I am sure you are way ahead of me in that
    regards..

    > BTW, I have a patent on a bubble bath formula whose preferred versions
    > use neither SLS (SDS) nor SLES. But it's not because of ridiculous
    > claims of toxicity that I left them out!


    Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that was the exact reason.. Not the
    claims.. But the reactions they cause..

    We do not promote Organic Products becaue of the "Claims" either.. But
    because the reactions caused by the chemicals mentioned.

    From your website:
    -------
    Friends encouraged me to do something with this, so I sought other subjects,
    young and old, who'd had a history of *reproducible urinary or genital
    irritation from surfactant preparations* -- bubble baths, bar soap, shampoo,
    spermicide, or bath oil with emulsifiers. The irritation was usually a
    *vulvitis or vulvovaginitis*, but there were even some male cases of
    *urethritis*. Not only were they able to use my invention to foam their bath
    water without symptoms, but even undiluted as a perivaginal cleaner. Even
    masturbating with my formula by one tester did not lead to the urinary
    irritation he'd gotten from such use of other products. My most sensitive
    subject was even pregnant at the time of her test. ***Other makers of
    toiletries, when they've tested against urogenital irritancy, have
    deliberately screened out of their test population the very type of subject
    I engaged. ***
    The other major advantage of my invention is its foam's density and wetness.
    Bubble baths tend to make a light, fluffy foam of large bubbles, pretty to
    look at, but brittle to the touch. Even when made of mild surfactants, their
    dry foams can *sting eyes.* MarshWallow's fine lathery foam resists breaking
    when played with, and doesn't sting eyes.
    -------

    What was the reasons you didn't use sulphates again?

    > BTW, I have a patent on a bubble bath formula whose preferred versions
    > use neither SLS (SDS) nor SLES. But it's not because of ridiculous
    > claims of toxicity that I left them out!


    This sounds kind of strange.. To me its like saying.. If you expose yourself
    to radiation and get sick, it is because your "allergic to it". or "we
    don't use DDT in our home because of the Toxic _claims_.. No we don't use it
    because we know it causes adverse reactions" Everyone who puts this stuff
    in their eyes will feel pain unless anaesthetised. Just like the poor little
    bunnies who had their eyes burnt out with the stuff. Only the lab techs
    have weighed up the most "appropriate levels" necessary to create the
    desired effect with minimal reaction.. (That we can immediately SEE and
    FEEL) Anyone who exposes themself to enough of it will suffer Toxic
    Poisoning. Some people are more sensitive than others..

    Some people can smoke a pack of cigarettes a day from the Age of 14, and
    live to 100 right? So that means cigarettes are safe and people who develop
    lung cancer are just having an Adverse reaction? Which is the norm? Do 50?
    60? 70% of people who smoke die because of it? No they don;t.. the point is
    that enough people do, because we have had the opportunity to pursue it and
    investigate it to a much more detailed level. Society is going through the
    same process now with the Chemical Industry and the results are not in their
    favour at all.

    And if it is not an issue then why is it an important part of fertility
    programs that get results? I.e. To get these chemicals out of your system.
    Clear out your home of this garbage. Its a vital step and sure it is part
    of a whole lifestyle change, including an Organic Diet, Detox and Cycle
    Management, but they all work together to create superior results. I think
    as far as the industry is concerned, it is simply a matter that, it is an
    area best left unstudied.. But thankfully people are investigating, because
    it needs to be done. Just imagine the economic and litigation
    ramifications.

    You say you wanted to make a product that didn't generate the reactions
    common to these substances. Do you not think that the same could apply to
    other areas of peoples health, the not so obvious areas? It seems there is
    a growing body of evidence to show that this is indeed the case.

    I am the same.. But I wanted a whole certified organic product.. And I
    believe in it, because I know the results people get, and I have weighed up
    the issues myself and made a commitment to pursuing it further.

    Like your Darklady friend says on her website.. We are all entitled to our
    opinion and I am happy to hear any alternatives or errors in the way I
    present the topic. I am not a BioChemist. I know people who are, I talk to
    them a lot get their input an opinion. And each has a varied concept of the
    issue. Show me the results.. that's all I really care about at the end of
    the day, and makes perfect sense. Shampoo with Thick Bubbles that isn't
    systemic, and doesn't cause the skin damage, irritation, urinary tract
    infects. That's a positive result in my book. But IMO, I would rather use
    truly natural, and true organic.. Take care..
     
  12. <HTML><Input type message></HTML>
    begin <[email protected]>, Organic Living wrote:

    > >First, stop posting in HTML.

    >
    > Whats wrong with HTML? Even you use it below.. It makes things more readable, and there is no difference in size to a small web page. Few Newsgroups even forbid its use now. This is a legacy concept back in the early days of the Web when many News browsers only supported text. Are you still using a Old DOS/Aplle IIE System along with your 20 Year Old Chem Research?


    Well, if you think that's readable. Personally, I prefer
    proper line termination. Then again, my newsreader doesn't
    try to guess at the MIME-type of messages.

    --
    begin signature.exe
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
    end
     
  13. -L.

    -L. Guest

    "Organic Living" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > (shall I bother mention the netiquette breech of using rich text?)

    > >
    > > Thanks for pointing out the utter inseinsitivity of this liar/spammer.
    > > Having gone through infertility problems three times with my wife, I know
    > > the pain that this twits insensitivity and lust for money caused.

    >
    > Unbelievable.. Ill respond to your second post regarding your little bit of
    > additional research. But let me just tell you this.. You will not know true
    > pain until the day you have your child then loose it because of the issues
    > presented here.


    You will not know true pain until you try to have a child for YEARS
    and CANNOT and then come to an infertility group for support and see a
    message addressed to MOTHERS.

    Obviously you are THAT clueless.

    Killfile the troll, everyone. It's an idiot.

    -L.
     
  14. Organic Living is shoveling an all natural, organic substance, a/k/a male
    bovine excreta.

    It is astounding that this scammin's spammin' dirtbag does not get it. When
    you are clearly not wanted, crawl back in your hole.

    "Organic Living" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Maybe since I am such an Idiot you would like to point how the post
    > violated any of the rules presented in the FAQ.. I repeat, this is of
    > relevance to people suffering infertility problems. If certain people

    choose
    > to be offended by it then so be it. I can not determine how this
    > information will effect everyone. People react differently. What you

    see
    > as rude doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of others. I see you as
    > extremely rude and judgemental.. You might be a nice person face to face..
    > We can't all present information in the method most pleasing to every
    > person.
    >
    > This post violates none of the FAQ guidelines.. In fact it meets them in
    > presenting a valid issue.. Including the topic..
    > -Discussion on low-tech methods of improving the odds of pregnancy.
    > -Alternative medical methods (acupuncture, herbs, visualization . . .)
    >
    > You think I would bother trying to correct your arrogant stand, and defend
    > your abuse for what? What don't YOU GET?
    >
    > Every person on this group has a common Goal. TO BECOME A MOTHER OR A
    > FATHER! This issue effects all of us.. I am sorry you are such an arse
    > about it. If I changed the Topic Header would it change the content?
    >
    > -L. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > "Organic Living" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > Absolutely its relevant. The post contains some vital information

    that
    > > > people deserve to know about. Did you miss the part about infertility?

    > >
    > > Listen you idiot - I'm not going to be nice, since you don't seem to
    > > GET IT.
    > >
    > > QUIT CROSS-POSTING to the INFERTILITY NEWSGROUPS!
    > >
    > > Addressing a bunch of INFERTILE women as "MOTHERS" is RUDE,
    > > INCONSIDERATE and HURTFUL.
    > >
    > > Not only is it against the FAQ, you are potentially harming women who
    > > have deep emotional pain. Not that I expect you to care.
    > >
    > > -L.

    >
    >
     
  15. "-L." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Organic Living" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > > (shall I bother mention the netiquette breech of using rich text?)
    > > >
    > > > Thanks for pointing out the utter inseinsitivity of this liar/spammer.
    > > > Having gone through infertility problems three times with my wife, I

    know
    > > > the pain that this twits insensitivity and lust for money caused.

    > >
    > > Unbelievable.. Ill respond to your second post regarding your little bit

    of
    > > additional research. But let me just tell you this.. You will not know

    true
    > > pain until the day you have your child then loose it because of the

    issues
    > > presented here.

    >
    > You will not know true pain until you try to have a child for YEARS
    > and CANNOT and then come to an infertility group for support and see a
    > message addressed to MOTHERS.
    >
    > Obviously you are THAT clueless.
    >
    > Killfile the troll, everyone. It's an idiot.


    Do not insult idiots.
     
  16. "Bob Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Markiosi Probertios1" <[email protected]> wrote in message

    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Organic Living" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > > Re: your barmicidal post..
    > >
    > > The info you found below may sound ok to you.. But you might want to
    > > get your head around the fact that many products now have to lists
    > > ingredients in personal care items from highest content, to lowest
    > > content. Both these ingredients are found in a range of products. You
    > > will usually find SLS in the top 3. (Both forms are still widely used..
    > >
    > > First, stop posting in HTML.
    > >
    > > Second, prove that both are used, that the amount used is of a doseage
    > > which can be toxic.
    > >
    > >
    > > Like you say.. yes One is "clearly" MORE Toxic than the other.. Check
    > > next time your at the supermakret and see..) Secondly.. the chemicals
    > > are the same in the fact that one is prepared from the other..

    >
    > No, not even that. Lauryl sulfate is prepared by
    > sulfonating/sulfating lauryl alcohol.
    >
    > Lauryl ether sulfate (laureth sulfate) is prepared by sulfating lauryl
    > oligo(ethyl ether) alcohol.
    >
    > What is true is that lauryl oligo(ethyl ether) alcohol is prepared by
    > ethoxylating lauryl alcohol.
    >
    > However, the biochemical activity of even sodium lauryl sulfate (known
    > to biochemists as SDS, sodium dodecyl sulfate) could not be too great,
    > because it is used in many biochemical experiments, and if it had
    > profound effects in low conentrations, the results would be invalid.
    >
    > Typically SDS is used at high concentration as a denaturant in
    > biochemical systems. If further work is to be done with the materials
    > in a native state, the SDS is dialyzed away. However, scientists are
    > not too concerned about trace amounts of SDS that may remain, as long
    > as the concentrations are low enough not to affect the biologic system
    > being studied.
    >
    > BTW, I have a patent on a bubble bath formula whose preferred versions
    > use neither SLS (SDS) nor SLES. But it's not because of ridiculous
    > claims of toxicity that I left them out!
    >
    > You may read more at http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.html
    >
    > BTW, I didn't test on animals because it wouldn't've done me any good.
    > However, I have in the past used animals in research where
    > appropriate.
    >
    > But at least now you know how I can write authoritatively on this
    > subject.
    >
    > Robert
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > thought that going on an organic diet (Free from toxic pesticides and
    > > other nasties) coupled with detoxing your body and home would have
    > > better results than the leading fertility treatments. And for litteral
    > > pennies in comparison.
    > >
    > > Another detoxer! I just love you detoxers.
    > >
    > > Hows the saying go..?
    > >
    > > All truth passes through 3 stages..First it is ridiculed.. Then it is
    > > violently opposed, then it is accepted as if it was known all along..
    > >
    > > I am sorry to see you at stage 1.
    > >
    > > If I were you, I would be more worried about DiHydrogen Monoxide. It is
    > > a proven dangerous substance, and is found worldwide. The fact that it
    > > is all natural is no protectant. In fact, the discoverer of the danger
    > > of this chemical substance won a science fair!
    > >
    > > Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills
    > > uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are
    > > caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen
    > > monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes
    > > severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive
    > > sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting
    > > and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent,
    > > DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
    > > Dihydrogen monoxide:
    > >
    > >
    > > a.. is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid
    > > rain.
    > > b.. contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
    > > c.. may cause severe burns.
    > > d.. contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
    > > e.. accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
    > > f.. may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of
    > > automobile brakes.
    > > g.. has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
    > > Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!
    > >
    > > Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every
    > > stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is
    > > global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO
    > > has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and
    > > recently California.
    > >
    > > Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
    > >
    > >
    > > a.. as an industrial solvent and coolant.
    > > b.. in nuclear power plants.
    > > c.. in the production of styrofoam.
    > > d.. as a fire retardant.
    > > e.. in many forms of cruel animal research.
    > > f.. in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce
    > > remains contaminated by this chemical.
    > > g.. as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
    > > Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be
    > > done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on
    > > wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
    > >
    > > The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution,
    > > or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic
    > > health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military
    > > organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing
    > > multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare
    > > situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it
    > > through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many
    > > store large quantities for later use.



    Good post, Robert, but, being the internet scammin', spammin' lying dirtbag
    that s/h/it is, Organic (so is manure) will not even bother to think about
    what yo wrote.
     
  17. Bob Goodman

    Bob Goodman Guest

    "Organic Living" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    Sorry I can't delete the extra lines here, only blank them, so there's
    a lot of extra vertical space here, due to my temporary use of Lynx
    thru Google Groups.

    The difference here is that your use of the word "toxic" at least
    strongly implies serious systemic effects.

    Meanwhile the only problem my formula is directed against is temporary
    irritation of superficial tissues -- the vagina, urethra, and cornea.
    It's just to keep certain susceptible people from experiencing itching
    or burning sensations that may last at most 3 days, and usually no
    more than a day, sometimes accompanied by an urge to urinate. It's
    not like anybody was going to die or something!

    See below for a question.







    > > BTW, I have a patent on a bubble bath formula whose preferred versions
    > > use neither SLS (SDS) nor SLES. But it's not because of ridiculous
    > > claims of toxicity that I left them out!

    >
    > Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that was the exact reason.. Not the
    > claims.. But the reactions they cause..
    >
    > We do not promote Organic Products becaue of the "Claims" either.. But
    > because the reactions caused by the chemicals mentioned.


    What would qualify a toiletry product of this kind as "truly natural"
    and/or "true organic" as you conclude at the bottom? -- Robert



























    > This sounds kind of strange.. To me its like saying.. If you expose yourself
    > to radiation and get sick, it is because your "allergic to it". or "we
    > don't use DDT in our home because of the Toxic _claims_.. No we don't use it
    > because we know it causes adverse reactions" Everyone who puts this stuff
    > in their eyes will feel pain unless anaesthetised. Just like the poor little
    > bunnies who had their eyes burnt out with the stuff. Only the lab techs
    > have weighed up the most "appropriate levels" necessary to create the
    > desired effect with minimal reaction.. (That we can immediately SEE and
    > FEEL) Anyone who exposes themself to enough of it will suffer Toxic
    > Poisoning. Some people are more sensitive than others..
    >
    > Some people can smoke a pack of cigarettes a day from the Age of 14, and
    > live to 100 right? So that means cigarettes are safe and people who develop
    > lung cancer are just having an Adverse reaction? Which is the norm? Do 50?
    > 60? 70% of people who smoke die because of it? No they don;t.. the point is
    > that enough people do, because we have had the opportunity to pursue it and
    > investigate it to a much more detailed level. Society is going through the
    > same process now with the Chemical Industry and the results are not in their
    > favour at all.
    >
    > And if it is not an issue then why is it an important part of fertility
    > programs that get results? I.e. To get these chemicals out of your system.
    > Clear out your home of this garbage. Its a vital step and sure it is part
    > of a whole lifestyle change, including an Organic Diet, Detox and Cycle
    > Management, but they all work together to create superior results. I think
    > as far as the industry is concerned, it is simply a matter that, it is an
    > area best left unstudied.. But thankfully people are investigating, because
    > it needs to be done. Just imagine the economic and litigation
    > ramifications.
    >
    > You say you wanted to make a product that didn't generate the reactions
    > common to these substances. Do you not think that the same could apply to
    > other areas of peoples health, the not so obvious areas? It seems there is
    > a growing body of evidence to show that this is indeed the case.
    >
    > I am the same.. But I wanted a whole certified organic product.. And I
    > believe in it, because I know the results people get, and I have weighed up
    > the issues myself and made a commitment to pursuing it further.
    >
    > Like your Darklady friend says on her website.. We are all entitled to our
    > opinion and I am happy to hear any alternatives or errors in the way I
    > present the topic. I am not a BioChemist. I know people who are, I talk to
    > them a lot get their input an opinion. And each has a varied concept of the
    > issue. Show me the results.. that's all I really care about at the end of
    > the day, and makes perfect sense. Shampoo with Thick Bubbles that isn't
    > systemic, and doesn't cause the skin damage, irritation, urinary tract
    > infects. That's a positive result in my book. But IMO, I would rather use
    > truly natural, and true organic.. Take care..
     
  18. > What would qualify a toiletry product of this kind as "truly natural"
    > and/or "true organic" as you conclude at the bottom? -- Robert


    What is Natural?
    Existing in, or formed by nature; not artificial.

    The Cosmetic Industry definition of Natural:
    Any ingredient "derived from" a natural substance.

    What is Organic?
    Grown, cultivated and processed without the use of the synthetic chemicals
    such as insecticides, herbicides and fumigants.

    The Cosmetic Industry definition of organic:
    Any compound containing carbon.

    What is Certified Organic?
    Certified organic is a third party guarantee of an "organic" claim.

    Certified organic products must comply with stringent international
    standards that cover all aspects of the processing chain to ensure that the
    organic integrity is maintained from seed, growing, harvesting, storage,
    transporting and processing through to the finished product.
    A Grade is 70%+ Organic Ingredients..
    100% Certified Organic is.. 100% Organic..
     
  19. Zannah

    Zannah Guest

    In article <y%[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (David Wright) wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Organic Living <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >-=-=-=-=-=-
    > >
    > >
    > >MOTHERS
    > >PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN
    > >
    > >WHAT You are about to READ may shock you. It may enrage you, you may
    > >wonder how is this possible? But..

    >
    > But it's the usual set of lies about propylene glycol, SLS and SLES.
    > Carefully worded to make them sound just awful. I could make water
    > sound awful if I were as inventive as these jerks. (Which I actually
    > am, but it's not worth the effort.)


    Anyway, someone beat you to it. Look at http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
    if you want to see the dangers of water.

    Zannah.
     

  20. > >The Fluoride you are talking about IS NOT NATURAL.

    >
    > Sure it is. It doesn't contain any antimatter.


    Yes.. sure as natural as a H-Bomb.. By your definition.. Or does that
    contain Anti-matter?

    > >Fluorine is a trace element, and is not even a required element for human
    > >development.

    >
    > Nobody really knows about that. In mice and rats, it *is* required.
    > For humans, we're not really sure.


    And Fluorine is Not the same "Fluoride" which is a Toxic and hazardous waste
    product..
     
Loading...