~MOTHERS Protect Your Children~

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Organic Living, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. <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.
    B: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    C: Top-posting.
    D: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? end
     


  2. "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..

    Was that meant to be self-referential? Yes.

    > 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.

    I see, so you wish pain on people. Why am I not surprised? Answer: Because your ilk have polluted
    newsgroups for years.

    > I would realy, realy love to say what I want to say to you right now but I wont lower myself to
    > that level...

    You are directionally challenged. To cure that, buy a big ladder and raise yourself up.

    > You think you are the only person who has experienced suffering in the world?

    Now, clueless one, where did I say that? In fact, my post was clear that I was understanding another
    persons pain because I have personally experienced it. Do you eat a lot of red herring?

    I think I will put
    > your false impressions about me down to a true fact about people. You see in others, what you are
    > within yourself.

    Wrong, sweetums. Again, you are being most self-referential.

    Please visit:

    www.getaclue.com for help.
     
  3. "-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?
    >
    > Oh, and BTW, HERE are the FAQs -
    >
    > http://www.fertilityplus.org/faq/infertility.html
    >
    > Since you evidently cannot find them on your own...

    If she cannot find a clue, how can you expect that she can find anything?

    I wish you all well in your group. We were lucky.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. -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.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. "-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.
     
  8. 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.
    >
    > --
     
  9. 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..
     
  10. "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.
     
  11. 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..
     
  12. > 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..
     
Loading...