Opinions Please,....book

[Guest guest]

I just read " Beauty to die for " by Judi Vance, in my continuing

efforts to learn more about the toiletries industry, and

ingredients. I found the book very informative, and the author

certainly did a ton of research. She definately seems to be fighting

the cosmetic companies tooth and nail. Her glossary of ingredients

is extensive, consuming over half of the book itself. She lists

just about everything I am familiar with, and the possible

toxicities, side effects, etc. She leans towards completely natural

ingredients, but even those can have side effects for consumers.

Even glycerin, she says... " A strict plant source is available in

asome products, which appears to be uncontaminated. For the most

part it is carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic, or causes adverse

reactions " ...end quote. However, I am not sure how much stock I

would put in some of what she says, as it seems contradictory. For

example, in the glossary she lists: Propolis (beeswax) Causes

hypersensitivity and irritation. (I know if someone is allergic to

beestings, they probably would not want to use a beeswax

product)...but then she lists it as a " beneficial ingredient in all

formulations " ...along with glycerin (mentioned above), and cetyl

alcohol, which she claims can cause contact dermatitis.

I was a little confused about her recommendations, to say the

least. I know from pharmaceuticals, anyone can have any reaction to

any substance. Unless you live in a plastic bubble, no one is

immune to sensitivities or reactions, even to natural ingredients.

Just wondered if anyone here had any opinons on her, and her book.

Thanks

Antoniette

[Guest guest]

I don't know if bee sting venom can cause the SAME allergic reaction

as any other part of the bee, I do know a couple of people who are

allergic to bees, were told by their doctors NOT to use any products

containing beeswax. I don't know if there is any scientific basis

for this statement, just that they will avoid any bee products.

Perhaps they might get a rash, or a much less severe reaction.

Perhaps their doctors were just playing it safe.

Antoniette

[Guest guest]

>Yes glycerin can cause cancer

This is news to me.

Glycerin does not appear in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

National Toxicology Program's 10th Report on Carcinogens.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc10.html

Glycerin does not appear in California's Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the

state of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

http://www.oehha.org/prop65/CRNR_notices/list_changes/pdf/102403LSTa.pdf

Where did you hear that glycerin can cause cancer?

Maurice

--------------------------------------------------------

Maurice O. Hevey

Convergent Cosmetics, Inc.

http://www.ConvergentCosmetics.com

-------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

>My issue with the cosmetic industry is the recreation of an OTC without doing

the appropriate research...that's a loophole in the FDA regs - we can all sell

OTC's without

issue so long as we don't make a claim. That, in my opinion is not an ethical or

responsible use of herbs.

Rich,

I don't understand what you are saying here. I think we may have a failure of

communication.

Maurice

--------------------------------------------------------

Maurice O. Hevey

Convergent Cosmetics, Inc.

http://www.ConvergentCosmetics.com

-------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Many years ago in school - give me a few weeks to get moved and unpack my text

books. Like I said - the quantities in that study were so unreal, we'd be dead

before the cancer set in and as with ALL studies...new information comes

available as science refines itself. More than likely, it most likely was a

product in the refinement process used at that particular point in time which

most likely does cause cancer. Just a few years ago, hamburger caused cancer.

Now I believe they came out saying you had to practically eat a few thousand

cows in a few hours or some ridiculous number.

The point I was making is that naturalist will make claims based off a single

sentence in a study without regard to the full impact of that study. Isopropyl

Myristate causes blackheads is a common claim of these naturalists. Do they tell

you how much IPM it takes to make this claim valid?

Rich

You Scent It, LLC

www.youscentit.com

[Guest guest]

My husband is deathly allergic to bee stings, and he has no problem with honey,

propolis, wax ect...so maby they are playing it safe?

a

www.brandonessentials.com

[Guest guest]

With science the problems usually surface and we know about them and science

corrects. Pat

Hello Pat,

I think we could spend a few interesting hours discussing this :-) You might

find the following to be of interest.

***********************************************

" More than 100,000 hospital patients may die each

year from bad reactions to medicines designed to help them.

Canadian researchers say adverse drug reactions may rank as high

as the fourth as a leading cause of death in the United States.

Scientists also say the problem has been underestimated and doctors and

hospitals need to increase their reporting of such reactions.

Neuroscientist Bruce Pomeranz says, " There are 100,000 deaths a

year in the United States from properly prescribed, properly administered drugs.

That's a very astounding number. "

***********************************************

And here is an interesting chart:

http://www.laleva.cc/petizione/ron_law_tables/tabella.html

>If you were just to consider the numbers of back alley abortions that went

wrong, I think the numbers would be >high.

As for this...I'm not even going there! Horrendous things happened in the days

before women's liberation ... the only recourse women had was a back alley

abortion!

Cheers,

Nerys

www.skincaresoaps.com.au

[Guest guest]

This may be considered OT, but since it's in line with the health topic issue

and specifically with the below e-mail, I've addressed it.

There are numerous complications to the woman in an elective abortion situation.

Yes, you don't find them hemorrhaging to death now, thanks to numerous and

sundry drugs...but when someone sticks a suction hose into your uterus (as in

the suction aspiration procedure, the most common type of abortion) that has 30X

the suction of a vacuum cleaner...stuff can happen that ain't too good.

Lacerations to the uterine wall, UTI, sepsis, peritonitis, renal and cervical

traumas, salpingitis, embolism, thrombosis, are but a few of the complications

that can occur.

Of course, many of these may not be attributed to the elective abortion because,

say you have a UTI (which can evolve into something quite serious...sepsis, for

example), you go to the doc he gives you a script for Bactrim and sends you on

your merry way having no knowledge of said elective abortion. Sometimes serious

infection can harbor for a length of time so as to not be considered as a result

of the elective abortion.

Sometimes products of conception (leftover baby) remain in the uterus, and that

isn't a pretty situation either. Numerous dangers can lurk as the result of

elective abortion. Many are not reported to due agenda of some sort, many are

not attributed (unless the uterine wall is lacerated or products of conception

are left, something like that). But make no mistake, elective abortion (I've

just mentioned one of the NUMEROUS types of elective abortion) is a potentially

very dangerous procedure.

I won't even get into the STD health issue. Oh my, is that running amuck!

Back to cosmetics....

And here is an interesting chart:

http://www.laleva.cc/petizione/ron_law_tables/tabella.html

>If you were just to consider the numbers of back alley abortions that went

wrong, I think the numbers would be >high.

As for this...I'm not even going there! Horrendous things happened in the days

before women's liberation ... the only recourse women had was a back alley

abortion!

Cheers,

Nerys

www.skincaresoaps.com.au

[Guest guest]

> With science the problems usually surface and we know about them and

science

> corrects. Pat

>

> Hello Pat,

>

> I think we could spend a few interesting hours discussing this :-)

Nerys, I think we could. I use both natural and science for my own health

care. I try not to have illusions about either one. I prefer natural for

prevention, but it has it's limitations and I don't have qualms about seeing

a doctor when I believe I have reached the limit of what I can do naturally.

You might

> find the following to be of interest.

> ***********************************************

> " More than 100,000 hospital patients may die each

> year from bad reactions to medicines designed to help them.

> Canadian researchers say adverse drug reactions may rank as high

> as the fourth as a leading cause of death in the United States.

That is quite possible, but any time I see words like " may " in statements

like the one above, my whole being tells me that the statement doesn't mean

didley because while it " may " be true, it just as easily " may " not be true.

The wording makes the whole sentence meaningless.

> Scientists also say the problem has been underestimated and doctors and

> hospitals need to increase their reporting of such reactions.

>

> Neuroscientist Bruce Pomeranz says, " There are 100,000 deaths a

> year in the United States from properly prescribed, properly administered

drugs.

> That's a very astounding number. "

I have to disagree with his statement because if the drugs were properly

prescribed and administered there wouldn't be any deaths from those reasons.

Obviously, they either were not properly prescribed and administered, or the

deaths resulted from other reasons.

One major problem today is that many people routinely take herbs not

realizing that a herb is a drug. If a doctor doesn't know that you are

taking them and prescribes some other drugs that interact with the herbs,

this can be fatal. So would that constitute a properly prescribed drug? Not

in my book. I believe that doctors should be aware that people are taking

all kinds of stuff that has the potential to cause harm without knowing it

and the doctor should question them before prescribing. My doctor has a list

of everything I take. He also has become accustomed to me turning down

prescriptions that I don't believe I need. That is the other problem that

doctors face in the US. Every person that sees a doctor expects to leave

with a prescription, and the way our legal system is set up the doctor would

be crazy not to offer a prescription to every patient. The problem is that

80% of the people really don't need to see a doctor in the first place.

The other thing people in the US tend to forget/ignore is that most of our

street drugs are natural. How many lives do you think they take? Would they

be considered properly prescribed natural drugs? :-) What we see as street

drugs are used by many cultures as medicine.

> As for this...I'm not even going there! Horrendous things happened in the

days

> before women's liberation ... the only recourse women had was a back alley

> abortion!

Horrendous things are still happening and for us to close our eyes just

because some of the problems are labeled natural is wrong. What we need is

both modalities working together. We need our medical insurance to cover

both. This will not happen as long as we give credibility to the fringe

elements of the natural healing community.

Pat.

Peace, Joy, Serenity

House of Scents tm. Body Oils, Fragrance Oils, Incense, Candles, Soap, Etc.

pat@...

http://www.houseofscents.com/

[Guest guest]

I've been in pharmaceuticals for years,and I did read the mentioned

article on deaths due to drug related side effects, and wanted to

comment...(if you all don't mind! )...

First of all, I want to state that EVERY drug has side effects.

Within product classes, the side effects may vary, and then again,

from class to class side effects can differ. They can range in

severity from mild....headaches, runny nose, nausea, sleepiness, to

severe...congestive heart failure, stevens johnsons syndrome,

stroke....you get the point. When drug companies do their initial

research trials preparing to bring a drug to market, they are

required by the FDA to report EVERY side effect that EVERY patient

in the studies may have...whether or NOT it is drug related. So, if

you are in a trial and say you're coming down with a cold, and

during that trial, you have a runny nose, yep, you have to record

that and report it. Now, sometimes there is a definate correlation

to the drug itself, in which case, those would be the top side

effects listed on the package insert. If you ever read one

(available in the PDR as well), you'll notice there is also a

section of side effects reported in less than 1% of the study

subjects...those are usually the miscellaneous side effects that MAY

or MAY NOT be drug related. If you had a heart attack while in the

study,...yes, it gets reported. The FDA looks at the percentage of

patients who do experience serious side effects to see if there is

causality. These package inserts are very informative, but as with

anything, (a little information can be a dangerous thing) if someone

doesn't understand what they are reading, they can really panic.

This is why pharmacies break down the most important information for

you when you pickup your prescription. If they gave the full PI to

consumers, it would be a disaster (not that you cannot get one if

you wanted to).

Sorry....got off topic a bit...that being said.....when a physician

writes a prescription for a patient, he must outweigh the

RISK/BENEFIT ratio. That is, he must consider which is more

dangerous for the patient....the condition that needs treatment, or

the side effects? For example...a severely depressed patient needs

an antidepressant...well, some cause elevations of blood

pressure..others can cause 10% body weight increase....which can

trigger other health concerns...but the patient MAY or MAY NOT be

suicidal (never can tell)...so the doc writes the prescription

anyway, betting that treating the depression is more critical to the

patients health and well being. Its a gamble, for sure, but in the

end, consideration must be given to what is more important for the

patient. And so, the doctor and patient know the possible side

effects, and the patient agrees to seek treatment

pharmacologically. I'm sure the same can be said for herbs and

essential oils...especially regarding pregnancy.....they too, can be

very potent materials....

We all need to evaluate everything we come into contact with to

determine what is best for each of us, individually. What works for

one person, doesn't always work for another. Weigh out the

risk/benefit ratios and decide what you can and cannot live with. I

think there is always much to be said for looking at a more natural

approach first ...but there are definately times a pharmacological

approach is needed. In much the same way products in cosmetics can

be made naturally, but there are times a fairly benign " artificial "

ingredient can be helpful to achieve a desired result. Example

would be preservatives, (I know, this is a touchy topic) if you

don't put one in your lotion, yes it could be all natural, but you

risk infection to the customer...if you do add one, your customer is

kept free of bacteria, reduced chance of skin infection, but you may

not be totally natural....you get the picture.

Anyway, I was just glad I could help clarify some of the issues with

drugs and side effects, since I am at the mercy of you all when it

comes to cosmetics and toiletries! Sorry to be so long winded!

> With science the problems usually surface and we know about them

and science

> corrects. Pat

>

> Hello Pat,

>

> I think we could spend a few interesting hours discussing this :-)

You might

> find the following to be of interest.

> ***********************************************

> " More than 100,000 hospital patients may die each

> year from bad reactions to medicines designed to help them.

> Canadian researchers say adverse drug reactions may rank as high

> as the fourth as a leading cause of death in the United States.

>

> Scientists also say the problem has been underestimated and

doctors and

> hospitals need to increase their reporting of such reactions.

>

> Neuroscientist Bruce Pomeranz says, " There are 100,000 deaths a

> year in the United States from properly prescribed, properly

administered drugs.

> That's a very astounding number. "

> ***********************************************

> And here is an interesting chart:

> http://www.laleva.cc/petizione/ron_law_tables/tabella.html

>

> >If you were just to consider the numbers of back alley abortions

that went

> wrong, I think the numbers would be >high.

>

> As for this...I'm not even going there! Horrendous things happened

in the days

> before women's liberation ... the only recourse women had was a

back alley

> abortion!

>

> Cheers,

>

> Nerys

> www.skincaresoaps.com.au

[Guest guest]

One more thing (now I sound like Columbo).....in the case of drug

reactions, keep this in mind .....sometimes the patient does not

fully disclose their medical history, or medications they are taking

to the physician, so the prescriber is not fully aware of potential

drug-drug interactions. (Many patients don't think anything OTC

counts, or herbs, which is dangerous). Science does correct, but

there are often times it may be too late as well...think of all the

drugs that did not come off the market until many many thousands of

patients had been prescribed.....only THEN did the FDA and maker

find out potential liver toxicities, QTC prologation, etc.....One I

know of ....there were 14 deaths due to liver failure....but only

after over 100,000 patients had been prescribed the drug....

> With science the problems usually surface and we know about them

and science

> corrects. Pat

>

> Hello Pat,

>

> I think we could spend a few interesting hours discussing this :-)

You might

> find the following to be of interest.

> ***********************************************

> " More than 100,000 hospital patients may die each

> year from bad reactions to medicines designed to help them.

> Canadian researchers say adverse drug reactions may rank as high

> as the fourth as a leading cause of death in the United States.

>

> Scientists also say the problem has been underestimated and

doctors and

> hospitals need to increase their reporting of such reactions.

>

[Guest guest]

>One more thing (now I sound like Columbo).....in the case of drug

>reactions, keep this in mind .....sometimes the patient does not

>fully disclose their medical history, or medications they are taking

>to the physician, so the prescriber is not fully aware of potential

>drug-drug interactions. (Many patients don't think anything OTC

>counts, or herbs, which is dangerous).

my comment here is relevant to statements made in other emails in this thread,

but i thought it might be good to interject with it -

i have a book that lists out common drug/herb interactions. the title is just

that - " drug herb interactions. " if my kitchen wasn't being renovated and my

house a mess of boxes and bags, i'd find the publishing information on it.

there are also websites that indicate drug/drug and drug/herb interaction.

there IS information out there on both drugs and herbs *if people choose to seek

it out.* i personally believe everyone should look up ANY prescription they are

taking on their own, regardless of what doctors and pharmacists tell them, and

whether they tell their doctor their list of prescription, herbal and vitamin

supplements or not. too often doctors have handed me a prescription without

even asking me whether i take herbal supplement, and i have had to take the

initiative to ask them whether the drug would interact with my other

prescriptions, or with anything else i'm taking. and once or twice there WAS an

interaction, and one time the interaction was with something the *same* doctor

prescribed me.

(i left that doc pretty quick.)

>there are often times it may be too late as well...think of all the

>drugs that did not come off the market until many many thousands of

>patients had been prescribed.....only THEN did the FDA and maker

>find out potential liver toxicities, QTC prologation, etc.....One I

>know of ....there were 14 deaths due to liver failure....but only

>after over 100,000 patients had been prescribed the drug....

what is interesting to me is the difference between the market response to

prescription-related deaths vs. herb-related deaths. my impression (and i grant

you, this is just an impression and i could be wrong) has been that after

deaths, prescriptions remain available via doctor the same they always were, but

herbs are removed from the market for a period of time and are VERY difficult to

get, since they cannot be " prescribed " the same way. i had a conniption when

chaparral was taken off the market - it caused a few deaths due to overdose

creating liver-related complications. took me over a year to find it again.

but stuff like accutane is still available, without even providing a new testing

and prescription process like Pfizer provided for Viagra when men were dying of

heart attacks...

ah well. i think i'm bitter about medicine right now for two reasons - one,

because vicodin *is* irritating my stomach condition despite my doctor's

assurance that it wouldn't, and two, because my aunt was advised by her dr to

use neosporin on a knee wound, and because of that she's just spent 5 days in

the hospital. she's been in the hospital because for some reason one of the

ingredients in neosporin acted much differently on her body than it does for

anyone else, and it started eating away at her flesh somehow. (well, corroding

it.) they brought in 3 different experts on flesh-eating bacteria before they

figured it out and they're still trying to isolate the ingredient that is doing

the actual corrosion :/ and of course, i know that Pfizer is not going to

change their labeling past " do not use if you're allergic to any of the

ingredients " (which, as far as Nic knew, she wasn't)... i worked for them and i

know how they'll view this!

makes me think of my favorite pseudo Yogi Berra-ism: " science is an inexact

science. "

nothing out there is truly safe. arrgh!

~risa