by

Mike Adams, Natural news Editor

(NaturalNews) If scientists discovered something that worked better than vaccines at preventing influenza, you’d think they would jump all over it, right? After all, isn’t the point to protect children and adults from influenza?

A clinical trial led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima and conducted by the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective at halting influenza infections in children. The trial appears in the March, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094)

The results are from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. In other words, this was a “rigorous” scientific study meeting the gold standard of scientific evidence.

In the study, while 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the four month duration of the study, only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This means vitamin D was responsible for an absolute reduction of nearly 8 percent.

Flu vaccines, according to the latest scientific evidence, achieve a 1 percent reduction in influenza symptoms (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…).

This means vitamin D appears to be 800% more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections in children.

To further support this, what really needs to be done is a clinical trial directly comparing vitamin D supplements to influenza vaccines with four total groups:

Group #1 receives a vitamin D placebo
Group #2 receives real vitamin D (2,000 IUs per day)
Group #3 receives an influenza vaccine injection
Group #4 receives an inert injection

Groups 1 and 2 should be randomized and double blind while groups 3 and 4 should also be randomized and double blind. The results would reveal the comparative effectiveness of vitamin D versus influenza vaccines.

Unfortunately, such a trial will never be conducted because vaccine pushers already know this trial would show their vaccines to be all but useless. So they won’t subject vaccines to any real science that compares it to vitamin D.

Vitamin D also significantly reduced asthma in children

Getting back to the study, another fascinating result from the trial is that if you remove those children from the study who were already being given vitamin D by their parents, so that you are only looking at children who started out with no vitamin D supplementation before the trial began, the results look even better as vitamin D reduced relative infection risk by nearly two-thirds.

More than six out of ten children who would have normally been infected with influenza, in other words, were protected by vitamin D supplementation.

Also revealed in the study: vitamin D strongly suppressed symptoms of asthma. In children with a previous asthma diagnosis, 12 of those receiving no vitamin D experienced asthma attacks. But in the vitamin D group, only 2 children did.

While this subset sample size is small, it does offer yet more evidence that vitamin D prevents asthma attacks in children, and this entirely consistent with the previous evidence on vitamin D which shows it to be a powerful nutrient for preventing asthma.

Vaccine pushers aren’t followers of real science

Now, given that vitamin D3 shows such a powerful effect in preventing influenza — with 800% increased efficacy over vaccines — shouldn’t CDC officials, doctors and health authorities be rushing to recommend vitamin D before flu season arrives?

Of course they should. But they won’t. Because for them, it’s not about actually preventing influenza and it never has been. The vaccine pushing camp is primarily interested in using influenza as an excuse to vaccinate more people regardless of whether such vaccines are useful (or safe).

Even if vitamin D offered 100% protection against all influenza infections, they still wouldn’t recommend it.

Why? Because they flatly don’t believe in nutrition! It runs counter to their med school programming which says that nutrients are useless and only drugs, vaccines and surgery count as real medicine.

The vaccine pushers, you see, aren’t followers of real science. You could publish a hundred studies proving how vitamin D is many times more effective than vaccines and they still would never recommend it.

They are promoters of medical dogma rather than real solutions for patients. They promote vaccines because… well… that’s what they’ve always promoted, and that’s what their colleagues promote. And how could so many smart people be wrong, anyway?

But that’s the history of science: A whole bunch of really smart people turn out to be wrong on a regular basis. That’s usually how science advances, by the way: A new idea challenges an old assumption, and after all the defenders of the old (wrong) idea die off, science manages to inch its way forward against the hoots and heckles of a determined dogmatic resistance.

This attitude is blatantly reflected in a quote from Dr John Oxford, a professor of virology at Queen Mary School of Medicine in London, whose reaction to this study was: “This is a timely study. It will be noticed by scientists. It fits in with the seasonal pattern of flu. There is an increasing background of solid science that makes the vitamin D story credible. But this study needs to be replicated. If it is confirmed we might think of giving vitamin D at the same time as we vaccinate.” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne…)

Did you notice his concluding remark? He wasn’t even considering the idea that vitamin D might replace vaccines. Rather, he’s assuming vitamin D only has value if given together with vaccines!

You see this in the cancer industry, too, with anti-cancer herbs and nutrients. Any time an anti-cancer nutrient gains some press (which isn’t very often), the cancer doctor will say things like, “Well, this might be useful to give to a patient after chemotherapy…” but never as a replacement for chemo, you see.

Many mainstream doctors and medical scientists are simply incapable of thinking outside the very limiting boxes into which their brains have been shoved through years of de-education in medical schools. When they see evidence contrary to what they’ve been taught, they foolishly dismiss it.

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell

Medical journals as guardians of ignorance

Medical journals largely function not as beacons of scientific truth but as defenders of pseudoscientific dogma. To have your paper published in most journals, your paper must meet the expectations and beliefs of that journal’s editor. Thus, the advancement of scientific knowledge reflected in each journal is limited to the current beliefs of just one person — the editor of that journal.

Truly pioneering research that challenges the status quo is almost always rejected. Only papers that confirm the presently-held beliefs of the journal’s editorial staff are accepted for publication. This is one reason why medical science, in particular, advances so slowly.

Studies that show vitamin D to be more effective than vaccines will rarely see the light of day in the scientific community. It is to the great credit of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, in fact, that it accepted the publication of this paper by Mitsuyoshi Urashima. Most medical journals wouldn’t dare touch it because it questions status quo beliefs about vaccines and influenza.

Medical journals, you see, are largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry. And Big Pharma doesn’t want to see any studies lending credibility to vitamins, regardless of their scientific merit. Even if vitamin D could save America billions of dollars in reduced health care costs (which it can, actually), they don’t want vitamin D to receive any scientific backing whatsoever because drug companies can’t patent vitamin D. It’s readily available to everyone for mere pennies a day.

In time, it will be recognized as superior to vaccines for seasonal flu, but for now, we must all suffer under the foolish propaganda of an industry that has abandoned science and now worships a needle.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abs…

Also Of Interest:

• 12 Medical Myths Even Most Doctors Believe…
• Study Shows Infant Formulas are Badly Contaminated with Aluminum
• Take a Break for About 1/2 a Minute….

Also Of Interest:

• 12 Medical Myths Even Most Doctors Believe…
• Study Shows Infant Formulas are Badly Contaminated with Aluminum
• Take a Break for About 1/2 a Minute….

What Are All Those Chemicals in Your shampoo?Your Lipstick? Your Aftershave? What Do They have To Do With Cancer, Asthma, And Learning Disabilities?

The Story of Cosmetics, released on July 21, 2010 at examines the pervasive use of toxic chemicals in our everyday personal care products, from lipstick to baby shampoo. Produced by Free Range Studios and hosted by Annie Leonard, the 7-minute film reveals the implications for consumer and worker health and the environment, and outlines ways we can move the industry away from hazardous chemicals and towards safer alternatives. The film concludes with a call for viewers to support legislation aimed at ensuring the safety of cosmetics and personal care products.

Also Of Interest:

• 12 Medical Myths Even Most Doctors Believe…
• Study Shows Infant Formulas are Badly Contaminated with Aluminum
• Take a Break for About 1/2 a Minute….

From SPF to UVA — what to know before you slather it on

Amy Bass, a Texas mother of a 12-year-old boy and twin 5-year-old girls, is careful about slathering her children with sunscreen. The problem is, she can’t tell the difference between brands, taking it on faith that all sunblocks are created equally.

“I just grab whatever’s available,” says 45-year-old Bass, of San Antonio. “I look at my girls and they have such perfect skin and I’d like them to have that forever.”

What Bass and many other consumers don’t realize is that while most sunscreens help prevent sunburn, many don’t provide effective protection against skin damage from ultraviolet A rays, which make up 95 percent of the UV spectrum. Some new sunscreen formulas protect against UVA, but there have been some worries about ingredient safety. So, consumers must sort through a maze of misleading claims and products that vary widely in their effectiveness.

Sunburn is caused by ultraviolet B rays, which are stronger at midday and in the summer. However, UVA rays can penetrate glass and are the same strength all year, all day long. Both types of rays contribute to wrinkling, freckling, hyper-pigmentation and skin cancer.

The federal Food and Drug Administration has been promising for more than 30 years to set standards for sunscreen performance and label claims, but hasn’t yet. Some dermatologists are frustrated over the lack of reliable guidelines.

“For sunscreen to be really effective in preventing skin cancer, it has to provide broad-spectrum coverage,” says Dr. Henry Lim, chairman of dermatology at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. “The U.S. is the only industrialized country with no guidelines for UVA protection, so consumers here have no way of knowing.”

Providing some guidelines would be the most helpful thing the FDA could do for consumers, Lim says. But, he adds, “I’m not holding my breath.”

A spokeswoman for the FDA now says its long-awaited sunscreen recommendations will be released in October 2010. That leaves one more hot, sunny summer to hope the sunblock you’re slathering on really works.

SPF is ‘very misleading’
The guidelines can’t come soon enough. A recent study in the Archives of Dermatology revealed that more than 2 million people in the U.S. develop non-melanoma skin cancers every year, a more than 300 percent increase in skin cancer incidence since 1994, when rates were last estimated. Most of those cases are sun-related, according to the American Cancer Society.

Meanwhile, consumer groups are trying to fill the void. According to the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit organization that rates the safety and effectiveness of 1,700 sunscreen brands each year, three out of five sunscreen formulas did not provide the protection promised on the label.

“People are used to just picking this stuff up,” says Sonia Lunder, a senior analyst in the Toxics Research Group at EWG. “We’ve lifted the veil on this idea that there are sunscreens that are ‘all day’ and ‘waterproof’ and ‘sweat proof.’ There aren’t.”

Right now, the only claim consumers can rely on with any degree of certainty is SPF, or Sun Protection Factor. But most people don’t fully understand what SPF numbers mean — and don’t mean.

“SPF is very misleading,” says dermatologist Dr. James Spencer, of St. Petersburg, Fla. “If I were a logical consumer, I would think that SPF 30 is twice as good as SPF 15. But SPF 15 blocks 94 percent of UVB rays. SPF 30 blocks 97 percent. Past 30, there isn’t much additional benefit to be had,” he says. “It may not be the best measurement, but the FDA has chosen to keep it.”

The danger is that people may think they are getting exponentially more protection from very high SPF products, which may cause them to stay out in the sun longer. Proposed FDA regulations will make 50 the highest SPF available.

People may also think SPF fully protects against sun damage, but it really only measures UVB protection. There’s no guarantee a product provides equivalent, or even any, protection against UVA rays. Many people don’t even know they need it.

“We’ve done a great job of getting out the message to wear sunscreen and stay out of the noonday sun, but the public didn’t get the UVA message at all,” says San Francisco dermatologist Dr. Richard Glogau. Glogau says he and his staff “talk ‘til we’re blue in the face” trying to get patients to understand that they need to take precautions to protect themselves against UVA rays.

Jimmy Cravello, an avid fisherman from Natural Bridge Station, Va., is typical.  “I like to get a base tan or burn before I start using sunscreen,” he says.

Under proposed FDA regulations, a four-star rating system for UVA protection will be added alongside SPF. Spencer and other dermatologists believe a star system will go a long way toward educating consumers about the need for UVA protection, as well as drive manufacturers to make better products.

“No one’s going to want to have the product that has no stars,” he says.

Until then, the only way for consumers to judge UVA protection is to read the fine print, which is no easy task.

What to look for
Sunscreen ingredients fall into two basic categories:

• Physical blockers, which work by deflecting sunlight.

Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are very effective physical blockers. These minerals work by deflecting sunlight off skin. In high enough concentrations, (7 percent and up) they provide effective protection against both UVA and UVB rays.

There is one caveat. High concentrations of these physical blockers tend to leave a white film on skin, so many manufacturers use engineered nanoparticles to make them invisible. The jury is still out on whether these particles are safe, (They’re NOT! – Ed.) but one thing is certain — there’s

no labeling requirement for them

, so you might not know they’re there.

Friends of the Earth, one group that has cited health and environmental concerns about nanoparticles, publishes a list of nano-free sunscreens. Apart from that, the only way to tell if your sunscreen contains nanoparticles is to call the manufacturer, or guess. If it has a lot of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide and rubs in clear, yes would be a good guess.

• Chemical blockers, which work by absorbing sunlight, breaking it down and releasing it.

Chemical blockers vary in how much UVA and UVB protection they provide. The irony is that in the process of breaking down sunlight, the chemicals also break down, so they must be combined with stabilizing ingredients in order to remain effective for longer than 30-60 minutes.

Oxybenzone is perhaps the most widely used chemical blocker, but it breaks down easily and blocks only part of the UVA spectrum. There are some concerns about the chemical, which is widely found in human urine and has been associated with low birth weight baby girls in mothers with high concentrations in their bodies. However, its health risks are still unclear.

Avobenzone, also known as parsol 1789, is a better choice. It’s a good UVB blocker, and provides the most comprehensive UVA coverage. However, it still needs to be combined with a stabilizer such as octocrylene to prevent breakdown. Newer patented formulas, such as Neutrogena’s Helioplex, appear to have stabilized avobenzone to the point where it can last 4 to 5 hours, only requiring reapplication if the wearer sweats heavily or take a swim.

Dermatologists cite Anthelios with mexoryl, a proprietary formula from French manufacturer LaRoche-Posay as perhaps the best sunscreen of all. But at around $30 a bottle, the price may give some consumers pause.

However, you’ll use less because it lasts longer, says Dr. Spencer. “$20-$30 for not getting cancer doesn’t sound unreasonable to me,” he says.

(For More information of Sunscreen Toxicity, go to:  HTTP://www.ewg.org, to select your safest sunscreen based on your skin type. –Ed.)

Also Of Interest:

• 12 Medical Myths Even Most Doctors Believe…
• Study Shows Infant Formulas are Badly Contaminated with Aluminum
• Take a Break for About 1/2 a Minute….

Posted in

mercola.com, 6/29/2010

Editor: This is a commercial sales page. We do not endorse the products, but advocate the information contained, as valuable. Please cross reference with Environmental Working Group for lists of toxins in cosmetics. {www.ewg.org} Editorial Staff receives no compensation, pingback, or emotional gratification from posting this. It’s their job.)

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

“Does my Shampoo or Conditioner Contain Any of These 5 Potentially Toxic Ingredients?”

Toxic Ingredient #1: Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

Did you know the same ingredient which produces all that foam and lather when you shampoo your hair is also the ingredient used in car washes  and garages as a degreasing agent?

It’s true. And not only does it act as a penetration enhancer (allowing other potentially toxic ingredients to slip into your bloodstream), but according to the Environmental Working Group’s “Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Reviews”,  research studies on SLS have shown links to…

• Irritation of skin and eyes
• Organ toxicity
• Development / reproductive toxicity
• Neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, ecotoxicological, and biochemical or cellular changes
• Possible mutations and cancer

If you visit the SLS page on the Environmental Working Group’s (a non-profit public-interest research group known for making connections between chemical exposure and adverse health conditions) website, you will see a very long list of health concerns and associated research studies. In fact, you will also see their mention of nearly 16,000 studies in the PubMed science library (as well as their link to that list) about the toxicity of this chemical.

So look for it in your hair care products. It also goes by a
number of different names including sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate, ammonium laurel sulfate, sodium dodecylsulfate, sulfuric acid, sodium salt sulfuric acid, A12-00356, Akyposal SDS, Aquarex ME, and Aquarex methyl.

Toxic Ingredient #2: Dioxane

In the medical journal Cancer’s 2007 review of mammary carcinogens, dioxane was identified as one of the 216 chemicals which was linked to breast cancer in rodents.

Not that this is anything new. Its connection to carcinogens was first reported in 1965 and confirmed in 1978.

In fact, back in 1985, the FDA recognized these dangers, and requested that manufacturers voluntarily limit dioxane levels in cosmetics and personal-care products to 10 parts per million.

But it hasn’t happened.

In fact, Los Angeles Times staff writer, Marla Cone, in February 2007 reported that all eighteen personal care products for both adults and children which she had tested by an independent laboratory were contaminated with high levels of dioxane.

Toxic Ingredient #3: Diethanolamine or DEA

In a recent FDA report, approximately 42% of all cosmetics were contaminated with NDEA, with shampoos having the highest concentrations. DEA also readily reacts with nitrite preservatives and contaminants to create nitrosodiethanolamine (NDEA), a known and potent carcinogen.

This is a big problem because DEA seems to block absorption of the nutrient choline, which is vital to brain development. Pregnant women actually require extra choline so they can pass it onto their fetus.

An associate dean for research at the UNC School of Public Health mentioned that  choline is necessary to help provide proper nutrients for  a healthy baby; stating that, “At this point it is a caution. But it would probably be prudent to look at labels and try to limit exposure until we know more.”

Toxic Ingredient #4: MSG

You’ve been told to avoid MSG in your food, right? After all, many people experience symptoms like headaches, dizziness, and stomach discomfort after consuming MSG-containing products. And according to the FDA, MSG side effects include: numbness, burning sensations, tingling, facial pressure, headaches, nausea, drowsiness and weakness, among other problems.

But did you know MSG, short for monosodium glutamate, is also more than likely in your shampoo, often secretly hidden and referred to as amino acids, yeast extract, nayad, glutamic acid, or glutamates?

Toxic Ingredient #5: Propylene Glycol

This active ingredient is found in engine coolants and antifreeze, airplane de-icers, tire sealants, rubber cleaners,  polyurethane cushions, paints, adhesives, enamels and varnishes, and in many products as a solvent or surfactant.

And guess what? Despite the fact the material safety data sheet warns users to avoid skin contact with propylene glycol as it is a strong skin irritant and can also cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage, it’s more than likely in your shampoo!

Okay, so now that you’ve read about these 5 potentially toxic ingredients, let me ask you two critical questions: If you knew of a food which contained all of these toxins…

• Would you add it to your grocery basket on a week to week basis?
• Would you feed it to your children?

Of course, you wouldn’t.

But it’s safe because your skin is protecting you, right? Wrong. The reality is your skin is often a carrier, not a barrier and…

Toxins in Your Shampoo and Conditioner
May Be More Toxic Than Those in Your Food

You might think that because your skin is about one tenth of an inch thick, it protects your body from absorbing the many things you come into contact with.

But the truth is, when you consume toxins in foods, such as pesticides in fruit and vegetables, the enzymes in your saliva and stomach often break them down and flush them out of your body. Food also passes through your liver and kidneys. The toxins which make it through are detoxified to varying degrees by enzymes before they reach the remainder of your body.

However when toxins are absorbed through your skin, they bypass your liver and enter your bloodstream and tissues – with absolutely no protection whatsoever.

Think of it like this: when you put shampoo or conditioner into your hair, the twenty blood vessels, 650 sweat glands, and 1,000 nerve endings soak in the toxins.

And some studies suggest skin can sometimes absorb more than your digestive tract. According to evidence presented at 1978 Congressional hearings, the absorption of the carcinogen nitrosodiethanolamine (NDELA), which is commonly found in shampoo products, was shown to be more than 100 times greater when exposure came through your skin than via your mouth. What’s more…

A Hot Shower Opens Up Pores in Your Skin
and May Make it Easier for Toxins To Enter Your Body

Here’s how it works: When you have a warm shower, your pores automatically open up, which may make it easier for sodium laurel sulfate… DEA… MSG… propylene glycol, and Ethylene Oxide to enter your blood stream.

And while you have been told about the damaging effects of pesticides and additives in food, the ugly truth about the damage shampoo and conditioner may do to your body has been hidden until now.

If You Think You Can Trust the Labels on
Your Hair Care Products THINK AGAIN!

For instance, about half of all the labels on 14,200 products examined by the Environmental Working Group ended up having mislabelled ingredients with some misspelled, and others having different names for the same ingredient depending on the manufacturer.

What’s more, there were 41 online retailers of cosmetics identified by EWG who failed to post any of their ingredients online. And when the FDA was pressured to make these retailers conform, they replied: “There is no requirement that a manufacturer put an ingredient list on a website.”

The reality is your shampoo and conditioner may be just as toxic. In fact, it’s a serious case of “Buyer Beware” because it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to determine whether a product is safe.

In my opinion, it’s an outrage. At least with cigarettes you know they are dangerous to your health. But the manufacturers selling you shampoo and conditioner are taking reckless advantage of the less stringent FDA regulations applicable to cosmetics.

The FDA Regulations (21 CFR Sec. 740.10) state quite clearly that “Each ingredient used in a cosmetic product and each finished cosmetic product shall be adequately substantiated for safety prior to marketing. Any such ingredient or product whose safety is not adequately substantiated prior to marketing is misbranded unless it contains the following conspicuous statement on the principal display panel:

“WARNING. THE SAFETY OF THIS PRODUCT
HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED.”

So who’s in control of the safety?

The manufacturers. It seems that the FDA is allowing them to pass their own judgement about the safety of their product.

What a joke.

The FDA regulations are intended to protect you from dangerous products by insisting products which contain dangerous ingredients include warning statements. But the reality is that the agency does not have adequate resources to enforce this requirement.

Your Hairdresser Knows Best Right? Wrong!

A group which was founded in 1894 called the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (which in 2007 changed its name to the Personal Care Products Council), is comprised of over 600 different distributors and manufacturers of personal care, cosmetic, and fragrance companies that are committed to championing “voluntary regulation and reasonable government requirement.” But here’s the ugly truth…

As Stacy Malkan made quite clear in her 2007 book, Not Just a Pretty Face, the following untruth was on its website as of January, 2007: “The FDA routinely conducts studies and tests to ensure the safety of all cosmetic products… FDA’s legal authority over cosmetics is comparable with its authority over foods, non-prescription drugs, and non-prescription medical devices.”

However, the FDA simply does not have the resources to “routinely” test skin products like shampoo in the way I believe they should.

And as long as the manufacturers’ profits stay high, I do not believe that anything is about to change. Meanwhile, most people are content to put their trust in the FDA and take them at face value believing if the products actually contained threats to their health, the FDA would have the resources to routinely take enforcement action.

In my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth.

And that’s why several months ago I decided that until Congress gives the Food and Drug Administration the required resources to do its job, I’ll do what I can to expose the truth about the risks that can be associated with hair care products.

The Problem with Natural Shampoos

The primary ingredient found in many natural shampoos is soap based. The problem with many of  these “natural” shampoos is that they  typically don’t clean very well, and tend to form scum by reacting with calcium and magnesium ions present in water. This leaves a residue that can  leave your hair feeling unclean and looking rather dull.

What’s more, the pH of soap-based cleansers is very basic, about 8-9–which can cause damage to your hair by lifting cuticles and causing reactions which affect the disulfide bonds in your hair. Ingredients like sodium silicate and borax are added to help overcome the scum formation and dulling effect on your hair.

Additionally, many of the natural products on the market today don’t create a luxurious, creamy, rich lather.

Everything is Made From Natural
Ingredients – See Why I Believe the Purity is Supreme

The ingredients in my Volumizing Shampoo and Revitalizing Conditioner are completely natural and of the highest quality available. Aside from water, here’s a breakdown of what’s in each product…

Take a moment to check out the chart above and then compare the ingredients with the veritable witch’s brew of potentially carcinogenic ingredients and contaminants found in those you’ll find at your local salon and supermarket shelves. You’ll see that my Volumizing Shampoo and Revitalizing Conditioner gives you all the goodness without the potentially negative effects.

You won’t find any of the nasty toxins commonly found in shampoos such as Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, parabens, Ethylene oxide, DEA, MSG, or propylene glycol.

But you will find a shampoo that, with continued usage improves your hair’s texture and strength without stripping away essential oils. In fact, this invigorating and purifying formula helps to eliminate build-up from your hair and scalp, and encourages healthy-looking hair, leaving your hair  looking thicker, fuller, and shinier.

How does my shampoo and conditioner manage to moisturize without stripping your hair? It all boils down to the fact that the ingredients are designed to nourish and strengthen your hair, while gently cleansing away impurities and toxins–providing your hair with the natural conditioning and healthy-looking results it deserves.

It reconstructs damaged hair… adds noticeable volume and shine… moisturizes… radically reduces the appearance of split ends… and shields your hair from damage due to the environment, and chemical treatments, without weighing your hair down.

So why not give your hair the best world-class ingredients today so you can enjoy naturally healthy-looking hair?

Volumizing Shampoo and Revitalizing Conditioner is gentle enough on hair for daily use. It will boost shine by nourishing your scalp, and leave your hair feeling healthier . And because it’s free of parabens and sulfates, it’s also one of the safest products to use on stressed or damaged hair that has undergone any chemical treatment.

The Bottom Line is You Have Two Choices…

One… Continue using your current shampoo and conditioner because you are used to it. Put your head in the sand, trust the FDA,  and ignore the fact that the majority of shampoos and conditioners on the market are the beauty equivalent of junk food–designed to fill a temporary craving. And ignore the fact you’re probably absorbing carcinogenic ingredients directly into your bloodstream.

Or two… Get your hands on a shampoo and conditioner which is not only natural and free of toxins, but is backed up by the following 100%, risk-free, lifetime, money-back triple guarantee…

Volumizing Shampoo and Revitalizing Conditioner will give you the same results (without the toxins) as the products you buy from your local hair salon, or it’s FREE (less shipping and handling)!

Since you risk nothing, why not order your Volumizing Shampoo and Revitalizing Conditioner today?

Your order is protected by not just one, but three ways:

Guarantee No. 1: Volumizing Shampoo and Revitalizing Conditioner will give you the same lathering and texture as the leading shampoo and conditioner brands – or it’s yours FREE**. That’s right! You must be completely happy with your purchase or you will receive a full refund less shipping and handling.

Guarantee No. 2: Volumizing Shampoo and Revitalizing Conditioner is guaranteed to meet and exceed the highest quality of ingredient standards. It has been tested in the Briar research salons, and been through thorough research to ensure it works just as well as the leading products on the market. You must be completely happy with your purchase or you will receive a full refund less shipping and handling.**

Guarantee No. 3: Volumizing Shampoo and Revitalizing Conditioner is guaranteed to be free of the potentially carcinogenic substances almost all shampoos use, including Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, MSG, Ethylene Oxide, DEA and Propylene Glycol. That means you get a shampoo which cleans and adds volume and shine to your hair without the potential negative effects. You must be completely happy with your purchase or you will receive a full refund less shipping and handling (see below for refund policy).**

**Refund Policy: In fact, if you are in any way dissatisfied with my Volumizing Shampoo and Revitalizing Conditioner, you can return the product at any time for a 100% refund less shipping and handling. No hoops to jump through. No questions asked. No problems at all. And there’s no time limit. This is a 100% money back guarantee for life! (Try asking for that type of guarantee from your local salon or supermarket).

And that leads me to my final point, a question, really…

Are You Happy to Continue Using Products
With Potential Toxins Every Time You Wash Your Hair?

If you care for your health… if you don’t like the idea of potentially soaking up MSG… DEA… Sodium Lauryl Sulfate… Propylene Glycol and Ethylene Oxide every time you wash your hair… and if my natural alternative sounds appealing… then what do you have to lose?

Why not discover how easy and enjoyable it is to keep your hair looking fresh, clean, and shiny without using a product with potential toxins?

You risk nothing because you’re protected by my 100% money back guarantee less shipping and handling (see above for refund policy).

Remember, what you place on your skin may end up going directly into your bloodstream.

1 Shampoo + 1 Conditioner 8 fl oz per each bottle List Price: $29.90 Your Price: $22.97 You Save: $6.93 (23.18%)

• 
  Volumizing Shampoo
  8 fl. oz Bottle

  List Price:	$14.95
  Your Price:	$12.95
  You Save:	$2.00 (13%)

  

• 
  Revitalizing Conditioner
  8 fl. oz Bottle

  List Price:	$14.95
  Your Price:	$12.95
  You Save:	$2.00 (13%)

  

I am so confident that you will be more than satisfied with your purchase of my Shampoo and Conditioner, I am providing a 100% Money Back Lifetime Guarantee so you can try it with NO RISK! Please contact our customer service department for terms and conditions regarding the money back guarantee.

Also Of Interest:

• 12 Medical Myths Even Most Doctors Believe…
• Study Shows Infant Formulas are Badly Contaminated with Aluminum
• Take a Break for About 1/2 a Minute….

by

Tony Isaacs(NaturalNews)

Scientists have long known about carcinogens in common household items such as cosmetics and cleansers and the dangers they represented when people are exposed to them. Now, a new study is reporting that most of us are also being exposed to a new cancer causing compound in our water supplies which is being created by household items washed down the drain.

In the new study, Yale researchers found evidence that common household items such as cleaners, shampoos and detergents are creating a chemical cocktail. These products are combining with a chlorine compound and resulting in a new cancer causing agent in water supplies that comes from sewage treatment plants. The compound is NDMA, which is a nitrosamine. Nitrosamines are known to be highly carcinogenic and have been especially linked to bladder cancers.

The new study was conducted by researchers at the Yale Department of Chemical Engineering and was published earlier this year in Environmental Science and Technology. Thus far scientists know little about the new nitrosamine compound other than that it causes cancer. Though the scientists are not sure exactly how NDMA forms, they suspect that the combination of compounds found in common household items lead to the formation of NDMA when water is chlorinated.

Researcher William Mitch and colleagues noted that scientists have known that NDMA and other nitrosamines can form in small amounts when wastewater and water are disinfected with chlorine. Although nitrosamines are found in a wide variety of sources, such as processed meats and tobacco smoke, scientists have known little about their precursors in water. Previous studies with cosmetics have found that substances called quaternary amines, which are also ingredients in household cleaning agents, may play a role in the formation of nitrosamines. Quaternary amine monomers are widely used in antibacterial soaps and mouthwashes, while polymers are used in shampoos, detergents, and fabric softeners.

In the study, the researchers collected treated waste water from waste water treatment facilities in three Connecticut cities. The researchers also examined the effects of adding common household cleansers, shampoos and detergents.

Their laboratory research showed that when mixed with chloramine, household cleaning products including shampoo, dishwashing detergent and laundry detergent formed NDMA. The researchers’ report noted that sewage treatment plants may remove some of the quaternary amines that form NDMA. However, quaternary amines are used in such large quantities it is believed that some still persist and have a potentially harmful effect in the water treated at sewage treatment plants.

Notably, the same group of researchers previously found high levels of nitrosamine disinfection byproducts in swimming pools, hot tubs and aquariums that had been disinfected with chlorine. The highest nitrosamine detected in chlorinated swimming pools and hot tubs reached levels up to 500-fold greater than the drinking water concentration of nitrosamines associated with a one in one million lifetime cancer risk.

Sources included:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release…
http://www.internetchemie.info/news…
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021…

Also Of Interest:

• 12 Medical Myths Even Most Doctors Believe…
• Study Shows Infant Formulas are Badly Contaminated with Aluminum
• Take a Break for About 1/2 a Minute….

These articles were prompted by a Loyal Reader, Rebecca H., of Minnesota

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
From the book SAFE FOOD by Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D, Lisa Lefferts and Anne Garland

“Acesulfame K, sold commercially as Sunette or Sweet One, was approved by the FDA in 1988 as a sugar substitute in packet or tablet form, in chewing gum, dry mixes for beverages, instant coffee and tea, gelatin desserts, puddings and nondairy creamers. The manufacturer has asked the FDA to approve acesulfame K for soft drinks and baked goods.

The public is waiting for an artificial sweetener that is unquestionably safe. But this one isn’t it. Even compared to aspartame and saccharin (which are afflicted with their own safety publems – see below), acesulfame K is the worst. The additive is inadequately tested, the FDA based its approval on tests of acesulfame K that fell short of the FDA’s own standards. But even those tests indicate that the additive causes cancer in animals, which means it may increase cancer risk in humans. In l987, CSPI urged the FDA not to approve acesulfame K, but was ignored. After the FDA gave the chemical its blessing, CSPI urged that it be banned. The FDA hasn’t yet ruled on that request.”

From CSPI’s web page:

… acetoacetamide, a breakdown product, has been shown to affect the thyroid in rats, rabbits, and dogs. Administration of 1% and 5% acetoacetamide in the diet for three months caused benign thyroid tumors in rats. The rapid appearance of tumors raises serious questions about the chemical’s carcinogenic potency.”
******************************

********

Side Effects of Acesulfame K

Contributor

By Andrea Cespedes, eHow Contributing Writer

Artificial sweeteners are found in all sorts of products: yogurt, soft drinks, baked goods, gum and even salad dressings. Acesulfame K is one of these artificial sweeteners. The increase in its use in recent years has raised concerns about its safety.

Identification

1. A chemical derived from acetoacetic acid, acesulfame K (or acesulfame potassium) adds sweetness to foods without calories or fat. It is 200 times sweeter than table sugar and is marketed as as Sweet One and Sunett. The human body cannot metabolize it, making it calorie-free. The Food and Drug Administration has approved its use as a general-purpose sweetener.*

Concerns

2. Many activists argue that the studies supporting acesulfame K’s safety are unreliable. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group, leads the campaign for more research on acesulfame K. They point out that the FDA based is recommendations on several studies conducted in the 1970s, two of which were inconclusive. A third showed that female rats fed acesulfame K were twice as likely to develop breast tumors as those who did not consume the sweetener. CSPI has repeatedly asked the FDA to order more research on the long-term effects of acesulfame K, but as of this writing, no studies are planned.

Methylene Chloride

3. Methylene chloride is used as a solvent in the manufacturing of acesulfame K. In other industries, methylene chloride is most often used as a paint stripper, a de-greaser and as a propellant agent. It has applications in the food industry, such as decaffeinating coffee and tea, but concerns about its safety have led manufacturers to seek alternatives. Long-term exposure to this chemical may cause headaches, depression, mental confusion, liver and kidney complications, nausea, vision issues and cancer.

Insulin Response

4. Acesulfame K stimulates the release of insulin and exacerbates feelings of low blood sugar. As with other artificial sweeteners, it may confuse your body’s satiety signals and cause you to eat more. It also may trigger cravings for excessively sweet products so that healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables are less palatable and satisfying.

Bottom Line

5. The FDA deems consumption of acesulfame K safe. However, its questionable health effects on lab animals may make it a substance that is best avoided.

*(Editor’s note — FDA approval of this substance was tainted. If you know the story of Aspartame, you will understand.)
–

Also Of Interest:

• 12 Medical Myths Even Most Doctors Believe…
• Study Shows Infant Formulas are Badly Contaminated with Aluminum
• Take a Break for About 1/2 a Minute….

Related posts:

1. Killer Chemicals in Your Cosmetics ...
2. The Next 8 1/2 minutes Can Save You Much Misery! ...
3. Sun-Day Equals Fry-Day (Story from MsnbcNews.com) ...
4. What’s In My Shampoo? ...
5. New Cancer Causing Agent from Household Products Found in our Water ...
6. Acesulfame K ...

Tags: Arrogance, Greed, Healthy Lifestyle, Labels, Mis-Information, Skin Care, Toxins

This entry was posted on Monday, September 20th, 2010 at 08:16 and is filed under Arrogance, Bulletin Board, Greed, Healthy Lifestyle, Supplements To Diet. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.