Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 08-30-2013, 01:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 3,200
Question about Ava Anderson Products and their Claims

So, I'm not sure how many of you have experienced a relatively steady diet of Ava Anderson proselytizing in your Facebook feed, but I now have three of my friends who are now reps for AA and post about how great the products, but also sharing the horrific dangers of using normal cosmetic/hygiene products.

From the people who've used the products, I'm guessing the actual products are fairly nice to use, but that's not my question. There seems to be a heck of a lot of fear mongering associated with selling these products, about how J&J baby shampoo has formaldehyde in it, and how everything in your toxic chemical laden soaps and such will give you cancer. It rings very hollow to me. But, I checked out the Ava Anderson site to see how much their 'natural toxin free' products cost. And the price is astronomical. $17 for a 16 oz bottle of shampoo, for instance. I'm guessing that if you become a rep for them you can get their products for a lot less, but I'm not sure. But it seems like they scare the crap out of people, get them to switch, and then because the prices are so high, they sell the products to afford them better...and the company grows.

Am I reading this correctly? Has there been any long term research into a lot of the 'toxic' claims as it relates to my normal $3 body wash and shampoo? I'm sure there's a grain of truth in there somewhere, but it sounds very much to me like "Oh Noez...TOXINS!" type speech. Some google-fu has turned up very little with regards to their claims. I'm currently thinking 'I survived, my sister survived, all my friends survived using these products my whole life so far...' But then, I've got two kids....is it worth looking for 'healthier' products here?
#2
Old 08-30-2013, 07:46 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1
Hi there,

I hesitate to reply because I've been a rep for AA for awhile, but for good reason. There IS research supporting the link between so many of these chemicals and diseases such as cancer and interference with normal body functioning (endocrine disruption, learning disabilities, asthma, allergies....etc). You can find a lot of it at ewg.org. I have two physicians (MD's) on my team of consultants who will echo just the same.

Certainly, I would never compare Ava products to the $2.50 shampoo that you can buy at a drugstore....because sure, water and chemicals are cheap in this country. But here's the thing that jumped out at me in your post - people you know (and yourself) have used these toxic products thus far and have "been fine". Did you realize that 90% of cancer is environmentally-caused though (what we put in/on our bodies)? 10% of cancer is genetically-based. That's a BIG number that we have "control" over (products we use, food we eat, etc.). And the chemicals that are in mainstream toxic products have been around form about 25 years....and we're now starting to see the prevalence of disease rise astronomically. That's a pretty fair incubation period. So what does the health of our childrens' generation look like another 25 years from now? I really really believe that we're on a horrific trajectory there. Think of your friends and family and their health....how many cases of reproductive issues (requiring IVF to start a family, for example), childrens' allergies, autism....do you see now? I'd argue it's about 10-fold what we saw 20 years ago.

So knowing what I know, I choose to control what I can control. And switching to non-toxic personal care and household cleaning products is an easy way to make a BIG impact on my health. I know that you have friends who are AA reps, but if you have any specific questions I'd be happy to help you. I've been doing research in this subject area for years. AvaAndersonMA.com
#3
Old 08-30-2013, 08:01 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 3,200
But it's all circumstantial. Life expectancy is at an all time high right now. The 'prevalence of disease' is where? I understand the argument, and in the surface it makes sense, but there's a distinct lack of hard data, other than "these chemicals are here". Nothing about dosage, what the body naturally metabolizes, etc. the rise in allergies can hardly be pinpointed to our hygiene products, especially since the rise has really been prevalent in the past 10 years, but these 'toxic' products have been in use for 40 years. I also don't really see why the non toxic stuff needs to be quadruple the price. I've also seen some of the Ava products use natural ingredients that metabolize to parabens that they purport to avoid. I'm genuinely interested in some real independent research has there been any?
#4
Old 08-30-2013, 09:54 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 3,200
Sorry...didn't mean to one off snarky, and upon a retread I may have been. I am truly curious about real research into this. I know there has been research into the actual chemicals used in many products, but those are usually at exposure levels massively higher than what is in these products. Have there been any peer reviewed studies that examine the long term health of those who use typical store products vs those who use milder 'non-toxic' products?

Again, I'm not doubting the quality of product being sold, it's just that a lot of the sales pitch for them seems to be predicated on stoking fear of the possibility of long term damage by not switching. This coupled with the exorbitant prices pings my warning bells a bit.
#5
Old 08-30-2013, 11:06 PM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,059
SBJody, do you work for Environmental Working Group, AvaAnderson, or both?
#6
Old 08-30-2013, 11:09 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBJody View Post
Certainly, I would never compare Ava products to the $2.50 shampoo that you can buy at a drugstore....because sure, water and chemicals are cheap in this country. But here's the thing that jumped out at me in your post - people you know (and yourself) have used these toxic products thus far and have "been fine". Did you realize that 90% of cancer is environmentally-caused though (what we put in/on our bodies)? 10% of cancer is genetically-based. That's a BIG number that we have "control" over (products we use, food we eat, etc.). And the chemicals that are in mainstream toxic products have been around form about 25 years....and we're now starting to see the prevalence of disease rise astronomically. That's a pretty fair incubation period. So what does the health of our childrens' generation look like another 25 years from now? I really really believe that we're on a horrific trajectory there. Think of your friends and family and their health....how many cases of reproductive issues (requiring IVF to start a family, for example), childrens' allergies, autism....do you see now? I'd argue it's about 10-fold what we saw 20 years ago.
Okay, so argue that. I'll challenge you to come up with studies and statistics that back up your argument, because I think it's a load of hooey. I eagerly await your citations.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 08-30-2013 at 11:10 PM.
#7
Old 08-31-2013, 01:19 AM
Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 28,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
SBJody, do you work for Environmental Working Group, AvaAnderson, or both?
Oh, don't be a grump. It's people like you who prevent us from keeping (possible) spammers like SBJody long enough to eviscerate their arguments.

(ahem)

Please, SBJody, please accept Bo's invitation to provide citations demonstrating that any of your, or Ava Anderson's, claims have the slightest basis in fact and are not fearmongering based on ignorance, yours and your customers', to sell vastly overpriced crap.

Do tell. We're all ears.
#8
Old 08-31-2013, 07:50 AM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 18,757
I can't bring myself to tackle a pile of nonsense this large, so I'll just summarize: this is all pseudoscience supported by nothing by anecdotes, vague fearmongering, and woo.
#9
Old 08-31-2013, 09:15 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 5,460
While I know nothing but what I read here, I would also suggest that it is possibly a pyramid scheme (a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public).

Last edited by bob++; 08-31-2013 at 09:15 AM.
#10
Old 08-31-2013, 09:53 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 8,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
SBJody, do you work for Environmental Working Group, AvaAnderson, or both?
She already said she was an AA rep.
#11
Old 08-31-2013, 09:59 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
While I know nothing but what I read here, I would also suggest that it is possibly a pyramid scheme (a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public).
Seems to me Alcoa has been using pyramid marketing schemes for many decades (over 60 years at least), so maybe "usually unsustainable" is a better term. In any case, there's a big difference between pyramid marketing and and Ponzi schemes. (I know you didn't mention Ponzi, but just making sure nobody lumps the two together.) The differece is, with Ponzi, there is no underlying value. With pyramid marketing, the value depends on the value of the products, which is right there for anyone to sample and evaluate themselves.

Pyrmaid marketing schemes allow business growth with practically zero marketing costs. It's one model for business growth. Personally, I detest it since it leads to friends hawking products to friends and those silly parties (which fortunately the menfolk are usually allowed to skip!). But it's a free country, and while it's a bit predatory in building false visions of riches in new members, it's quite transparent in how it actually works. Caveat ... what's Latin for "seller"?

So, I won't be buying any Alcoa cookware, Longeberger baskets, or Amway products. Avon did make some really great chapstick though, and I'm sorry our friends who supplied us with that no longer can!

I just saw "Go!" recently. Pyramid marketing made for an amusing plot twist in that flick.

Edit to add: Oops, on re-read, I see you were warning against a malicious form of pyramid scheme which really is Ponzi, rather than attacking pyramid marketing in general. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but figure the above might help clarify things anyway so left as is.

Last edited by Learjeff; 08-31-2013 at 10:02 AM.
#12
Old 01-30-2014, 01:28 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1
Research more info-

I am not selling products but I am changing my lifestyle completely to nontoxic products and organic food. I became aware of this after loosing family members and friends with cancer. If you are interested.... you can do research. Information is out there but....

http://webmd.com/about-webmd-pol...ult.htm?ss=ftr

http://webmd.com/beauty/shampoo/...shampoo-safety

[Moderator Note - article removed]

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 01-30-2014 at 02:57 PM. Reason: Removed copyrighted article
#13
Old 01-30-2014, 03:03 PM
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 19,673
Moderator Note

Welcome to the SDMB, DWOLFE.

Please note that while it is perfectly acceptable to copy snippets of articles and post them here for discussion, copying the entire article goes beyond fair use and is not permitted here. This is why I removed it from your post.

Those wishing to read the article may find it in the second link in DWOLFE's post.
#14
Old 03-10-2014, 10:44 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3
The research into chemicals and their effects are available here: http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

and here: http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov...micals&alpha=A

An easier to understand app is here: http://ewg.org/skindeep/

Since I cannot copy articles, on your own, you can see what chemicals are banned in the US (10) vs Europe (1000+).
#15
Old 03-10-2014, 11:59 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 9,186
How many of those Euro-banned chemicals are to be found in your average bottle of shampoo in the U.S. though?
#16
Old 03-10-2014, 12:13 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3
a quick google search "banned chemicals in europe found in shampoo" will get you the answer, for example here
#17
Old 03-10-2014, 01:33 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3
here is a noteworthy example...

Lauryl sulfate(SLS), Sodium laureth sulfate(SLES)
Can result in: suspected carcinogen linked kidney and liver damage; nervous system disruption; damage to eyes leading to cataracts; eczema and dermatitis, known to inflame skin layers.
Why used: foaming agent and emulsifier.
Found in: toothpaste, shampoo, bath salts, body and shower gels.
Banned in: Europe and Central America

http://greenlivingonline.com/art...hemicals-avoid
#18
Old 03-10-2014, 01:57 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 5,460
Here in the UK we often see lobby groups claiming that we are at risk from some product or chemical that is banned (or only permitted at lower levels) in the USA or elsewhere.

In most, or indeed all, cases, the differences are minute. Very often, the product would have to be used or consumed in huge quantities to have any measurable effect.

Think harder about relative risk. People die in car accidents and tripping over the cat. They drown, burn and choke. Better to avoid the bigger risks and relax, than to worry overmuch about the chemicals in a shampoo. Of course you can stop using shampoo altogether if you are really worried: http://wikihow.com/Wash-Your-Hair-Without-Shampoo
#19
Old 03-10-2014, 02:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,371
I buy almost all of my body care items at Whole Foods because they have really strict standards for what they will accept in a product. You can read about it here:

http://wholefoodsmarket.com/abou...care-standards

You can also view the PDF file on the "more than 400 ingredients unacceptable for Premium Body Care. These include parabens, polypropylene and polyethylene glycols, sodium lauryl and laureth sulfates. Our research also yielded crucial information about the effects of ingredients in several categories of public interest."

The prices are not insane, and the selections is incredible.
#20
Old 12-07-2014, 08:57 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jman View Post
So, I'm not sure how many of you have experienced a relatively steady diet of Ava Anderson proselytizing in your Facebook feed, but I now have three of my friends who are now reps for AA and post about how great the products, but also sharing the horrific dangers of using normal cosmetic/hygiene products.

From the people who've used the products, I'm guessing the actual products are fairly nice to use, but that's not my question. There seems to be a heck of a lot of fear mongering associated with selling these products, about how J&J baby shampoo has formaldehyde in it, and how everything in your toxic chemical laden soaps and such will give you cancer. It rings very hollow to me. But, I checked out the Ava Anderson site to see how much their 'natural toxin free' products cost. And the price is astronomical. $17 for a 16 oz bottle of shampoo, for instance. I'm guessing that if you become a rep for them you can get their products for a lot less, but I'm not sure. But it seems like they scare the crap out of people, get them to switch, and then because the prices are so high, they sell the products to afford them better...and the company grows.

Am I reading this correctly? Has there been any long term research into a lot of the 'toxic' claims as it relates to my normal $3 body wash and shampoo? I'm sure there's a grain of truth in there somewhere, but it sounds very much to me like "Oh Noez...TOXINS!" type speech. Some google-fu has turned up very little with regards to their claims. I'm currently thinking 'I survived, my sister survived, all my friends survived using these products my whole life so far...' But then, I've got two kids....is it worth looking for 'healthier' products here?
First off, AA makes a lot of, unsubstantiated, claims about many things we normally use in our daily lives as being toxic, and in some case, cause many different medical conditions, like Alzheimers. None of these claims have actually been backed up by any credible research, or independent studies.

Any studies mentioned by other members of this forum, were not conducted by an independent group, and was paid for, not using any type of blind or double blind tests, and reached a desired result paid for by AA.

AA, is nothing more than a pyramid group, like Amway.

The WHO(World Health Organization), the foremost authority of disease, medical conditions, and whose opinions are widely accepted by the AMA(American Medical Association), has stated there is no link to aluminum in any form, and the cause of Alzheimers. They further more state, that the medical profession has not concluded with absolute certainty what is the cause of Alzheimers, but they are 100% certain the cause is not related to aluminum.

Even snopes.com discounts many claims made by AA.
#21
Old 12-07-2014, 10:00 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ View Post
I buy almost all of my body care items at Whole Foods [snip] The prices are not insane...
Maybe at your magic Whole Foods. Have you ever heard it referred to as "Whole Paycheck"?

Last edited by TSBG; 12-07-2014 at 10:00 PM.
#22
Old 12-09-2014, 01:48 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Streatham Common
Posts: 2,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty0721 View Post
here is a noteworthy example...

Lauryl sulfate(SLS), Sodium laureth sulfate(SLES)
Can result in: suspected carcinogen linked kidney and liver damage; nervous system disruption; damage to eyes leading to cataracts; eczema and dermatitis, known to inflame skin layers.
Why used: foaming agent and emulsifier.
Found in: toothpaste, shampoo, bath salts, body and shower gels.
Banned in: Europe and Central America

http://greenlivingonline.com/art...hemicals-avoid
I just looked at my bottle of ICA (swedish supermarket) own-brand shower gel. Second ingredient by weight (after water) - Sodium Laureth Sulfate. While it's possible greenliving.com may be using a somewhat generous definition of "Europe" or "banned" (e.g., not allowed in baby food), my guess is less-than-rigorous research on their part. I'm not a huge fan of the stuff by any means but since it is the major ingredient in probably 99+% of shower gel sold in the world, banning it would be Big News.

Less exposure to environmental chemicals/toxins is a great thing, but unfortunately there is a massive amount of urban myth and outright wooooo around the whole subject.
#23
Old 09-16-2015, 07:41 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1
I realize that this thread is quite old but since I stumbled across it today I felt the need to respond. I was invited to an Ava Anderson party today and had never heard of it before. I looked at their website and started doing a few searches on them before deciding if I might be interested in going when I came across this thread. I've never tried any Ava Anderson products before so I don't have much to say about them. I've used makeup, scrapbook supplies, and any number of products from varying MLM structured companies. It's not my favorite model, and I do think it's overpriced to get the 'discount' and people signed up but just because a company uses that model does not make it a scheme or a bad thing. I'm neutral. I also don't know what is or isn't banned in Europe. I'm in Texas. I just wanted to say that first.

With regards to whether or not it's fear mongering and scare tactics being employed to sell these products... Maybe but that doesn't make what they're saying necessarily untrue. Once upon a time people blew off those people complaining about the dangers of cigarette smoke too. It was allowed everywhere. Sitting at your desk and in doctor's office waiting rooms. Now it's not even allowed in most bars (at least not where I live in Houston, Texas).

I have personal experience with the toxic effects of chemicals. My mother smoked all through her pregnancy with me yet I had a pretty healthy childhood. Some might say that's because the cigarettes aren't that dangerous. Some might not. By 27 years old I'd had two miscarriages and had kidney cancer requiring the removal of a kidney (and gallbladder the year before). In 2009, I gave birth to premature twins, one of which is autistic and has severe eczema. The other shows signs of so labeled ADHD but we don't know as yet. By 30 I was diagnosed with Crohn's Disease and Fibromyalgia in addition to a body that can't absorb Vitamin D or folic acid very well. By 33 I was diagnosed with migraines, cluster headaches, and adult-onset asthma (often triggered by fragrances). I am/was a girly girl that likes her smell good pretty things, candles burning, yummy shampoos like Herbal Essence and Garnier, fresh smelling laundry, and perfume on date night. I have dogs and a husband. Febreeze was my friend. Lol

I was always a little sensitive to some perfumes but usually attributed it to something else, like maybe they put too much on. I'd never made a connection between being sick and my chronic illnesses. Last year I started getting really sick. I was getting more migraines, having more asthma attacks, and got dizzy and nauseated by my own clothes. We finally figured out that when we removed chemicals and synthetic fragrances from my area I felt better. We got air purifiers for the house (makes a good fart detector too so it's pretty entertaining), and went fragrance free. I was shocked by what I learned when I really dug down into the true nature of the chemicals we expose ourselves to. I'd literally been poisoning myself.

There IS scientific evidence backing up many of the claims but it's early research. It took a lot of years for cigarettes to become known as carcinogenic too. The worst of the chemicals are hidden in the term 'fragrance' or 'parfum'. That one word can contain over 300 individual ingredients and is in almost every product we use. The CDC passed a fragrance free policy in 2009 for all staff and employees recognizing the growing problem with chemicals being used. I'll post some helpful links at the bottom but I just had to add my two cents. My clothes don't make me sick anymore but most other people's clothes do.

Regarding the cost difference... I would imagine synthetic chemicals are much cheaper to produce. A simple example would be the smell of roses. Fake smells are easy and unlimited when made with chemicals. To get the real smell of roses an oil has to be produced using several tons of a limited material. Organic makes it cost even more. There are good products out there and more coming on the market everyday. Reducing your exposure to toxins does not have to break the bank. EWG/skindeep is a good starting point. I like some products by Aveeno (fragrance Free of course), I tolerate and like many by NaturOli, and Ava Anderson has a good enough rating on the EWG for me to consider trying a few of their products. We use free & clear products where we can find them. Scented with EO's in a healthy and not overwhelming combination is sometimes okay too. We use plain old cheap vinegar for fabric softener and it works fabulous. Clothes come out smelling like fresh and clean is supposed to. Blissful nothing. 😉 We haven't found a good 'deodorant' but we found an excellent alternative that is cheap AND husband/teenage boy tested... Good ole Milk of Magnesia in a spray bottle. Yep.

In no particular order:

http://cdc.gov/niosh/topics/indo...calsodors.html

http://ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hspro...cent_free.html

https://depts.washington.edu/soundci...the-fragrance/

http://ewg.org/research/not-so-sexy and the full report: http://ewg.org/sites/default/fil...agranceRpt.pdf

http://action.lung.org/site/DocServe...le-updated.pdf

http://pdx.edu/hr/fragrance-free-value-statement

https://northseattle.edu/policies/indoor-air-quality

http://time.com/3703948/is-perfume-safe/

http://m.webmd.com/healthy-beaut...n-health-risks

http://drweil.com/drw/u/id/ART00576

http://ncil.org/tips-for-transit...nce-free-life/

http://www2.epa.gov/saferchoice/safe...-free-products

http://cleanerindoorair.org/category...ental-illness/

http://invisibledisabilities.org/edu...fragrancefree/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...chemicals.aspx

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/sec...ealth-problem/

http://psr.org/environment-and-h...chemicals.html

http://ecowatch.com/2013/04/05/why-y...-dryer-sheets/

http://nrdc.org/health/

http://scientificamerican.com/ar...-and-colognes/

http://abc15.com/news/national/c...of-toxic-fumes

http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1009BZL.pdf

http://womenforahealthyenvironme...e-free-at-home

https://laborlawcenter.com/blog/...e-sensitivity/

http://everettsd.org/silverlake

http://aabri.com/manuscripts/09244.pdf


So are they possibly using scare tactics? Yep.

Is it 'really' scary? Yep.
#24
Old 09-17-2015, 09:51 AM
Guest
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,088
The CDC's fragrance free policy has nothing to do with health risks, as your own link makes clear. It is because the CDC considers fragrance inappropriate for the workplace and because it may aggravate preexisting health conditions in other employees.

I don't think your Galileo gambit re cigarettes is very convincing either.
#25
Old 09-18-2015, 03:51 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 27,889
You READ that?

My hat is off to you, sir!
#26
Old 09-18-2015, 08:49 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 28,572
Interesting that our thread reviver is totally new to Ava Anderson but is already recycling their pitch and has churned out a huge Gish Gallop to impress us.

Whenever the Toxin Threat gets hauled out, I think it's incumbent on the Toxin Shouters to show that 1) the product(s) they're warning us about have any ingredients shown to be toxic, 2) that those ingredients are present in amounts sufficient to cause harm, 3) that whatever treatment or competing product they're hawking can reverse damage/improve health, and 4) that the treatment or competing product is "toxin"-free and does not cause health problems of its own.

"Science wuz wrong before!" is not a convincing argument. Woo has been wrong far, far more often. You've got to prove your own case on its (alleged) merits.

I'm especially about the formaldehyde-in-shampoo argument, as it smacks of the "vaccines contain formaldehyde!" nonsense we hear from antivaxers. Your own body makes formaldehyde (in small amounts, of course) as a part of normal metabolism. As long as you're alive, you can't avoid exposure to the stuff, however "all-natural" you go.

"Formaldehyde plays an essential role in our metabolism. As part of the metabolic process, formaldehyde, whether from an external source or produced by our bodies, is converted into formate (PDF) by the enzyme formaldehyde dehydrogenase. The resulting formate can then be eliminated in the urine, further broken down into CO2 and exhaled, or used by our cell machinery to synthesize nucleotides and nucleobases, such as purines and thymidine...
Even before the advent of industrial uses of formaldehyde, humans, as with every other animal on Earth, had been exposed to formaldehyde through the foods they ate, the environments in which they lived and their own metabolic processes. They developed the means to use the chemical for their own cellular function, as well as the ability to get rid of excess amounts that would otherwise be toxic."


For all "toxins", the dose makes the poison. Show me that my shampoo is actually poisonous and that your MLM crap is better, don't just yammer about "toxins" and expect to impress me.
#27
Old 09-18-2015, 11:50 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 40,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinkiesMommy2009 View Post
I have personal experience with the toxic effects of chemicals. ...
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
__________________
"East is East and West is West and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
#28
Old 09-18-2015, 12:13 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
My hat is off to you, sir!
Yes, but not for the lulz. I handle a few occupational exposure cases, so I'd read it before.

Last edited by Really Not All That Bright; 09-18-2015 at 12:13 PM.
#29
Old 09-18-2015, 01:50 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 18,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
"Science wuz wrong before!" is not a convincing argument. Woo has been wrong far, far more often.
And, the thing about science is that it's self-correcting. Once upon a time, it never occurred to us that inhaling smoke could cause health problems, so no one checked. Now, on the other hand, we've LEARNED. And now we actually CHECK for those kinds of health risks. It's not like we're still shoveling untested products out there and just hoping for the best. We've come a long, long way.

Whenever someone starts hand-wringing about the vague dangers of vague "chemicals" and "toxins", I like to point out that if alcohol were held to the same safety standards as pesticides, the limit would be roughly one glass of wine....per YEAR. So unless you're completely teetotal, your position is completely untenable.
#30
Old 09-18-2015, 07:07 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Flatlander in NH
Posts: 24,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBJody View Post
Think of your friends and family and their health....how many cases of reproductive issues (requiring IVF to start a family, for example), childrens' allergies, autism....do you see now? I'd argue it's about 10-fold what we saw 20 years ago.
Re: IVF maybe we notice because reproductive medicine has a lot more options now, and because people are a lot more open about these personal issues than they used to be?
#31
Old 11-10-2015, 02:32 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1
I've come across this post through googling Ava Anderson, after finding it on an app that I use called Think Dirty. Their BB cream came up with a green rank. I have never heard of this company - I live in the UK.

I developed psoriasis about 4 years ago - a condition where your skin apparently renews itself quicker than normal, resulting in dry rough patches of flaky skin - similar to eczema. I saw the NHS 3 times in the UK (they prescribed topical steroid), and eventually saw a specialist in South Africa (also prescribed topical steroid) - over a course of about 18 months. My Dad advised me against used steroids liberally.
During this time, I did a huge amount of reading about the condition, spoke to friends etc - realised I had a friend who had the same thing, my Dad (a Dr.) had the same thing and my brother in law had a similar thing.
MY experience and thoughts are they over the course of the past 3 years: After cutting out various foods (following the Pagano diet - didn't work), I slowly eliminated as many chemicals as I am aware of out of my life. I've slowly educated myself with regards to the number of chemicals that we are exposed to. I read a book called Green Beauty - I recommend reading it, its unbiased and reasonably science-based. I fact check with my Dad, who tells me what is rubbish an what isn't. He thought Dr Pagano Diet sounded rubbish from the outset but I tried it anyway. My Mom says that at home, they use specific washing powder for ultra sensitive skin, and the most bland products they can find, etc. My Dad told me to do the same.
I've changed washing powder (to Ecover), household detergents (to Ecover), and personal products (mostly Dr Bronner; I don't wear make up anymore) I have about 10% of the psoriasis spots that I used to. They covered about 30% of my back, and much of my scalp for that 18 month period. A couple of friends who I lived with at the time who were appalled at Dr Pagano's stipulation that I give up wine, have helped me research this whole concept and also moved towards a greener product set; have said that they feel like their skin and general health has improved immeasurably.

My point - I really really believe there is value to be derived from being more aware of what we put in our bodies.
#32
Old 11-10-2015, 06:44 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by GC82 View Post
I developed psoriasis about 4 years ago - a condition where your skin apparently renews itself quicker than normal, resulting in dry rough patches of flaky skin - similar to eczema.
Its known that it goes into remission - reduces or disappears totally - even without the doctors pharmaceuticals. There's a better chance with the doctors prescriptions...

Last edited by Isilder; 11-10-2015 at 06:47 AM.
#33
Old 11-10-2015, 07:29 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,194
The Ava Anderson claim is based upon fear tactics..
"be scared of chemicals"... because humans are not allergic to food products ?
Her number one claim is that a fragrance added to a product is most likely containing phthalates.
No that is not so. Phthalates are used in perfumes and colognes to help stick the smelly ingredient and stop it evaporating away too quick.

This "stop it evaporating away" aspect is not needed in any cosmetic product. In fact they want the perfume to evaporate away quickly, as otherwise it could make the cosmetic is too overbearing.. perfume in the eye ? Tasting roses all day ?

Last edited by Isilder; 11-10-2015 at 07:30 AM.
#34
Old 11-10-2015, 08:54 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 28,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by GC82 View Post
I've come across this post through googling Ava Anderson, after finding it on an app that I use called Think Dirty. Their BB cream came up with a green rank.
I've also had this problem (with food left in the back of the refrigerator).
#35
Old 11-10-2015, 10:59 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,217
I too just learned of Ava Anderson today

I don't know a damn thing about it, but I have this feeling that eventually this thread will die again, only to be resurrected by some new age anti-reality pseudo-intellectual who was sucked into the program and removed of several dollars.
#36
Old 11-10-2015, 11:09 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,217
I note that three times this was resurrected by pro AA people, it is their only post. This indicates to me a systemically organized and planned effort. Its as if part of their 'training' is to search message boards for "Ava Anderson" and post there... Its like 'Scientology'
#37
Old 11-10-2015, 12:23 PM
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 19,673
Moderator Action

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
I note that three times this was resurrected by pro AA people, it is their only post. This indicates to me a systemically organized and planned effort. Its as if part of their 'training' is to search message boards for "Ava Anderson" and post there... Its like 'Scientology'
They can't keep reviving it if I close the thread.

Thread closed.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: compost cooked vegetables big fig newton dilaudid vs percocet heavy brow qwghlmian language stargate sokar rotor turning napa opposite of liar ffix strategy guide streusel vs strudel alcohol and zantac bubble bath jacuzzi pronounce tso italian goomba greyhound boarding number shika bobs cat catching rat single candle burning vernee watson stupid elephant barfy the dog r/shittybattlestations teppanyaki ice cream brass knuckles injuries h.m. wynant mattel ar15 goober hats best latin textbooks appomattox university o boises 3.4l v6 engine chicken thigh weight best time to go to social security office best type of steel for swords can you plug in a sata drive while the computer is on one is the loneliest number two tickets to paradise do i have to peel carrots opilio crab vs king crab does vodka have a taste unavailable numbers keep calling me were yankees north or south why are my breasts getting bigger at 40 difficult airway medic alert bracelet is incest porn illegal birch beer soda syrup catching a rat in the house how to cut rocks in half maui jim sunglasses sale ebay mackinac island distance from chicago is jonathan silverman related to sarah silverman facial hair removal cream for male does oxygen make you high what does quarter of mean slow cooker keep warm temperature how much is a kilo of coke weigh goat takes out cow how often does a prius need an oil change xbox live gold multiple profiles 360 non detergent laundry soap brands retaking classes after graduation freezer at 10 degrees b17 ball turret gunner crushed how long is a city block in feet heat spots on leg