Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Cruelty-free Cosmetics

I will be adding to this post.

"The truth about animal research labels.", 2015, @thestarfishca
"these labels mean rather little, both in the U.S. and in Canada. Companies can say “Not Tested on Animals”, even if they actually do. There is no legal definition for animal research claims. Often, this means that the final cosmetic product is not tested on animals, but the individual ingredients are. Other types of labels ... have some meaning granted by a third party organization, but they do not guarantee that no animal testing was done in the creation of the hand soap, face wash, or body lotion."

"Questions and Answers: Animal testing and cosmetics", 2013, updated 2015, Europe
"With the full ban in place – can consumers be sure that cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients purchased in Europe were not subject to animal testing?
With the testing and marketing ban in force there can be no new animal testing for cosmetics purposes in the Union – be it for cosmetics products or ingredients thereof - and it is no longer possible to simply carry out testing for these purposes outside the Union and then use the data here to substantiate the safety of cosmetics. Consumers can therefore be sure that the cosmetic use of an ingredient in Europe cannot be the reason for any new animal testing.
However, the majority of ingredients that go into cosmetics are ingredients that are also in use in many other consumer and industrial products, such as in pharmaceuticals, detergents, food ... They may therefore be subject to animal testing requirements under these respective legal frameworks."
Translation - no guarantee. And Note: The ban only applies to new animal testing for cosmetics, not prior testing.

Friday, April 17, 2015


I will be adding to this post.

To me, it is just as important when debunking quack claims, to offer people reputable sources, for reputable information.

"Should Your Children Avoid Gluten?", 2013
Author information

"7 Myths and Facts about Celiac Disease", 2014
" Myth 5: Kids with celiac disease have to use gluten free soap, shampoo and lotion.
Fact: Gluten cannot be absorbed through the skin, but parents need to be aware of hygiene products that are easily ingestible, especially when bathing younger children."

"Cosmetic Labelling Regulations", 2013
"To date, we have been unable to find any toothpaste that contains gluten."

"Action Alert: Notifying the FDA about Misbranded Gluten-Free Products" | Gluten Free Watchdog, 2014
"Foods Labeled Gluten-Free Must Now be in Compliance with the FDA Gluten-Free Labeling Rule" | Gluten Free Watchdog, 2014

"Gluten and Food Labeling: FDA's Regulation of 'Gluten-Free' Claims" updated, 2015

"overblown claims for “going gluten-free,” and ridiculous products such as gluten-free skin care products"

Therein lies the "rub" (quandary) to quote Shakespeare. If a cosmetics manufacturer is claiming gluten-free for certain products, can that claim be trusted?
If said cosmetics manufacturer, or anyone promoting them also makes outrageous (health fraud), or drug claims with no proven evidence for those claims, most probably not. They don't have credibility. If you have celiac disease, or young children who do, it is best not to take a risk with such a company for any products needed. Consult with your medically qualified specialist for recommendations.
See also, 2015

Wednesday, April 15, 2015


I will be adding to this post.


How little has changed - free to read, and download both pages as a printable PDF file - full text of the article - fascinating! Quackery 101 - published that long ago, and it is still applicable today. For copyright and other information - see the top left of the page under the article author.

"marketing for these items is changing. Crystals are repackaged as having “the combination of far infrared light, negative ions ... Elixirs, potions, and tonics are rebranded as the “Wonder nutrient of the century-cellular liquid-food liquid minerals ... There was also a so-new-it’s-unnamed product; yet another device “invented by Tesla” that Tesla didn’t seem to know about. ... salesperson ... he didn’t use the word cure, but he did use the phrases “cancer free” and “completely free of any diseases. ... vendor was very cagey ... talking about the product ... for good reason: we recognized it as a  remake of ... (VIBE) Machine recalled by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)in 2008."

The history of quackery is important - it tells you how and why recent quackery has evolved to "get around laws" and replace failed strategies.

Rebranded bs is still bs!
Want healthy positive vibes? Think pleasant thoughts, be kind - its free!

Good news? There's a growing "army" of reputable, evidence-based social media users using awareness to clear the landmines of quackery for you.

David Kroll @davidkroll 
@ktanimara Similarly, I've seen homeopathy rebranded as "nanomedicine" to piggyback on a real technological advancement. 

Paul Morgan @drpaulmorgan
"To anyone quoting John Benneth, please note the following"

Britt Marie Hermes @NaturoDiaries 
"The Doctor is…out"

"4 of the Biggest Quacks Plaguing America with False Claims About Science" | Alternet, @cliffweathers

"2014 in cancer quackery: UK edition" - JREF, 
"There were at least three successful prosecutions in 2014, one in Essex and two in the City of Westminster." 

Quackery is a worldwide problem with very old roots. Electronic media has simply elevated it to a more profitable, and vast problem.


"Medical council prosecutes 23 quacks"
"The Registrar, Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN), Dr Abdulmumini Ibrahim, said on Friday that the council had successfully prosecuted 23 quacks in the medical profession in Nigeria. ... the council was poised to sanitise the profession to restore standards. ... activities of quacks would no longer be tolerated. ... any training institution that falls short of standards, we caution that institutions and if need be, we suspend its accreditation."

"Lab Scientists to Trace Quacks With Hand Writing Detectors"


"Lyme Disease Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" - reviewed and updated 
Often a target for quacks to make $
"What is "chronic Lyme disease?""
"chronic Lyme disease” (CLD) ... Because of the confusion in how the term CLD is employed, experts in this field do not support its use"

"Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome", 2015
The correct title - Information
"Editorial Commentary: Xenodiagnosis for Posttreatment Lyme Disease Syndrome: Resolving the Conundrum or Adding to It?" - from the CDC link above - full text
Bottom line - animal study results used by quacks - INCONCLUSIVE! 

Thursday, March 26, 2015

The Latest on Skin Cancer (melanoma) and Sunscreens

I will be adding to this post

"Interview on the latest melanoma treatments - Melanoma Institute Australia", 2015

Watch the 9 minute video! 
My late uncle died years ago from metastasized melanoma. It eventually went to his brain. The fact modern medicine can now target the melanoma itself is awesome!

"What you need to know about sunscreen (but were too afraid to ask)" - Melanoma Institute Australia, December 2014
Watch the webinar!
"Are nanoparticles safe?" From the webinar: Answer YES and MORE efficient for additive protection (e.g. zink)! Also from the webinar: NO association of sunscreen use and lowered levels of Vitamin D - that is from research. And you need a broad spectrum 30 SPF approved sunscreen! For a day at the beach? Sunscreen SPF 50+ which under new regulations is actually at "least SPF 60" - that surprised me but it is maximum protection. What also surprised me? Don't rub sunscreen into skin. I've done that, even if it looks white. It will disappear - reason - you need a "uniform layer" on your skin.

"Sunscreens: Safe and Effective?", 2015
"Sunscreen and Vitamin D Deficiency
Because the human body produces some vitamin D in response to the sun’s UV radiation, sunscreen use could in theory reduce vitamin D levels. ... several studies have found that subjects’ regular sunscreen use did not prevent adequate vitamin D intake. ... also important to note that our bodies can manufacture only a certain amount of vitamin D from the sun. After reaching this limit within minutes, further UV exposure has a reverse effect, breaking down vitamin D into inactive compounds."
concern is that nanoparticles can be absorbed by the skin and harm living skin tissue. ... current research indicates that fears about absorption are unwarranted: Sunscreen is applied to the stratum corneum, the outermost layer of skin, which is made up of dead cells, and multiple studies have shown that nanoparticles do not penetrate living skin. ... in sunscreen formulas, it appears that nanoparticles tend to clump together to form larger-than-nano-sized particles."
"The Skin Cancer Foundation is a non-profit organization. Your donation is tax deductible."

"Sunscreen Facts", 2015
"No current published data has demonstrated adverse health effects on humans from the regular use of sunscreen."
"All financial contributions to the MRF, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, are tax deductible."

"In vitro sun protection factor determination of herbal oils used in cosmetics", 2010 
Highest in vitro (lab) 8

"Red Raspberry Seed Oil"
"Oomah study ... indicates red raspberry seed oil may have the potential to act as a broad-spectrum UV-A and UV-B shield ... it should, by no means, be relied upon without further independent testing. ... We do not endorse or recommend ... Red Raspberry Seed Oil be combined with Coconut Oil and Carrot Seed Oil as a DIY sunscreen. Without testing, it is impossible to know the SPF of such a combination and the use of untested sunscreen products can result in severe burns!"
RESPONSIBLE and honest! Kudos! (the study, dated 2000 is linked) 

"Mineral Makeup: Hype vs. Reality", 2012

“It's sufficient for ... running a few errands outside”... spending hours outdoors on a sunny day, choose a sunscreen with an SPF 45.”
“There isn't any natural source of titanium that's pure enough to be used in cosmetics ... It's all contaminated with things like mercury and lead.”
“I'd like someone to show me a zinc oxide mine. ... “It doesn't exist. Zinc oxide is synthesized in the lab."
Mineral makeup has limitations - it's not "all natural" - ingredients are processed to remove contaminants, create zink oxide, and there is not enough serious UV protection! It's amazing NOT what marketers, those sponsored and quacks don't tell you about products they promote!

Email Reply: Mineral oil an irritant?

Additives to it like fragrance can be. From, 2012
"long-term use and by multiple studies indicating that both mineral oil and petrolatum are not comedogens, irritants"
It can be difficult for consumers to pinpoint ingredient(s) as culprits to reactions. Consulting with a dermatologist is best if reactions are persistent.
Mineral oil is used in wound management - WHO link
"To perform a skin graft, prepare the donor site with antiseptic, isolate with drapes and lubricate with mineral oil."
Both links from are from this blog post

"Chemical Burns Treatment & Management Prehospital Care", 2013
"If contamination with metallic lithium, sodium, potassium ... has occurred, irrigation with water can result in a chemical reaction that causes burns to worsen. In these situations the area should be covered with mineral oil"

"EWG 2014 Sunscreen Report - The Skin Cancer Foundation’s Response"

"The EWG’s conclusions about various brands are based on product label information ... analyzed by people who are not experts in the field. The EWG’s Sunscreen Report uses scare tactics that only serve to confuse the public and potentially deter them from using the quality sunscreen products that are readily accessible."


"Discredited by Scientists, Ignored by Media - It's Time for EWG to Retire Decades Old "List" ", 2015
"Until 2010, EWG’s list had become one of the main sources of misinformation about produce safety targeted toward consumers – until the Alliance for Food and Farming's (AFF) Management Board said “no more” to disparaging these safe and healthy products and launched the Safe Fruits and Veggies initiative ... To date, no group, including the EWG, has questioned any of the information found at, which underscores the quality of the science." 

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Various Email Questions I Ask, and Pertinent Only Sections of the Replies, from Sources

I will be adding to this post.

Email: I asked Health Canada via email (an online report - you check for privacy,, if glutathione is approved in Canada for injections. I had read this article, I sent them the article, and the second of the four links below: two, three and four, I found through research.
Reply: This is what Health Canada replied in their email to me. All bolding is by me.
"To date, Health Canada has not approved any Glutathione IV products nor have authorised its sale in Canada."
More details from the email
"Ingredient Glutathione is classified as a natural health product (NHP) under Schedule 1, item 2 (an isolate) of the Natural Health Products Regulations. According to the definition of NHP, under Schedule 2, item 5 (A substance that is administered by puncturing the dermis), substances which are administered intravenously are excluded natural health product substances and would be regulated under the Food and Drug Regulations as drugs."

Which means: (not a quote from the email reply) The advertising used some of the regulations but not the CORRECT one. That appears to me to be - VERY MISLEADING!

See Also 
"DOH-FDA Advisory No. 2011-004 || Safety on the Off-Label Use of Glutathione Solution for Injection (IV) ...
Warning to the Public:"

And 2014
"FDA Advisory No. 2014-022 || Consumer Information - Findings on Health Products Used by Spas and Beauty, Skin or Wellness Clinics"
"The use of glutathione as systematic skin whitening agent has no approval from the FDA"

And 2014
"FDA Advisory No. 2014-045 || Public Warning against Advertisement, Promotion, Offer for Sale and Use of “LUXXE WHITENING, ENHANCED GLUTATHIONE”"

And 2013
"Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations"
"Your products identified above are not generally recognized as safe and effective for the above-referenced uses and, therefore, the products are “new drugs” ... New drugs may not be legally marketed in the U.S. without prior approval from FDA ... FDA approves a new drug on the basis of scientific data submitted by a drug sponsor to demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective. Furthermore, your ... products are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners. Therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes. ... these products are misbranded ... in that the labeling for these drugs fails to bear adequate directions for their intended uses."