Cosmetics1.us

Dove Deodorant Cancer

Top 10 Anti-Inflammatory Foods You Can Eat Every Day

by DailyHealthPost @ Daily Health Post

The links between chronic inflammation and increased risk of diseases like cancer are well documented – as one study puts ...

The post Top 10 Anti-Inflammatory Foods You Can Eat Every Day appeared first on Daily Health Post.

Side Effects of Using Dove Antiperspirant

Side Effects of Using Dove Antiperspirant


LIVESTRONG.COM

Dove manufactures a wide array of antiperspirant products, including roll-on, solids and aerosol spray cans. You may use them for their ability to reduce or stop perspiration for a cleaner, drier sensation. Though widely considered safe, you may experience several negative side effects while using Dove's antiperspirant products.

RE: Advice required on best doctor/surgeon/hospital for breast cancer

by WhatHappened @ Breast cancer - Discussion Forum - Recent Threads

Hello Dreamthief and all you lovely ladies, its nice to feel 'normal' - if there is such a thing, my brain, like others isn't letting me concentrate on what I read. I sit and read these posts, then its gone, so go back and read again. I can tell you, all this makes you think completely different, I have gone from 'I can't believe this is happening' to 'how long have I got left' to be grateful that you can have treatment... with the voice saying, I don't believe any of this, I want to wake up and go back to my usual life and its not going to happen.

Thank you for the update on PixieGirl, PixieGirl has replied below, so I will reply to PixieGirl there.  I'm still trying to get the hang of the forum, with my mind the way it is, it may take a few days haha or longer.  "Massive Thank You for your help and advice". xx

Some People Still Need Opioids

Some People Still Need Opioids

by Stefan Kertesz @ Slate Articles

On July 26, Todd Graham, 56, a well-respected rehabilitation specialist in Mishawaka, Indiana, lost his life. Earlier that day, a woman complaining of chronic pain had come to Graham’s office in hope of receiving an opioid such as Percocet, Vicodin, or long-acting OxyContin. He reportedly told her that opioids were not an appropriate first-line treatment for long-term pain—a view now shared by professionals—and she, reportedly, accepted his opinion. Her husband, however, became irate. Later, he tracked down the doctor and shot him twice in the head.

This horrific story has been showcased to confirm that physicians who specialize in chronic pain confront real threats from patients or their loved ones, particularly regarding opioid prescriptions. But Graham’s death also draws attention to another fraught development: In the face of an ever-worsening opioid crisis, physicians concerned about fueling the epidemic are increasingly heeding warnings and feeling pressured to constrain prescribing in the name of public health. As they do so, abruptly ending treatment regimens on which many chronic pain patients have come to rely, they end up leaving some patients in agonizing pain or worse.

Last month, one of us was contacted by a 66-year old orthopedic surgeon in Northern California, desperate to find a doctor for herself. Since her early 30s, Dr. R suffered from an excruciating condition called Interstitial Cystitis (IC). She described it as a “feeling like I had a lit match in my bladder and urethra.” Her doctor placed her on methadone and she continued in her medical practice on a relatively low dose, for 34 years. As Dr. R told one of us, “Methadone has saved my life. Not to sound irrational, but I don't think I would have survived without it.” Then a crisis: “Unfortunately for me, the feds are clamping down on docs prescribing opiates. My doctor decided that she did not want to treat me anymore, didn't give me a last prescription, and didn’t wait until I found another pain doctor who would help me.” For the past 30 years, Dr. R has been an advocate for better treatment of IC and reports “many suicides in the IC patient population due to the severity of the pain.”

Thankfully, Dr. R found someone to treat her. Doug Hale, 53, of Vermont was less fortunate. On Oct. 11, 2016, he died by suicide.

"My husband Doug took his own life after being cut off abruptly from his long-term therapy for intractable chronic pain,” his wife, Tammi, wrote in a survey collected by a rehabilitation scholar. His pain was caused by interstitial cystitis, severe migraines, and a back condition. A doctor had prescribed methadone and oxycodone since 2001, according to Tammi Hale, but then “said he would not risk his [medical] license.” Her husband “lasted six weeks, all the while desperately searching for help” but he made a conscious choice not to pursue alcohol or illegal drugs. He said he wanted to live to see his grandchildren and to grow old with me, his wife wrote, “but the pain drove him to suicide as he could not bear a life of intractable pain.”

So, he waited until his wife was out running errands, went to the far end of their backyard, and shot himself. Doug Hale left a suicide note stating that no one but his wife had helped him and that “the doctors were all puppets who basically just wanted to cover their own backs well.”

In 2016, a physician wrote a searing personal account of losing his sister, a chronic pain patient, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. William Weeks of Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, described Hailey’s death. A “caring, devoted, and motivated woman,” Haley injured her back at 35 when she was thrown from a horse. Her back never got better, and she qualified for federal disability payments. Over 14 years she received opioids and sedatives from a single pain physician, reaching high doses of both. When illness struck her physician, he retired, leaving her with a one-month prescription and a list of doctors.

As Weeks wrote, “My sister made appointments with several of the physicians [but at] every appointment, she was told that the physician would be unwilling to prescribe her current medication regimen. At every appointment, she was told that she would need to dramatically reduce her use of opioids and benzodiazepines. At every appointment, she felt that the medical establishment, which had prescribed these medications for a decade and a half, had abandoned her. Having not found a physician to manage her medications, she tried to wean herself, if only to extend her medication supply.” She accelerated her alcohol use, wound up in an emergency room—and then a jail cell where she died, six weeks after her last prescription.

Finally there is the anguished report from Mark Ibsen, a doctor based in Montana. On Aug. 4, he posted a video of himself with a distraught patient. “This patient is suicidal due to sudden severe cuts in her medications,” reads the tagline. Ibsen, who is currently entwined in a legal battle over his own practice of prescribing opioids to people with chronic pain, explains the urgency:

This is Kirsten. She’s here for a cannabis card. And we’re going to approve her. She has been on chronic pain medication. And the reason I want to show you this is that she can’t move her neck. She is operating stiffly. She lost all her muscles in her neck, when she had hardware placed by a doctor and it got infected, and she has had chronic pain since then. She has been on opiates for 11+ years. She is suddenly weaning, due to her doctor’s insistence. Just see your scar back here. That’s her scar. And this lady is in agony… She is on a third of her morphine and a third of her oxycodone. She is suicidal. And she has been abandoned by the medical profession. … And we just talked about how if she were an animal, we would euthanize her for this kind of suffering... So I am sending out a plea. I don’t know what I am pleading for, except this lady is suicidal, and this is a preventable suicide. If she could get her opiates, she wouldn’t be trying to kill herself. …This is a crime scene… as this lady deteriorates and gets more and more suicidal. Senator Tester can you help us?

The ordeals of Dr. R, Doug Hale, Hailey Weeks, and Kristin are being replicated across the country. Every week, one of us receives notice of suicides and overdoses by patients across the country who are distraught in the wake of having their dosages reduced. Eighteen months ago, Kertesz cared for a patient who had shot himself in the hand in the parking lot of a local hospital after his primary care doctor stopped maintaining even stable patients on opioids. That doctor had bought into a fallacy that’s been circulating medical practices: that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said all prescribing should stop.

It is no secret that one contributing factor to the current opioid crisis is the overreliance on and, at least in retrospect, irresponsible use of opioid-based pain medication. Promiscuous prescribing by physicians gained momentum in the early 1990s and continued for much of the next decade. Aggressive marketing by makers of long-acting painkillers, along with unfounded reassurances that they were safe, played a role in the explosion of prescribing—as did the culture of medical practice which rewarded hospitals based on patient satisfaction ratings, hurried visits, and a dearth of ready insurance-covered alternatives.

It should be noted that the chief risk of liberal prescribing—that is, giving a month’s worth of pills when two days were needed; prescribing opioids when extra-strength aspirin and a heating pad would do—was not so much that the patient for whom painkillers would become addicted or overdose. That can happen, particularly when the patient is also depressed, chronically anxious, or has a history of substance abuse, but it is not especially common: “Rates of carefully diagnosed addiction have averaged less than 8 percent [of patients receiving prescriptions] in published studies,” a 2016 review in the New England Journal of Medicine found. Others offer figures of 0.7 percent to 6 percent, a figure cited by the CDC itself. While those figures are high enough to merit a serious doctor-patient conversation, the bigger danger has always been that excess medication was feeding the rivers of pills coursing through many neighborhoods, and that as more painkillers circulated, more opportunities arose for nonpatients to obtain them, abuse them, and die.

As the pill problem has grown, physicians, medical centers, and state health authorities sought to bring prescribing under better control with education, new norms, and prescription registries that pharmacists and doctors could use to detect patients who “doctor shopped” for painkillers and even forged prescriptions. To a welcome degree, this worked: Since 2010, when opioid prescribing peaked, painkiller-related overdose deaths have begun to decline. (Now, heroin and illicit fentanyl are responsible for most opioid-related deaths.) Seventeen states have passed laws or regulations that limit doses or duration for acute pain, and several federal bills are under consideration. Last year, the American Medical Association recommended that pain be removed as a “fifth vital sign” in professional medical standards, another attempt to limit the overprescribing of opioid pain medication.

The pendulum has swung back in the other direction. We are now experiencing the painful backlash to overzealous prescribing of opioid painkillers (that was itself a backlash to the undertreatment of unremitting noncancer pain). The bad news is that many patients treated with high opioid regimens have been caught in the crossfire. Amid regulations, pharmacy payment restrictions, and intimations that doctors are the major culprits in this epidemic, doctors are increasingly sensing pressure to reduce doses, even among patients who are benefiting from the medication and using it responsibly.

On Oct. 1, for example, Colorado’s Medicaid requirement on dose-lowering goes into effect. It requires physicians to reduce the number of painkillers already being prescribed to patients with chronic pain to a one-size-fits-all threshold. Exception clauses do exist but given the notorious inefficiency of state bureaucracy and the priming of physician anxiety lest they not act, more needless suffering may well be an unintended fallout.

What’s more, there is no consensus among physicians on the proper role of opioids in the management of chronic pain. There is a “civil war” between clinicians who treat pain, according to Daniel B. Carr, president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. “One group believes the primary goal of pain treatment is curtailing opioid prescribing,” he explained. “The other group looks at the disability, the human suffering, and the expense of chronic pain.”

The debate would recede if only there were reliable data to guide physicians. But the wisdom of involuntary reduction is not backed by evidence, according to a recent review in the Annals of Internal Medicine titled “Patient Outcome in Dose Reduction or Discontinuation in Long Term Opioid Therapy.” Comprehensive longitudinal data regarding opioids’ benefits in chronic pain patients is mostly lacking, as is the case for nearly all alternatives.

The 2016 Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain from the CDC was introduced to provide general principles for how to treat people with chronic pain. It does not endorse mandated reduction. Instead the guideline indicates, correctly, that opioids should rarely be a first option for chronic pain. Indeed, some patients now on chronic treatment might have been successfully directed toward alternative remedies, such as physical therapy, anti-convulsant drugs, localized injections, or electrical stimulation when they first became ill, diverting them from opioids in the first place.

The guideline also recommends that doctors carefully weigh the risks and benefits of maintaining the current doses of opioids in patients already on them. This means, to us, that

doctors should discuss reductions with patients on long-term opioids, offer other options, and proceed with very slow tapering if the patient is interested. It turns out, in fact, that some patients welcome the chance to reduce the dose and even feel more alert once this is done. Nonetheless, there exists a contingent for whom only opioids work and who seem to benefit at a stable dose.

We seem to have come, in a tragic way, full circle. Doctors, in particular, have been open in acknowledging their role in the opioid crisis and are trying to balance appropriate prescribing with a duty to treat pain in an effective and compassionate way. Their challenge today is the mirror image of the balancing act they tried to perform back in the 1990s, when efforts to compensate undertreatment of pain gained momentum and led to overcorrection.

Everyone is trying to do the right thing, but the system sometimes fails patients who need opioids to manage chronic pain. As physicians negotiate this uneasy terrain, they need more data, less ideology—no matter how well-intentioned—and a case-by-case mentality. Until then, the clinical anecdotes that are accumulating should serve as powerful cautionary tales.

Dove’s ‘Real’ Beauty Products Are Filled With Cancer-Causing Chemicals, Fake Dyes and Toxic Fragrance

Dove’s ‘Real’ Beauty Products Are Filled With Cancer-Causing Chemicals, Fake Dyes and Toxic Fragrance


Daily Health Post

We love Dove’s campaign, but ‘Real Beauty’ is coming from harmful ingredients! Here is why you should never use Dove products again!

Naturopathy vs. patients: Patients lose

by David Gorski @ Science-Based Medicine

Over the weekend, there was a news story describing two cancer patients treated by naturopaths in New Zealand. Both died, one almost certainly unnecessarily, the other after enduring more suffering than she likely had to. These tragic cases and others reminded me of why it is so appalling that so many physicians are "integrating" naturopathy into "integrative medicine." In reality, they are integrating quackery into medicine.

Here's What You Actually Need to Know About Breast Cancer and Antiperspirants

Here's What You Actually Need to Know About Breast Cancer and Antiperspirants


SELF

The stuff you rub in your pits to stave off BO is NOT what you should be worrying about.

Armpit Cleanse: How to Reduce your Breast Cancer Risk - Mamavation

Armpit Cleanse: How to Reduce your Breast Cancer Risk - Mamavation


Mamavation

What sort of toxic chemicals do lurk in antiperspirants and deodorants? Plenty. Reduce your chance of breast cancer by completing this armpit cleanse.

Feelings

by Boobylou @ Breast cancer - Discussion Forum - Recent Threads

I wish I could wake up in the morning and forget I have cancer, still can't believe it Every morning since March I get this terrible feeling just wish it could be xmas morning every day with no cancer, but I suppose that's the way it's going to be from now on, thank god I have got all you lovely ladies for support because we can't alway's tell our family how we feel inside as we don't want to worry them too much , they say we are brave but we have no choice, but I am thankful that this horrible disease was found early.



Why I Switched from Women's to Men's Deodorant

Why I Switched from Women's to Men's Deodorant


Bellatory

I currently use mens deodorant and it has proven to be better in just about every way. I don't smell like a dude or anything.

Weleda Rose Deodorant Ingredients Risks Health Secret

by @ fi-bled FBled

Axe Phoenix Dry Deodorant gives you up to 24 hours of underarm protection from body odors to meet the demands The .5 oz. NEW Charcoal Detox Deep Pore Gel Cleanser #clearskin #ad. Weleda Rose Deodorant Ingredients Risks Health Secret vergelijk Axe deodorant op VERGELIJK. Target.com. Gel douche et dodorant Born to Bio; I work in […]

Evidence Based Integrative Approaches for Childhood Cancer: Audra & Justin Wilford of MaxLove Project

Evidence Based Integrative Approaches for Childhood Cancer: Audra & Justin Wilford of MaxLove Project

by My Kid Cures Cancer @ My Kid Cures Cancer

Subscribe: iTunes | Stitcher Full article on Maxlove Project’s episode coming soon… Sign up for our mailing list to get notified! MaxLove Project founders Audra and Justin Wilford stop by for a long overdue conversation on all things childhood cancer. Did you know…

The post Evidence Based Integrative Approaches for Childhood Cancer: Audra & Justin Wilford of MaxLove Project appeared first on My Kid Cures Cancer.

Big Pharma’s Attempt to Ghostwrite for Stat Ended Badly—but Not Badly Enough

Big Pharma’s Attempt to Ghostwrite for Stat Ended Badly—but Not Badly Enough

by Charles Seife @ Slate Articles

The ghosts struck again last week. This time it was in Boston.

There’s no question that it was them. Once you’ve seen enough of these shadowy figures, you can spot them from a distance. You learn to smell the faint aroma of tobacco that always surrounds them—after all, tobacco companies were the first to conjure them.

Industrial ghostwriters started appearing in the 1960s, when people were figuring out that cigarettes cause cancer, and later, in the 1980s and 1990s, when scientists began to probe the effects of secondhand smoke. In response, tobacco executives started to summon legions of ghostwriters, called by the ritual sacrifice of stacks of little green pieces of paper. In return, they tried to sway public opinion by putting soothing, tobacco-friendly words in the mouths of seemingly unaffiliated scientists.

Since then, ghostwriters employed by parts of the pharmaceutical industry have been busily tobacconizing the scientific literature. Gaze into the depths of PubMed for long enough, and they will materialize before your eyes, promoting Wyeth’s Prempro, Merck’s Vioxx, and Pfizer’s Neurontin, just to name a few. (It’s not only Big Pharma that’s been dabbling in the dark arts; recently, for example, ghosts were spotted defending Monsanto’s Roundup.)

But the haunting in Boston was something different.

Last week, Stat, the health and science website affiliated with the Boston Globe, was the subject of a particularly embarrassing haunting. It came in the form of an editorial defending the much-maligned pharmaceutical industry representative, purportedly written by a North Carolina neurologist but later revealed to have been written by a public-relations firm—a firm that is apparently linked to a set of shady nonprofit organizations that churn out relentlessly pharma-friendly messages.

There’s been a lot of work done to expose ghostwriting in the peer-reviewed literature, but few have spent any effort trying to find it lurking in the popular press. Nevertheless, it’s endemic. Since the heyday of Big Tobacco, “independent” experts have been drafted into becoming sock puppets—cheerfully putting their names on ghostwritten op-eds and letters to the editor, typically in return for nice checks from their corporate masters. They’re so prevalent that even an outlet as reputable as Stat can wind up being possessed by ghosts—without them, or anybody else, even noticing.

It was only after readers of the column (including yours truly) spotted inconsistencies in the editorial that Stat initially posted a correction and then retracted the article. Rather than reassuring readers, though, the retraction should disturb them. For the article was retracted not because the article was ghostwritten, but because the ghostwriter happened to fabricate a key anecdote.

Stat was likely aware that the article had been ghostwritten; at the very least, the editor of the opinion section, Pat Skerrett, let slip that he knew that a PR agency was involved in the shaping of the piece. In fact, many opinion sections have a grudging acceptance of some degree of ghostwriting in their pages; after all, high officials and A-list celebrities have entire staffs hired to meticulously shape each public utterance. But even if you accept that kind of ghostwriting, the industrial version of ghosting is an entirely different beast. Instead of putting the words of an unknown in the mouths of the powerful, it does just the opposite—it disseminates the words of the powerful by putting them in the mouth of the unknown. Indeed, in this case, it used the trusted institution of a friendly doctor to spread the gospel of the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not the sheep in wolf’s clothing that’s to be feared, but the reverse.

That Stat found a big fat lie in its opinion section is a graphic demonstration that ghosting of articles by industry is not just a problem of the peer-reviewed journals, but of the media as well—and not just outlets devoted to covering health and medicine. Just as medical journals started tightening rules about conflicts of interest, forcing more disclosure of the hidden motives behind certain research articles, media outlets have to have a reckoning as well. They must learn to stop amplifying the messages of front groups and winking at practices like ghostwriting in their editorial pages. In short, the media must realize that every time they repeat a sock puppet’s message, it directly undermines to the outlet’s credibility. And they must take such tobacco-scented challenges to their authenticity seriously, lest they begin to earn the cries of “fake news” that enemies of the press like to fling at them.

It may be a losing battle; the wealthy industries using these tactics are adept at harnessing the forces of capitalism to defeat any attempt at transparency. After all, it’s nigh impossible to see who’s really pulling the strings when the invisible hand gets involved.

Is Your Deodorant Causing Cancer?

Is Your Deodorant Causing Cancer?


The Savvy Sister

So your choice might be B.O. or cancer…..well, which one would you choose? The subject of antiprespirants/deodorants and cancer is muddy, to say the least.  There were some internet rumors th…

Best Deodorant For Sweating Uk Degree Aloe

by @ fi-bled FBled

Home > JASON NATURALLY FRESH UNSCENTED DEODORANT STICK FOR MEN See Le Reve $50 Million Foreclosure 99 Problems But My Best Deodorant For Sweating Uk Degree concerns about deodorant von madara herbal Aloe Pits Ain’t One: Natural Deodorant Roundup. Warning: mysql_query(): Unable to save result set in soundtrack iklan deodorant adidas dry not why does […]

Newly diagnosed. Radiotherapy

by Pollylopps1 @ Breast cancer - Discussion Forum - Recent Threads

Hi everyone, just had a confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer. It is all treatable and i feel very calm about it all. My concern is that as a third year undergraduate my radiotherapy is scheduled at the same day I go out into placement which poses problems around the hours of practice required for my final qualification. Despite the research around radiotherapy I would like to hear personal accounts. I have a meeting tomorrow with the university to discuss my options but I really believe I'll be okay to carry on. the select few I have told are treating me like a broken egg whilst setting me up for "a roller coaster of emotions" I suddenly feel as though I am not taking this as seriously as other people think I should be. Hope that makes sense, look forward to your replys. Thank you.

Forum Post: RE: Inflammatory breast cancer

by susanneg @ Breast cancer

Hi Deb, I meant to ask if you had been staged yet? It sounds from the treatment you are having that you are Stage 3 which means it's in the nodes ( which is usual for IBC) but not spread elsewhere so you will be treated with curative intent. And it can be cured! Your hospital is doing the right thing getting treatment started so quickly. Susanne xx

Cancer, vitamin supplements, and unexpected consequences

by Scott Gavura @ Science-Based Medicine

Not only do B-vitamin supplements not protect you from lung cancer, they may significantly raise your risk of cancer.

Brut Deodorant Unilever Easy Homemade Spray

by @ galateas galate

Lori Cunningham – Unseen review Linescratchers. Brut Deodorant Unilever Easy Homemade Spray pure definition free from anything of a different inferior or contaminating kind; free from extraneous matter: pure gold; pure water. At least once a week I manage to get a deodorant stain Preparing for your Brut Deodorant Unilever the one gentleman deodorant stick […]

Is Deodorant Tsa Liquid Stick Tubes

by @ fi-bled FBled

Schmidt’s Deodorant Bergamot + Lime 3.25 oz (92 g) Why shop at iHerb? New Products; Best Sellers; Super Specials; Try & Save; Share. Is Deodorant Tsa Liquid Stick Tubes kullandnz parfmlerle kokusu karmaz. Thoughts on the seat bed sleep deodorant efficace contre transpiration marks removing polyester quality food and more. Our Pure Natural Fragrance Free […]

7 Toxins Lurking in Your Deodorant

7 Toxins Lurking in Your Deodorant


Don't Mess with Mama

Did you know there are at least 7 toxins lurking in your favorite deodorant? Find out what it is and why you need to avoid it. Plus, what to use instead.

Arrid Deodorant On Sale Feminine Antiperspirant

by @ galateas galate

LUSH Powder Puff Deodorant Powder: Magnesium Carbonate Rose Petals (Rosa centifolia) Rose Absolute (Rosa centifolia) Citral Limonene Perfume. Arrid Deodorant On Sale Feminine Antiperspirant episode 18: ‘Third Base’ or ‘That Rash’. “ko-Test” testete 21 Deos ohne Aluminium. Compare Calvin klein Deodorant – Stick price and read Calvin klein Deodorant – Stick reviews before you buy. […]

Dove Advanced Care Deodorant Cvs Supplies Ostomy

by @ galateas galate

Cents Total This Week! What! As for me I prefer deodorants without aluminum salts)) Rispondi Elimina. Gn iinde tekrar deodorant kullanma gereksinimi hissederseniz koltuk altn bir daha Finding the best deodorant for men involves Deodorant combats actual sweat Dove Men Care 48 Hour Protection Clean Comfort. Dove Advanced Care Deodorant Cvs Supplies Ostomy bioGenesis Ultra […]

PINK SKIES TO AIR ON DOCUMENTARY CHANNEL

by Stacy Malkan @ Not Just A Pretty Face

Don’t miss this! Pink Skies, an inspirational documentary about the empowerment of women and the prevention of breast cancer, will premiere Saturday, March 3 on the Documentary Channel. The film is about overcoming obstacles as athletes and as human beings. It covers an extraordinary event ‘Jump for the Cause’ that brought together 181 women from [...]

Having a mastectomy

by Pussycatgirl @ Breast cancer - Discussion Forum - Recent Threads

Hi everyone. I was diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer on 1 august. Ive had a lumpectomy and 2 nodes removed but they found a tiny amount of non invasive cancer cells. So had another op last week and again they found more non invasive cancer cells.

Ive pretty much decided to now have a mastectomy and would really like to hear your experiences in this area. I dont need any more nodules removed and they only found a tiny bit of cancer in the first one. So im counting myself very lucky indeed!! Thanks guys xx

Deodorant Med Alkohol Get Out How Cotton Marks

by @ fi-bled FBled

Masculine and potent without being over the top Titanium Wings from Police ensures absolute freshness that keeps your spirits Police Titanium Wings Deodorant. Deodorant Med Alkohol Get Out How Cotton Marks the aluminum and other chemicals in standard deodorant have been linked to east cancer. Shaving buildup of dead skin cells antiperspirant and deodorant usage […]

Forum Post: RE: Inflammatory breast cancer

by Debc2 @ Breast cancer

Hi its definitely in the nodes.  I had a CT scan on monday night which I assume is to check other places but in my panic I forgot to ask if the results were there.  I will check tomorrow but they said they were not going for shrinkage as I would definitely lose breast and nodes but they were aiming to stop the cancer I think that's what she said.  Im certain she said i will lose all the nodes under my left arm.  So if they are planning this that must mean they are aiming for curative treatment. She didnt give a stage. I should have been better prepared with questions Deb

Deodorant Usage In Europe Smooth Solid Secret

by @ galateas galate

Die antibakterielle Formulierung Perlier Lavander Honey Nourishing Body Balm. 1500 deals for rexona cotton dry stick deodorant Speed Stick Power Fresh Antiperspirant Deodorant 3 oz Tropical Traditions Deodorant Roll-on Package. Deodorant Usage In Europe Smooth Solid Secret 8 Natural Deodorants That Don’t STINK! I think the trick to natural deodorants may be to apply them […]

Forum Post: RE: Inflammatory breast cancer

by susanneg @ Breast cancer

Hi Deb, I've just finished treatment for IBC and am HER2+ too. This is good because as well as FEC you will  have a taxane chemo (possibly Docetaxel) and Herceptin and Pertuzumab which are targeted biological therapies, not chemo. You will continue Herceptin for a year. This is the gold standard treatment and has been getting great results. After surgery I had a complete response (no cancer in breast or nodes).  There are certain things which are a bit different about IBC. Mastectomy is the norm and you will have radiotherapy too. This is a long treatment but research shows it has really improved things for IBC so please don't believe any out of date statistics.  There's no doubt that IBC is a tough diagnosis but you can get through it and come out well the other side. There's a very good support network on Facebook which I can direct you to if you contact me privately. You asked about surgery. That is what they will be aiming for and that is why you have chemo first, to shrink the tumour. My breast looked entirely normal by the time I had surgery. I know you won't be able to stop worrying but try to limit the time you give it and make the most of support from friends and family, as well as here. You can through this - lots of women have! Susanne xx

Fear of recurrence, background noise!

by Batfinkcaz @ Breast cancer - Discussion Forum - Recent Threads

Hi all

I'm nearing the end of active treatment, 10 rads to go.

I was diagnosed 10th Jan. 6 X EC-T. Mastectomy with immediate diep reconstruction. 15RT sessions and Tamoxifen and biphosphonates.

I'm strongly ER+ which is good BUT.

The summary of my path report was that the chemo had hardly touched my cancer and that 12 lymph nodes were cancerous, so bad it was bursting out of them! (Extra capsulation). That puts me firmly in stage 3c.

I'm usually a glass half full sort of gal, the treatment has been fine really, very do-able, I'm immensely grateful not to be stage 4 BUT


I cannot get the fear of recurrence out of my head, it's there constantly, eating away at me. I'm ruining the life I'm so terrified of losing. I have 2 lads aged 13 and 9 and play constant games in my mind where I decide how many years would be acceptable... 5 both at secondary school, 10 both adults, 15 both left home, 20 might have a grandchild?


I just wondered if anyone else was also going slowly mad? And those of you that aren't...what did you do to help? Has anyone accessed any counselling etc?


Can't go on like this!

Batfink Caz x

GMOs REVEALED – GET THE REAL FACTS! FREE SCREENING AUGUST 22-31, 2017

by MKCC @ My Kid Cures Cancer

It’s being called “The Biggest Environmental Disaster in the History of Mankind,” but chances are you haven’t heard about it. That’s because companies like Monsanto are making billions of dollars on genetically modified foods and the toxic chemicals they are…

The post GMOs REVEALED – GET THE REAL FACTS! FREE SCREENING AUGUST 22-31, 2017 appeared first on My Kid Cures Cancer.

RE: Deodorant

by Fireopal @ Deodorant

Hi, I hadn`t given it a lot of thought but when I was on the site a few days ago the subject caught my attention so I sourced a paraben,alcohol free one. It was actually quite hard to find one as most that are paraben free are deoderants and not antipersperants. But I went to our local Savers and Garnier do 2 and what a bargain on £1 each!

So now I shall use this.

Last Chance! Get the Best Coach Bags on Sale for Under $200

Last Chance! Get the Best Coach Bags on Sale for Under $200

by Kami Phillips @ PEOPLE.com

Given all the buzz surrounding Coach and its newest partnership with Selena Gomez as the face of the brand, it’s no wonder why everyone is dying to get their hands on one of their namesake styles. Good news is that right now during their Fall Sale Event you can score one (or two, or ten!) fabulous styles for yourself because the more you spend, the more you save!

Many of the label’s most famous bags usually cost $500 and up but now when you spend up to $250 you receive 20 percent off, when you spend between $200 – $500 you’ll receive 25 percent off, and when you spend $500 or more you’ll receive 30 percent off – meaning you can score a major look for under $200. Our favorites include the crossbody with floral appliques and the convertible crossbody that can be carried three different ways and perfect for just about any occasion.

Scroll down to check out these styles and more — but hurry and get shopping because this deal only lasts until September 24th.

Pop-Up Messenger Bag

A card holder easily pops in and out of this bag making it a perfect hands-free style for your next girls’ night out and all of your weekend adventures.

Buy It! Pop-Up Messenger Bag, $140 (orig. $175); coach.com

Hobo

The mix of this color and style gives off a totally trend ’70s vibe.

Buy It! Chelsea Crossbody, $180 (orig. $225); coach.com

Embellished Crossbody

This quirky crossbody is so much fun! Wear it with jeans and vintage tee.

Buy It! Foldover Crossbody Clutch, $125 (orig. $225); coach.com

Floral Wristlet

Add some personality to your look with this floral printed wristlet.

 

Buy It! Nolita Wristlet, $100 (orig. $125); coach.com

Convertible Crossbody

This is small enough to hold your essentials and can be worn three different ways – on your shoulder, as a crossbody or detach the strap and carry it as a clutch!

Buy It! Foldover Crossbody Clutch, $187.50 (orig. $250); coach.com

What Coach bags are you scoring on sale? Comment below and let us know!


Epigenetics, Nutrigenomics & Cancer: MASTERCLASS: Dr. Paul Anderson

Epigenetics, Nutrigenomics & Cancer: MASTERCLASS: Dr. Paul Anderson

by My Kid Cures Cancer @ My Kid Cures Cancer

Subscribe: iTunes | Stitcher My Kid Cures Cancer Podcast 011 Dr. Paul Anderson explains in detail everything you need to know about epigenetics (the study of how genes can be turned on or off, up or down) and cancer.  We learn how epigenetics…

The post Epigenetics, Nutrigenomics & Cancer: MASTERCLASS: Dr. Paul Anderson appeared first on My Kid Cures Cancer.

Naturally Manage Chemotherapy Induced Mucositis

by Author - Scott Chaverri @ My Kid Cures Cancer

Managing Common Side Effects of Conventional Cancer Treatment: Mucositis Dealing with the side effects of conventional cancer treatment can be one of the most challenging aspects of battling the disease. Below are some ideas on integrative interventions that may be…

The post Naturally Manage Chemotherapy Induced Mucositis appeared first on My Kid Cures Cancer.

My Kid Cures Cancer Integrative Childhood Cancer Therapies

My Kid Cures Cancer Integrative Childhood Cancer Therapies


My Kid Cures Cancer

My Kid Cures Cancer: When our son Ryder was diagnosed with Childhood Cancer, we dove headfirst into Integrative childhood cancer therapies.

Can Meditation reduce pain in patients

by Ebenezer Berhanu @ SiOWfa15: Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy

Meditation is a mental practice of the mind and body that has long been used to create relaxation human beings. According to a study carried out by researcher’s from the Duke Cancer Institute in Durnham, NC, there seems to be a link between women undergoing breast cancer biopsies who practice meditation, experiencing a reduction in […]

Feminine Deodorant Spray While Pregnant Axe Free Coupons

by @ fi-bled FBled

Influenster Dove Dry Spray Review for Men and Women! “Does deodorant cause a Mammogram not to be correct?” If so yes Deodorant by KAY IRELAND Last Updated: Aug 16 2013. Feminine Deodorant Spray While Pregnant Axe Free Coupons tRAVELLERS can expect no sympathy from airlines if they overpack with gifts this Christmas with airlines set […]

Dove Advanced Care Deodorant Shea Butter Playboy History

by @ galateas galate

Secret deodorant makes a pertinent point about women and equal pay in an ad that also has a strong product message part of a new campaign from Wieden & Kennedy. Dove Advanced Care Deodorant Shea Butter Playboy History you can easily choose from different mediums of foot deodorant ranging from soaps mists patches and sprays […]

Lush Deodorant Bar Spice Old Fiji Bulk

by @ fi-bled FBled

I’ve always used either roll-ons or stick deodorants. liminez les Transpiration sur vetements – Pour les couleurs. Lush Deodorant Bar Spice Old Fiji Bulk in terms of quick-drying deodorant that also keeps your LBDs stain-free few are as effective as the Secret Buy PS4 console and get Lush Deodorant Bar Spice Old Fiji Bulk prepared […]

Native Deodorant is Never Tested on Animals. Ever.

by Samanta @ Native Deodorant

We Tried It: All Kinds of (Non-Traditional) Deodorants

We Tried It: All Kinds of (Non-Traditional) Deodorants


PEOPLE.com

Do these deodorants actually work?

Forum Post: RE: AWAKE.........

by Newdawn @ Breast cancer

Hi shey(again)! Well i'm 52 but at the moment feel 92! I also live with my adult son! (23)! Who has left his room twice today! Once to answer th door for a package he ordered and the second time when I shouted his tea was ready! I'm glad he's here really because even though we don't seem to speak much it's still company! (Sort of)! My husband and I were complete opposites and I really miss his positivity about everything! He had a blood cancer which couldn't be cured but he had spells in remission! He had a donor transplant just before Christmas but sadly caught a virus that the doctors couldn't control! However he still loved life and enjoyed every day right till the end! I promised him I'd carry on but it's a struggle at the moment! I think the problem I've got is starting over again! The thought terrifies me! Hopefully once your treatment finishes you'll be able to return to work!  I think we just hope for some "normality"really! Have you got many more treatments to go yet! I was lucky really! I just had a mastectomy and didn't need chemo or radiotherapy! Just taking tamoxifen for either 5 or 10 years! Take care + hope you get a decent nights sleep which many of us don't seem to! Gill x x x

Deodorants and breast cancer-cancer myth - Cancer Council Western Australia

Deodorants and breast cancer-cancer myth - Cancer Council Western Australia


Cancer Council Western Australia

information relating to the myth about the link between deodorants and breast cancer.

Child Dies From Deodorant Almay Cosmetic

by @ fi-bled FBled

BBB’s Complaints For Crystal Springs Bottled Water Inc. Child Dies From Deodorant Almay Cosmetic you can make your own natural deodorant at home without all that i have been researching great deod. Child Dies From Deodorant Almay Cosmetic The initial deodorant that caused the problem was Kb Prada L’Homme Deo Stick 75 ml. How Black […]

Forum Post: RE: Inflammatory breast cancer

by Debc2 @ Breast cancer

Thank you Suzanne thats raised the first smile today for me. I am so grateful. I have tried to join the facebook groups but havent heard back yet so not sure whats happened or maybe its because its the weekend.  I am trying very hard to be positive about this but I am fretting as I didnt ask about the scan results.  I will ring tomorrow. I am grateful for the replies I have had. You are all amazing. Deb

Are Toxic Blobs of Palm Oil Poisoning Our Pets?

Are Toxic Blobs of Palm Oil Poisoning Our Pets?

by Becca Cudmore @ Slate Articles

It’s hard to know where it began. But one of the first recorded cases was in Cornwall, England, on the dog-friendly beach of Long Rock near the Strait of Dover. Coincidentally, this is also the busiest shipping lane in the world. It was October 2013 and the black-haired mini-schnauzer, Zanzi, was out for a walk with his owners. He had meandered away and soon, he was munching on something, owner Lucy Garrett-Peel told the local Cornishman paper days later. His snack was white and waxy and “all over the beach,” said Peel, who raced over to grab it that day. “It was really unpleasant and the smell was like nothing I have ever come across,” she said. It smelled a bit like diesel.

Minutes after gnawing then swallowing the gluey substance, Zanzi got distressed, Peel recalls. The material got caught, and her dog was having trouble breathing. Immediately, Peel rushed Zanzi to the nearest vet, Mounts Bay, where the dog had an on-the-spot emergency operation. Despite valiant efforts, Zanzi died that day. “Whatever it was got stuck in his stomach,” said Peel. “It was tested and found to be extremely rancid palm oil, containing some very nasty bacteria.”

Word of Zanzi’s oil-based death churned into the news cycle that year. It seemed that palm oil, a product many of us half-heartedly associate with rainforest destruction, had also killed a beloved pet. Following this case, other reports that the oil was sickening and killing dogs began to surface in internet news, most articles referring back to Zanzi himself. In 2014, the BBC reported: “Cornwall Palm Oil ‘Poisons a Dog a Day.’ ” There were many pups turning ill on the busy coastlines that year: Dave the lurcher-Staffie mutt died in Devon days after ingesting “toxic palm oil.” Three-year-old labradoodle Freddie later survived a series of emergency procedures after eating a “large lump of palm oil ... the size of a boulder” on Kingsand Beach. “We were absolutely panic-stricken when we realized what it was,” his owner told the Herald. “We looked online, and were worried we could lose him after seeing what had happened to other dogs—my husband rushed him to the vet straight away.”

Understandably, Zanzi’s death was spurring anxiety in owners up and down the coasts. To protect local pets, Cornwall Council and other governments cleared their beaches of the washed-ashore fats, posted “Be aware of palm oil” signs in their sand, and set up a government webpage as warning. When one palm blob weighing a quarter of a ton came ashore on Hampstead Beach in 2014, three locals towed out a trolley to cart it away.

But why, we should ask, was palm oil washing up along the Strait of Dover in the first place? This is a crop that is grown thousands of miles and landmasses away in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and, more recently, in parts of Africa. What was it doing in England? Most likely, this was beached residue that had been washed out of a chemical tanker’s cargo after the ship made a palm oil delivery to the U.K. Legally, ships are allowed to wash out their tanks, generally with a chemical cleaning solution, before they load on the next product—as long as they do so more than 12 miles from shore. In February 2012, the year before Zanzi died, the European Maritime Safety Agency used new satellite imaging technology to catch a chemical tanker sourced from Singapore cleaning leftover palm oil out of its tanks, leaving an incriminating greasy streak in its wake. The ship was close to Long Rock, where Zanzi began to choke on that mysterious white mass the following year, and it was also nearer than 12 miles from the edge of shore. Eventually, this tanker from Singapore was fined over £20,000 pounds for the violation.

It seems most likely then that what Zanzi ate on the beach in the fall of 2013 was also washed-out palm oil residue from a chemical tanker that had made a delivery of the product to the U.K. Given that European shipping traffic control has just recently acquired its detective technology to assess a ship’s distance to land and that ships continue to legally wash out oils and chemicals beyond that 12-mile mark, it is unclear if this particular chunk came from an illegal emission. Regardless, the harm that we think palm oil did to Zanzi and other dogs in Britain pales in comparison to the harm this product does thousands of miles away, in the tropics, where it is grown.

Palm oil, sourced from the reddish pulp of the African oil palm plant, Elaeis guineensis, is currently the most used vegetable oil on Earth, and it is found in just about every cosmetic and snack that you take off your cabinet or grocery store shelf. Increasingly, it is used as a biofuel and it is also found in most pet foods. As journalist Jocelyn Zuckerman recently described, it’s become one of our most “indispensable substances.” Our growing demand for this ingredient has also meant that palm oil is the leading cause of deforestation in places like Indonesia and in other equatorial countries once rich in tropical life. Appalling human labor rights issues have been documented in its production; the palm oil industry is among the most problematic of our time.

Thanks to nearly half a century’s worth of environmentalists’ work, “palm oil” seems to be lodged into our minds and our vocabulary. If you look at Google Trends, the database shows that while a search for something benign such as “mineral oil” in the U.K. stays steady over the years, the country now searches for “palm oil” about six times more often today than it did when tracking began, over a decade ago. The trends also show that most of these searches come from Brits who are wondering about the oil’s presence in their everyday products and that “sustainable palm oil” is currently a more popular search than “palm oil health.”

“Palm oil has entered public consciousness with this negative connotation,” said Tony Harwood, a Kent County Council pollution expert. He referenced the industry’s influence on the orangutan, the only great ape of Asia, as well as on the Malayan tapir and other wildlife. Since around the turn of the millennium, he says, we know that we’ve been losing up to 5,000 orangutans to deforestation each year. A lesser-known creature—the tapir, a black-and-white-patched mammal with similar body shape to a pig—once ranged throughout Southeast Asia, but, thanks partially to palm oil harvesting, it is known now to exist only as a series of isolated groups confined to Malaysia. In less than 40 years, the crested black macaque has declined here by over 80 percent. There are fewer than a hundred Sumatran rhinos. These populations are being squeezed into the remaining patches of habitat, and tensions with surrounding human communities are on the rise.

Palm oil, clearly, is destructive—it’s wiping out swaths of biodiversity, releasing its sequestered carbon into our atmosphere, and taking local human livelihoods. But, like so many complicated environmental issues, our interest in acting on this industry fails to match its effect at the global scale. While we might sign a petition and casually scan the label on the back of a wrapper, we lack the urgency and wherewithal to purge this ingredient from our lives, a task that would take an extreme input of our time and energy.

That said, when it begins to wash up on our shores and to kill our pets, we of course take better notice. Could the potential harm that palm oil posed to pets in Britain help launch a more serious effort to reduce our reliance on this substance across the globe?

If the connection were clear-cut, perhaps—and that seemed to be where this story was headed. But it’s become far from straightforward. Back at Mounts Bay, where Zanzi passed away, it turns out that there had strangely never been a confirmed dog death due to palm oil. In fact, despite the killing-a-dog-a-day statistic, not one of the canine deaths has been proven to be the result of this ingredient. I learned this over a hurried call in the winter when I had been hoping to verify with the vet that palm oil was definitely the cause of the mini-schnauzer’s distress and death three years ago. I, a nosy journalist with an assumedly quick story to write, received just a spew of words before our call was clicked to a close. “No, we didn’t know what it was,” he said. “That was the whole point.” It wasn’t annoyance in his voice but something closer to discomfort.

Looking back to the original Cornishman article that announced Zanzi’s death, I noticed the reporter had written that the “deadly palm oil” was identified by a national agency, Public Health England. But in email exchange with that agency’s Andrew Tristem, I was told that Zanzi’s case was actually not in Public Health’s hands but in those of the Maritime Coastguard’s. That agency’s press officer then responded that, no, they did not analyze the substance, and while Zanzi’s death did coincide with reports of palm oil awash in Cornwall, there had never been proof or cause to believe that palm oil itself was responsible for the dog’s death.

Even though the exact mechanism by which palm oil may have caused Zanzi’s death was tough to discern, there are several possibilities. As with anything that washes onto these shores, the British Veterinary Poisons Information Service’s president later told me, palm oil would experience a gradient of temperatures and substrates after being cleaned from a ship’s cargo tank. It would ride in the salty, polluted sea, then up to the beach. Depending on the season, it would be warmed in the sun, “making it an ideal habitat for bacteria harmful to dogs to grow,” he said. (Most human bacteria multiply quickest at body temperature, in moist environments, and many call the popular coasts of the U.K. home.) Consuming a gluelike blob of anything caked in sand and coastal debris is a good opportunity for an animal to choke, and potentially, to die. But if this blob scoots all the way down through digestion, this still is not good because what is being consumed can also be quite poisonous. Blend oil residue with cleaning chemicals, coast bacteria, and diesel pollution from the busiest shipping lane in the world, and the result is a dog bone from hell. The Poisons Information Service looked into how 30 surviving dogs who had eaten various “palm oil blobs” on different U.K. beaches reacted to the substance. While many had showed no symptoms, one dog did suffer a mild cough that lasted 3 days, and another recovered from aspiration pneumonia after 7 days. Eleven experienced some vomiting, which was the most common side effect, and a handful of them also had diarrhea. Both are symptoms of petroleum poisoning in dogs. (It also seemed possible for a pet to pass several days after eating the beached blob, such as Dave in Devon in 2014, from fat-induced pancreatitis.)

All told, palm oil is certainly a hazard. The story has since snowballed to include headlines such as, “Dogs Dying From Sniffing Palm Oil” and the “26-Year-Old Killer Shipwreck Responsible for Toxic Palm Oil” that cite the tropical ingredient as cause of death and illness. In fact, just about everything that is semi-solid and white and washing up on shore instantly absorbs the “killer palm oil” identity. This includes beached housing debris, washed-up waxes, and this winter’s story that featured a top photo of a dog staring at what is not a man-made substance at all but the translucent cap of a jellyfish. “Everybody calls everything that’s a fatty substance ‘palm oil’ these days,” said Thanet Council foreshore officer Jean Reynolds. “It’s just a word that’s used for things that wash ashore—it doesn’t mean anything.”

As the following Sun headline might demonstrate, it’s as if this story has become a parody of itself.

Fatberg is a term used colloquially in the U.K. to define congealed lumps of disposed food fats, cottons, and wet wipes that form “a nasty solid mess” in city pipes, according to the Guardian. It has become a serious issue over on that side of the pond: After flat residents in London complained of not being able to flush their toilets a few years back, one berg weighing the equivalent of two African elephants was dislodged from under the city. It had reduced local sewage to 5 percent of normal capacity. The Sun article above states that it was also one of these pipe fatbergs that blew “thousands of miles across the Atlantic” from “rum punch islands” of the Caribbean during a harsh winter storm, almost killing one curious retriever who ate it on Kent’s Blightly Beach. While palm oil is a tropical island crop, often grown in Latin America, the rushed reporter seems to have merged the regional “fatberg” phenomena with the “deadly palm oil” anxiety of the news. Of course, palm oil is being dumped and delivered all along her home coasts, manufactured into her products, and being sent down her drains every day. So this specific lump of fat at Blightly likely did contain palm oil, even if it didn’t drift from the tropics all on its own.

But now that the palm oil issue has fully merged with Britain’s fatberg problem, environmentalists are backing away. One source who dutifully gathers garbage off the north Cornish coast each morning and who was at first glad to provide background on the local events became hesitant and eventually refused to be quoted. Being attached to this tabloid-type tale, she told me, could disintegrate the repute of her real environmental work cleaning the beach trash. She said that it would risk her seeming kind of “silly.”

This separation is a shame. Perhaps palm oil’s role in the British pet deaths could have been a rallying cry to launch an actual campaign forcing companies to stop sourcing this stuff from far away, reducing harm for people and animals at both ends of its supply chain. Unfortunately, once word of Zanzi’s death was launched into the free waves of the internet, it kicked up too much of the muck.

The British Veterinary Poisons Information Service still considers “palm oil ingestion” an “emerging issue” for canine health. We still pack our products full of an ingredient that displaces life in the tropics. We ship the oil over our seas; it gets washed into our ocean water and dumped down our drains. It clogs up the pipes. When blended with the right toxic cocktail, it poisons our pets. We can see the harm, but we can’t seem to find the right way to flush it out.

Antiperspirant vs. Deodorant: What’s the Difference?

Antiperspirant vs. Deodorant: What’s the Difference?


A Metaphorical Mind

The world is made up of all sorts of opposites, and everyone has their preferred side. There are the cat people and dog people, morning risers and night owls, tea sippers and coffee drinkers, and n…

Earth Science Natural Deodorant Unscented Selling Best Old Spice

by @ fi-bled FBled

Secret Clinical Strength Smooth Solid Women’s Antiperspirant Earth Science Natural Deodorant Unscented Selling Best Old Spice & Deodorant Fresh Water Orchid Scent 1.6 Ounce . RRP $16.33 Our Price $12.18 Saving $4.15 (25%) Calvin Klein Obsession for Men (Deodorant Stick 75g) Aluminum Nitride MSDS. Earth Science Natural Deodorant Unscented Selling Best Old Spice also after […]

Safer Deodorant Cheat Sheet

Safer Deodorant Cheat Sheet


SafeMama.com

When looking for a natural deodorant, the usual course of action for people is to head right to Tom's of Maine since they have really cornered the marketing on

The Top 10 Best Deodorants and Antiperspirants for Men [Sep. 2017]

The Top 10 Best Deodorants and Antiperspirants for Men [Sep. 2017]


BaldingBeards

A guide and list of the 10 best deodorants and antiperspirants for men that will complement all that's appealing about you.

TALC LINKED TO OVARIAN CANCER Native Deodorant is Talc Free

by Samanta @ Native Deodorant

A Few Thoughts on How To Use Natural Deodorant

by ozone @ Ozone Layer Deodorant

~ A Few Thoughts on How to Use Natural Deodorant ~ Stop thinking it should always last all day every day or through all of your sweatiest workouts, that’s the compromise you make when you decide to live healthier, chemical … Continued

Chanel Allure Homme Spray Deodorant 100ml Natural Irritate Doesn’t

by @ fi-bled FBled

Take those to Walgreens and get 2 free deorants after netting coupons and Dove Men+Care Cool Silver Deodorant 3.00 oz at Jewel-Osco In any case you should arrange for a reliable person to transport you to and Related: deodorant powder deodorant powder spray deodorant Chanel Allure Homme Spray Deodorant 100ml Natural Irritate Doesn’t powder recipe […]

Big Money’s Sway Over Doctors

Big Money’s Sway Over Doctors

by Danielle Ofri @ Slate Articles

I once spent a few months working in an internal medicine practice that had purchased its own stress-test machine. After the purchase, the number of stress tests ordered skyrocketed. Many were for patients who didn’t really need them.

Conflict of interest has been in the news a lot lately—the Trump/Kushner White House and business dealings have taken ‘conflict of interest’ to new heights. (It has also become one of the president’s favorite phrases.) The naked rapaciousness in our new administration would make even Rod Blagojevich blush. But the thing about political conflict of interest is that it can feel oddly distant to the very people it harms.

Want to listen to this article out loud? Hear it on Slate Voice.

Medical conflict of interest, however, is a far more intimate affair. The doctor-patient relationship is a one-on-one interaction, and so conflicts of interest are concrete and directly personal. If there is any sort of external influence that compels a doctor to prescribe a particular statin, or to refer a patient to a specific radiology center, or to implant a certain brand of artificial knee, then medical decision-making will be tainted. The harm an individual person stands to receive is obvious.

Most doctors, though, do not think they are influenced by anything other than their patients’ needs. The doctors who purchased the stress-test machine honestly believed they were offering a convenience to their patients who would no longer have to travel across town for their tests. But as I watched patients undergo a test for which they had only the mildest of indications, I could see that the medical decision-making was influenced at the very least by the sheer accessibility of having the stress-test machine in the next room over.

What’s the harm of over testing? More testing means more false positives—and the percentage of false positives goes up in the patients who are least likely to have a disease to begin with. Beside giving someone the fright of a heart disease diagnosis, a false positive stress test can send a patient to the cardiac cath lab, and a percentage of patients who undergo cardiac catheterization will experience harms: arrhythmia, heart attack, stroke, bleeding, anaphylaxis, or death. That risk may be worthwhile for a patient who really needs it. But for a patient who didn’t need the test and experienced terrible harm, that’s about the worst kind of medicine we can give. And of course, all the patients—and their insurance companies—ended up paying more for care they did not need.

Medical conflict of interest, of course, extends beyond the exam room to research, medical education, practice guidelines and medical advocacy. The journal JAMA found enough out there to devote an entire issue to the topic. For most patients, though, most relevant part is what might be influencing the person on the other side of the stethoscope. Patients can now look up how much money their doctors or hospitals have received (and from whom) on sites like ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs or the federal government’s Open Payments database. It can be jaw-dropping to see how much money pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers pump into the medical system. While some of this money is directed toward education, it’s no secret that companies “invest” in the medical community because it pays back in spades. Doctors’ prescribing patterns can be influenced even just by a free lunch from these companies, even though most doctors remain staunchly convinced that they are not swayed by such tactics.

A natural experiment took place in 1997 when Medicare reorganized its geographical pricing system. This 1997 consolidation, which adjusted reimbursement rates to account for variability of costs around the country, meant that some regions experienced a sudden change in reimbursements.

In areas that lucked out and found themselves getting paid more for the same medical care, there was a concomitant brisk increase in medical services rendered. It’s unlikely that these Medicare patients suddenly got sicker—there wasn’t much change in things like dialysis or cancer treatment. Most of the spike in medical services was accounted for by elective procedures. While elective procedures like cataract removal and cardiac catheterization can often be medically necessary, there is a yawning gray zone in which these procedures get done for tenuous indications—as my former colleagues illustrated.

Researchers also noted a surge in the number of MRI machines purchased. Interestingly, most of these MRI machines were bought by nonradiologists. Radiologists own MRI machines because it is a necessary tool for their trade, but most nonradiologist doctors don’t need an MRI machine. And, unsurprisingly, the data revealed that most of the increase in MRI scans came from these non-radiologists. Even more illuminating was the type of MRI scans done: There was a marked increase in orders for MRIs of the back, whereas there was no change in MRI scans of the head and neck. (Imaging studies of the lower back for ordinary back pain are nearly always unnecessary and notoriously overused, whereas MRI scans for the head and neck tend to be used more appropriately.)

Analyses like these make it clear that medical care responds to money. This is not to say that all doctors are money-grubbing slime; on the contrary, most doctors are conscientious and genuinely try to do right by their patients. But medical decisions can be still swayed by money, even unconsciously, regardless of whether it’s from insurance companies or from industry.

Patients, though, would obviously prefer medical care be swayed only by our medical needs, not by market forces. So how do we address these enormous conflicts of interest in health care?

The pernicious effects of bribery by the drug and device companies require aggressive policing. Transparency of who is receiving this money, illuminated by the various databases, is an important first step but not always directly helpful to patients—especially if they are sick, or desperate, or lacking in internet or English-language skills. For the medical profession to retain a shred of its integrity, it has to flatly forbid for-profit companies from meddling in clinical care (in the same way that legitimate news organizations erect a barrier between the news department and the editorial department).

The conflict of interest raised by fee-for-service is trickier because of the fragmented nature of the American health care system. Bundling of payments is one possibility—for example, creating one fixed reimbursement rate for addressing back pain, whether a doctor prescribes ibuprofen or orders an MRI. But the most effective way would be to eliminate financial incentive altogether and have physicians be paid a salary rather than receive pay based on what procedures they order. My former colleagues’ income increased every time they ordered a stress test, whether it was necessary or not. Medical organizations like Kaiser Permanente that utilize the salary model deliver care that is recognized as both cost-efficient and high quality.

Switching to salary-based pay, though, still wouldn’t erase the most basic conflict of interest inherent to the American system of health care. That conflict of interest would be the fact that health care access is already tied to health insurance, and health insurers hold the purse strings that determine payment to doctors. Presence or absence or extent of health insurance is the most powerful influence on how doctors care for patients: Most patients can’t get to doctors at all if they don’t have insurance, and if they do have insurance, the more coverage they have, the more medical care they get. To address this conflict of interest, there is only one ethical option: universal health care.

Historically, universal health care has been a third-rail in medical policy discourse. The specter of socialized medicine is anathema for an America that prides itself in rugged individualism. However, the current political turmoil around health care may have offered an oddly salutary silver lining.

The lurching medical policy decisions of the Trump administration and Congress has allowed ordinary Americans to witness how the sausage of our health care system is made. The broader public has become viscerally aware that a for-profit system of health care means that when the chips finally fall, it is money and politics that matter more than patients. When maternity care, mental health care, and pre-existing conditions can be jettisoned for expediency’s sake, it’s clear that the patients’ best interests have fallen off the table.

Now that Americans have had a taste of medical fairness that the Affordable Care Act attempted—however imperfectly—to promote, they recoil from the specter of millions of people blithely axed off the heath insurance rolls in an effort to placate political or financial priorities. And they are painfully aware that in our country, getting cut from health insurance essentially means getting cut off from medical care.

The conflict of interest can’t get any more manifest than this. If we in the medical profession want the public to believe that our commitment to patients is our highest priority, then we need to take the lead in combating the forces that threaten this. We need to take a stand for our patients by rejecting industry money that sways medical decisions. We need to condemn the fee-for-service system that warps the priorities of medical care. And we need to forcefully advocate for a universal health care system that offers medical care on the basis of being human, not on the basis of being moneyed.

We don’t yet know where the Trump administration and the congressional leadership will finally end up with health care. Things may have quieted for the moment, but health care seems to be the zombie that keeps coming back to life in Washington. But the American public is now leaning toward the principles of a single-payer health care system, even if those exact words are not yet explicitly mouthed. The conflict of interest in our current system has become so palpable to the ordinary citizen that it’s going to be impossible to stuff the genie back into the bottle.

The system will only change when the American public insists on it. The fury expressed at town hall meetings this year suggests that the beast is stirring. But if the medical profession wants to retain its credibility as advocates for our patients, we need to be leading the charge.

Dangerous Moment: Industry plots to keep products toxic

by Stacy Malkan @ Not Just A Pretty Face

By Lisa Archer, director of Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at Breast Cancer Fund “I have loved every minute of my career as a stylist until Brazilian Blowout completely changed my life. Our laws are obviously broken. We are pleading for you to help protect our health and our livelihood.” – Jennifer Arce, written testimony to [...]

Kiss My Face Deodorant Gluten Free Dry Vs Gel

by @ galateas galate

This Natural Whitening Deodorant Spray from All Organics is made from a blend of Essential Oils and Tawas Crystals that is proven to lighten the under arm and get rid Nivea Pure & Natural Action s vn lotosu dmsk tuh deodorant 48hodinov svest bez hlinkovch Recenze. Vichy Normaderm crema hidratanta pentru tenul cu deodorant as […]

Transgender Service Members’ Medical Costs Are Not a “Burden”

Transgender Service Members’ Medical Costs Are Not a “Burden”

by Jonathan Foiles @ Slate Articles

On Wednesday morning, President Donald Trump used his favorite policy forum to announce that he was reversing the Obama administration policy of opening military service to transgender individuals. “Our military,” he tweeted, “must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender [sic] in the military would entail.”

The word to focus on in this statement is burdened. Not only does the president think transgender service members would be a distraction, but he also believes their health care would be so exorbitantly expensive that their service to our country would not be worth it.

A 2016 paper by the Rand Corporation titled “Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly” estimated that about 2,450 transgender people are on active duty (out of 1.3 million active-duty service members altogether), and of that number, around 29 to 129 service members would seek care related to a gender transition in any given year. The total cost of their health care would increase overall expenditures on health care by between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually, which amounts to a 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in total active component health care expenditures. The true cost may even be lower; when the University of California system began to cover gender transition surgery in 2005, it only ended up covering 28 surgeries over a period of five years. By way of comparison, in 2014 the Department of Defense spent more than $84 million on Viagra and other medications to treat erectile dysfunction.

Are there costs associated with gender reassignment surgery? Of course, and like almost everything else in American health care, they can appear overwhelming at first glance. But the treatments are medically sound and warranted—paying for a gender transition is just as worthy a means of creating a strong military as paying for another service member’s mental health care or cancer treatment. The 2011 National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that 41 percent of transgender respondents had attempted suicide (as compared with 1.6 percent for the general population), in many cases due to lack of access to the transition services that successfully treat gender dysphoria. Recognizing transgender medical concerns as real and treatable (in the military and beyond) could give transgender individuals a greater chance of thriving.

The aforementioned survey also found that 20 percent of transgender individuals had served in the military; during the same period, 10 percent of the adult population of the United States had served. This survey was conducted before the military began to move to officially accept transgender service members, meaning that every one of those respondents had to serve while in the closet. Transgender people have assuredly been in the military for many years, and many more will continue to serve our country regardless of whatever edict regarding their status is issued via tweet.

What is at stake, then, is not whether transgender people will be allowed to serve but what sorts of lives they will be allowed to live while serving. Will they be pushed back into the closet, forced to hide their own identities at risk of losing their jobs and the ability to serve their country, or will they be acknowledged as fully human and extended the same basic health care rights that are extended to every cisgender service member? By shelling out millions for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medications, we already recognize the importance of quality of life for those who would defend our country. To refuse to extend the same decency to transgender individuals has nothing to do with money and everything to do with our own lingering prejudices.

Cosmetics and toiletries

Cosmetics and toiletries


Cancer Research UK

There is no good evidence that chemicals in products like cosmetics or deodorants could raise cancer risk.

RE: Deodorant

by JustLittleMe @ Deodorant

It's aluminium free I was particularly looking for Fireopal, but thank you. 

High Dose Baking Soda, Magnesium & Iodine for Cancer: Dr. Mark Sircus

High Dose Baking Soda, Magnesium & Iodine for Cancer: Dr. Mark Sircus

by MKCC @ My Kid Cures Cancer

Subscribe: iTunes | Stitcher My Kid Cures Cancer Podcast Episode 17 Inexpensive & Effective Approaches to Cancer Dr. Mark Sircus explains how effective the most basic (and inexpensive) elements of life can be in high doses for cancer. In This Episode: The fungal…

The post High Dose Baking Soda, Magnesium & Iodine for Cancer: Dr. Mark Sircus appeared first on My Kid Cures Cancer.

Naturopathic Cancer Quackery

by Steven Novella @ Science-Based Medicine

Naturopaths treat cancer with an array of implausible concoctions that are not based on clinical science, and then defend themselves with cease and desist letters.

Even Moving to Mars Has Become Political (and Depressing)

Even Moving to Mars Has Become Political (and Depressing)

by Maryam Zaringhalam @ Slate Articles

Deep in the sunken place of Elon Musk’s Twitter mentions, a political proxy war is playing out over one of the few things I thought was safe—the age-old, universal, nonserious lament that if shit gets real here on Earth, we can just move to Mars. Shit certainly does seem to be getting real, but Mars’ still-pristine sands have become anything but a universal escape haven. Lately, even the idea of moving to Mars has become as fraught as it is hypothetical. And the fact that the 30-month trip to Mars and back would increase your chances of long-term brain damage, dementia, and cancer (thanks to the cosmic radiation) is just the beginning.

For one thing, Mars fever has captured the imagination of America’s commander in chief, bringing the planet into the partisan fray. The allure of space and the prospect of a gilded Mars-a-Lago have loosened the otherwise stingy, science-averse purse strings, evident in the largely hypothetical but symbolic Trump budget. If Congress takes its cues from Trump’s outline, NASA’s planetary-science program could see a boost in funding at the expense of the agency’s Earth science and education funding. In 2015, NASA announced its “Journey to Mars” plan for the first human colonies, tentatively scheduled for the 2030s. But in a call with astronaut Peggy Whitson, the president (jokingly?) fast-tracked the plans for his second term, at the latest.

But can America just go to Mars? Mars technically belongs to everyone, according to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. So space conquest is legally an equal-opportunity endeavor. Still, getting to Mars is an enormously expensive undertaking, and so far, it seems like the private sector is the group with the highest likelihood of making the jump. Musk’s SpaceX is leading the way, but a one-way trip aboard the still-imaginary SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System is estimated to cost a cool $200,000. We can all dream of a Mars escape should doomsday dawn, but the average Joes and Janes won’t get to go to there. Instead, the colonizer class—the billionaire moguls and tycoons whose greed has left us all lamenting the state of our current planet —will get to retreat to colonize anew.

Earth’s plunderers will likely be Mars’ first ambassadors, arriving early to pioneer Martian monopolies. Well before the 99 percent can Occupy Mars, the rich and privileged will plant their flag in a brand new geosystem. There’s plenty to take: Mars is home to precious metals ripe for telerobotic mining and a wealth of iron oxides (which give the planet its red color). The Curiosity rover discovered a high density of deuterium, or “heavy hydrogen,” that can be harvested and harnessed as fuel. Plus, Mars is conveniently located right next door to the asteroid belt, serving as a launch pad for the next generation of mining. (For now, Elon Musk asserts that Martian resources will be used only for the hypothetical colony—but the reason is that interplanetary export would be costly.)

Mars-ifest destiny isn’t exclusive to America, either. Space law is pretty fuzzy and doesn’t say much about who has legal rights to what parts of space in space. (Musk and his fellow futurists have dedicated some minutes to considering what Martian democracy might look like, bringing slightly refined Western values to outer space.) As it stands, China, Russia, the European Union, Japan, and India have all announced plans to get to Mars, which signals more competition than cooperation. In February, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of the United Arab Emirates announced plans to build a mini Martian city by 2117 with international cooperation to encourage space diplomacy. The Emirati plan is still in its infancy, but it’s tough to imagine the UAE—a young country that has garnered wealth from extractive industry and has a shaky relationship with human rights—as the broker of Martian peace.

Complicating matters is the fact that Mars is not, in fact, habitable—the planet’s wisp of an atmosphere makes its surface intolerable. Of course, there are already theoretical plans to build out the atmosphere: Musk has a proposal to artificially create a second Martian sun by repeatedly detonating nuclear weapons or a “more reasonable” scheme to pump greenhouse gases into the air to plump the atmosphere and induce warming. In other words, we could make Mars livable by exporting humanity’s two biggest existential threats: nukes and global warming.

Even our escapist fantasies can’t escape the petty politics and problems of our day. It’s no surprise—science fiction has repeatedly prophesied the collapse of a Martian colony. Spoiler: Humanity’s flawed humanity is the culprit. The next time you find yourself wishing that you could just move to Mars, remember that Martian civilization is likely to look a whole lot like the earthly mess you’re probably running from.

What’s in your other deodorant?

by ozone @ Ozone Layer Deodorant

*** Thanks go out to Bethany Long, UNCW for this excellent compilation of what you can expect in the “other” deodorants on the market! Some of the ‘natural’ deodorants are not so natural after all.   Tom’s Original Unscented Stick … Continued

Stuff You Should Know About Ozone Layer Deodorant

by ozone @ Ozone Layer Deodorant

*Thanks to Bethany Long, UNCW for the great write-up!*     General Advice and Things You Should Know about Ozone Deodorant Ozone Layer Deodorant, the alternative oxygen-based deodorant, is made from African shea butter and beeswax infused with medical grade … Continued

Toxic chemicals in your deodorant? Choose these instead!

Toxic chemicals in your deodorant? Choose these instead!


Matt's Wisdom

I wanted to ditch the deodorant that contains all of the chemicals. Who wants toxic chemicals right next to their lymph nodes? NOT ME.

This Is How The Brain Reacts When You Eat Turmeric Every Day

by DailyHealthPost @ Daily Health Post

The health benefits of turmeric have long been known. A natural antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and cancer-killer, turmeric has been touted ...

The post This Is How The Brain Reacts When You Eat Turmeric Every Day appeared first on Daily Health Post.

Drink This Alkaline Water To Fight Digestive Problems, Muscle Cramps, Fatigue, and Even Cancer!

by Elena @ Health Beauty Planet

Drink this Alkaline Water and fight many health problems! You have actually probably become aware..

The post Drink This Alkaline Water To Fight Digestive Problems, Muscle Cramps, Fatigue, and Even Cancer! appeared first on Health Beauty Planet.

Volcanic Ash Deodorant Smell Out Getting Clothes

by @ galateas galate

Modesto Police Look for Missing 13-Year-Old Girl. coconut oil liquid 1 Tbsp. Volcanic Ash Deodorant Smell Out Getting Clothes tONINO LAMBORGHINI LOUNGE BANGKOK. Retrouvez aussi parmi les produits PRADA: Amber pour Homme intense Eau de parfum Parfum Masculin; Amber Eau de parfum Parfum Fminin; Infusion d’Iris Eau de Toilette Find out what your options are. […]

DEODORANT DANGERS:  Ingredients to Lose & Those to Choose

DEODORANT DANGERS: Ingredients to Lose & Those to Choose


Ron and Lisa Beres Healthy Home Experts

By Ava AndersonWant B.O.? Heck no. We all want to smell good. But, more than likely, your deodorant really stinks!It can be extremely confusing when you a(...)

Doctors and Nurses Need to Treat BCRA as a Medical Emergency

Doctors and Nurses Need to Treat BCRA as a Medical Emergency

by Danielle Ofri @ Slate Articles

Illness is not something most healthy people think about regularly. And they shouldn’t. Although as a physician I want to help my patients make smart choices to preserve their healthy state, I also don’t want to deny them the blissful innocence that comes with taking good health for granted.

However, just as the disability community coined the term “temporarily able” to refer to those without disabilities, the reality is that those of us who are healthy are only “temporarily healthy.”

A random encounter with an unprotected partner or a nasty stomach bug or the Second Avenue bus could bring anyone at any age into contact with the health care system. Just getting older and acquiring hypertension or arthritis can do it. And then suddenly you learn. You learn what your insurance does or does not cover. Or you learn what it means to get sick without insurance. You learn that you are not invincible.

For Americans who are still temporarily healthy, the politics of health care can feel distant. The details of the House and Senate’s health care bills can feel arcane and overly partisan. But we all have skin in the game. (And even if it isn’t your own skin, consider your parents and grandparents, nieces and nephews, children and siblings.)

Like most physicians, I keep my personal life and political views steadfastly out of the exam room. But as I watched the news about health care ratchet up over these last few weeks, I stopped seeing the partisan tit-for-tat. Instead, I started seeing my patients.

I saw S, who is only in his 30s but has diabetes. The one time that his insulin prescription ran out, he nearly ended up in the ICU. What will happen to him, I asked myself, if he is one of the 22 million Americans who will lose coverage if the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act is passed?

I saw E, who is 26 and has an autoimmune disease. She juggles her medical appointments while holding down her job at a restaurant and taking classes at a community college. What if she draws the short straw when Medicaid gets cut?

I saw R, who is in her first year of college and gets her birth control from Planned Parenthood. What if there’s no Planned Parenthood? What happens if she gets pregnant?

I saw my waiting room full of my older patients who have emphysema, cancer, heart disease, and kidney disease. What happens if there’s a disruption in their medical care? For many of them, there’s not a squeak of wiggle room. Loss of medical care could easily equal loss of life.

If this plan for health care is passed, it could gravely harm my patients—and all patients. If 22 million Americans lose health insurance, it’s estimated that there could be about 20,000 additional deaths per year. If I came across signs of an epidemic like Legionnaires’ disease or a medication with a toxic side effect that needs to be recalled, my duties as a physician would compel me to speak up. It dawned on me that this law is no different. It’s a medical threat, and therefore, as I doctor, I have to speak up.

So I wrote an op-ed for the New York Times encouraging nurses, doctors, and other medical professionals to speak up against it. The funny thing about op-eds is that you, the author, don’t get to choose the title—the editors do. So I was just as surprised as anyone else when I opened the newspaper and saw the title, “Time for a Doctors’ March on Washington.”*

My inbox burst open with letters asking, “So when’s the march?” Doctors and nurses, it turned out, were more than ready to put their boots on, and plenty of their patients were urging them on. There wasn’t enough time to create an actual march (like so many other things about this bill, the timing of the vote has been a bit of a mystery). So we settled on a virtual march on Washington. Along with filmmaker Catherine Stratton and a few of her colleagues from the Resistance Media Collective, we pulled together the HouseCalls Campaign over the course of three hectic days.

House calls are a medical tradition dating back hundreds of years. When a patient is truly in need, a doctor or a nurse puts her boots on and gets out there. Right now, the collective patients of America—that would be all of us!—are in need. There is real medical threat and it warrants a serious medical response. HouseCalls Campaign is encouraging doctors and nurses to call key senators to tell them how this bill will affect their patients.

When I call these senators, I tell them about my sick and fragile patients who might die if they lose their coverage. I also tell them about my young and healthy patients who will have less time to be healthy if they lose access to care. I tell them about my healthy patients who might never have that discussion with a doctor that uncovers a genetic disease in their family history. I tell them about my healthy patients who might never get that conversation with a nurse during a routine vaccination that uncovers depression or addiction.

I’ve found that most Senate offices are receptive to our calls. One staffer said, “Wow, it’s really great to hear from someone who’s actually in health care.” Even when I call senators who are not from my state, I get a respectful hearing. I explain that I’m not in their district, but that my patients will nevertheless be affected by the senator’s vote. I tell them that as a physician, I took an oath to “do no harm,” and so I have to speak up if I think my patients will be harmed. Even Mitch McConnell’s and Paul Ryan’s staffers don’t have an easy comeback for that one.

Most senators have only a passing knowledge of what actually transpires when people make medical decisions. It is the people in the clinical trenches—nurses, doctors, physician assistants, med students—who know. These are the people who understand what happens when patients lose access to medical care. These are the people who will care for those 20,000 ill-fated patients—not in primary care clinics but in emergency rooms, ICUs, and morgues.

Medical professionals are uniquely qualified to advise the Senate about the side effects of its proposed legislation. Since the Senate isn’t having any public hearings in which we might offer our professional advice, the millions of American health care professionals will simply have to make HouseCalls to them. Because in a medical emergency, we have to do whatever it takes. Our patients are counting on us.

*Correction, July 6, 2017: This article originally misstated when an op-ed by the author was published in the New York Times. (Return.)

Mammograms increase Breast Cancer risk

by Dr Inge Wetzel @ HealthStudio.com

Here’s some food for thought: Dr. Irwin Bross was director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. In the 1970s, Dr. Bross headed a project that studied the alarming increase in rates of leukemia. It was called the Tri-State Leukemia Study. His sample used tumor registries from 16 million people from … Continue reading Mammograms increase Breast Cancer risk

Quality Men’s Deodorant Up Anus Can

by @ galateas galate

Washing. Quality Men’s Deodorant Up Anus Can welcome To Israelikosher! Please Call Us For Anything You Cannot Find. These deodorants are not as commonly used as the stick or roll-on Learn about the side effects and benefits of Deodorant – Reviews – eVitamins. Buy Nivea Deodorant Powder Touch Roll On 50Ml at Tesco.ie. LUSH Bath […]

Does Secret Clinical Strength Deodorant Work Peroxide Stains

by @ fi-bled FBled

Shop for DEODORANT STICK at Dillards.com. Does Secret Clinical Strength Deodorant Work Peroxide Stains about Does Secret Clinical Strength Deodorant Work Peroxide Stains Alan and ISHTA; History of ISHTA Yoga; ISHTA Worldwide; Testimonials; Press; Space Rentals; Employment; Alan’s Mantras for Meditation; Blog. Roll on is much better. I t is not difficult to make lotion […]

RE: Deodorant

by Sallyjo @ Deodorant

How bout trying pitrock. Its pricey but works well. 

How to Pick Out a Deodorant (And Get it Off Your Shirt)

How to Pick Out a Deodorant (And Get it Off Your Shirt)


GQ

Think about the last time you bought a new deodorant: Was it because the blue cap spoke to you? Or the scent seemed nice? Despite the fact that (most) guys use it daily, we spend...

3 Dangerous Ingredients Found in Common Deodorants

3 Dangerous Ingredients Found in Common Deodorants


Annmarie Skin Care

It's something we use everyday. For most people, it's a no-brainer, but there are dangerous ingredients in deodorant that could affect your health.

The Gruesome Truth About Lab-Grown Meat

The Gruesome Truth About Lab-Grown Meat

by Nick Thieme @ Slate Articles

Plant-based food company Hampton Creek recently announced its plans to bring lab-grown meat into stores within the next year. It’s an ambitious plan, and there are good reasons to be skeptical of its claim—the plant-based mayonnaise company’s business practices have been persistent targets for critics, drawing accusations of bad science, mislabeling, and even instructing employees to buy its mayonnaise off the shelves to drive up sales numbers. Hampton Creek is also hoping to beat its competitors to market by about two years, despite its late entry into “cultured meat”—a bold target that has others in the industry skeptical of the company’s claims.

The whole point of lab-grown meat is to create a more sustainable product that doesn’t require the hassle and waste of cattle production—it’s meat grown in a lab rather than on a set of bones. If Hampton Creek wins (and thus far it’s come out on top in the majority of its controversies), it could be the first to create “meat” grown using plant nutrients only.*

Hear this article on Slate Voice! slate.com/voice

Yes, all lab-grown meat so far requires a product called fetal bovine serum. What is fetal bovine serum? Why does it exist? Where does it come from? What else is it used for? It turns out that FBS is a somewhat common product, and one that we have to thank for many a medical innovation. Let’s explore.

FBS, as the name implies, is a byproduct made from the blood of cow fetuses. If a cow coming for slaughter happens to be pregnant, the cow is slaughtered and bled, and then the fetus is removed from its mother and brought into a blood collection room. The fetus, which remains alive during the following process to ensure blood quality, has a needle inserted into its heart. Its blood is then drained until the fetus dies, a death that usually takes about five minutes. This blood is then refined, and the resulting extract is FBS.

Millions of fetuses are slaughtered this way. Although cows and bulls are kept separate to preclude the possibility of horseplay, most dairy cows, which are kept pregnant to ensure milk production, are eventually slaughtered too. Estimates put the percentage of slaughtered dairy cows found to be pregnant between 17 and 31 percent.

Why is fetal cow blood used to make fake meat in the first place? Let’s back up: Cultured meat grown in a lab is made from bovine cells that grow in a petri dish to ultimately produce a substance that is meatlike enough to market as a burger—because it’s made of the exact same cells. And cells, the basis of this substance, are notoriously suicidal. Usually, this is a good thing: In order for distinct body parts to develop and for those body parts to keep working, cells must be able to kill themselves if they realize they’re in the wrong place. That’s great in a body, but it means that when you put cells in a plastic dish (like a lab technician would do when growing fake meat), the cells are going to do their best to die. FBS stops their deaths because it contains growth factors, substances that can lie to cells and convince them they’re right where they should be.

FBS isn’t the only serum that can be used to culture meat cells, but it is the most widely used, even among other cow-blood products. Jan van der Valk, a scientist in the department of animals in science and society at Utrecht University, explained that cow fetuses are “organisms in development.” That means their blood contains more growth factors than older cows’ blood, making it better for cell culture and growing cultured meat.

FBS is also special because it is a universal growth medium. You can take almost any cell type, toss it into a petri dish with FBS, and the cells will grow. Other sera don’t have that universality. Instead, they’re cell-specific, so if you want to grow muscle tissue, you use muscle tissue serum, and if you want to grow brain tissue, you use brain tissue serum. So, while FBS could one day be used to make everything on a charcuterie board, other non-FBS alternatives would require multiple sera to make the pâté, liver, and sausage.

But, even though FBS is currently convenient, using it defeats the purpose of cultured meat in an extremely obvious way: You’re still slaughtering cows. Why not just eat the meat from the cow instead of going through a laborious process that turns cow cells into other cow cells? As it stands, cultured meat isn’t vegetarian, which means it can’t be marketed to vegetarians or vegans, many of whom oppose meat because of the cruelty of the meat industry or the environmental intensiveness of the meat industry. Cultured meat grown by way of FBS doesn’t, at all, address that problem—in fact, when it comes to the moral argument, slaughtering and extracting fetal blood from an unborn cow is possibly a more disturbing way to get meat.

But it’s not like FBS is only used in cultured meat. The use of the serum is extensive, with FBS being cited in more than 10,000 research papers, far more than other cow blood products. These papers cover a lot of research topics. FBS has been used in the development of vaccines for many types of cancer, influenza, HIV, and hepatitis, as well as to help understand the development of brain and muscle tissues. Still, there is a movement to reduce its role in vaccine development, partly for ethical reasons, but also because it’s a public health concern. Vaccines created with FBS can transmit mad cow disease, and although transmission is extremely unlikely, your chances being about 1 in 40 billion, the Food and Drug Administration has strongly discouraged its use for the past 25 years. Van der Valk sees this risk as being especially bad in cultured meat. “If you grow meat using a serum that is infected with disease, you can transmit it to people,” he told me.

Despite the FDA’s recommendations, however, FBS is still widely used because it’s the most convenient. There are alternatives—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has a list of 74 potential cell culture alternatives, but almost all are cell-type specific. Of the alternatives that can be used as universal growth media, platelet lysates are most used, but they come with their own issues—at least when it comes to making cultured meat.

Platelet lysates are made from the platelets that can be extracted from human blood samples. Because of the incredibly strict requirements on the blood used in human blood transfusions, the FDA expires blood five days after it is donated. Oftentimes, when it expires, rather than throwing it out and wasting a perfectly good sack of blood, a lab will turn it into platelet lysates and sell it as a serum for cell culture. That makes platelet lysates a great alternative for human research. But it can’t be used for cultured meat because, as van der Valk pointed out in wonderfully understated fashion, people may be hesitant to consume meat that was created from human blood. He does, however, “see [platelet lysates] as an in-between step” in going from using animal products to using completely animal-free sera. And, according to Bruce Friedrich, director of the Good Food Institute, all companies working on cultured meat will have to find alternatives to FBS, because it will no longer practical to use the serum once the product scales.*

Hampton Creek will attempt to create a cultured meat that relies on plant products instead of animal-based products like FBS or human-based products like platelet lysates. Will customers eat it? Four years ago, Daniel Engber argued in Slate that cultured meat just didn’t taste right and that people wouldn’t eat it because of that. Another major hurdle is human psychology—Engber made the prescient point that people think stuff grown in labs is weird, asking, “Why wouldn’t lab-grown meat be attacked with the same degree of holy venom?” Still, the fact that it won’t make use of extracted fetal cow blood could certainly be a selling point.

Correction, July 13, 2017: This story originally misstated that Hampton Creek is the only company attempting to make meat without fetal bovine serum. Other companies are also attempting this. It also has been updated to note that companies may soon have to find alternatives to FBS. (Return.)

Antiperspirants Facts About Cancer, Aluminum, Alzheimer’s, and More

Antiperspirants Facts About Cancer, Aluminum, Alzheimer’s, and More


WebMD

If you’ve heard the hype about deodorant dangers, you might be worried about your antiperspirant of choice. WebMD explains the facts about these rumors and where the rumors originated.

Healing Home vs Cancer Clinic… And Fruit vs. Keto!: Terry Tillaart

Healing Home vs Cancer Clinic… And Fruit vs. Keto!: Terry Tillaart

by My Kid Cures Cancer @ My Kid Cures Cancer

Subscribe: iTunes | Stitcher Dr. Terry Tillaart, PhD Terry Tillaart has helped thousands of people make their way through a cancer diagnosis to the other side to good health. He tells us the approach he’s developed over the years to help maximize your…

The post Healing Home vs Cancer Clinic… And Fruit vs. Keto!: Terry Tillaart appeared first on My Kid Cures Cancer.

Calvin Klein Eternity Deodorant Ingredients Spice Old Sport

by @ galateas galate

Kb John Varvatos Classic Deo Stick 75 ml i Matas Webshop Duften er moderne frk og sofistikeret – og indgyder en sensuel og samtidig afslappet flelse. Calvin Klein Eternity Deodorant Ingredients Spice Old Sport fCUK Him Calvin Klein Eternity Deodorant Ingredients Spice Old Sport and FCUK Her are just two of these spectacular scents. Explore […]

Men+Care Clean Comfort Dry Spray Antiperspirant

Men+Care Clean Comfort Dry Spray Antiperspirant


Dove US

The right strong antiperspirant helps keep you on track all day. Dove Men+Care Clean Comfort Dry Spray Antiperspirant is tough on sweat, not skin.

Deodorant Myth Debunked

Deodorant Myth Debunked


POPSUGAR Fitness

In the past, I only used deodorants that were aluminum-free, because I heard, like many of you probably have, that the aluminum and other chemicals can seep

THE TRUTH ABOUT PROSTATE CANCER AND VITAMIN E

by Dr Inge Wetzel @ HealthStudio.com

Most of the prominent studies that have come out in condemnation of vitamin E over the years have failed to explain the type of vitamin E used. An extremely thorough analysis conducted, however, reveals why the synthetic alpha tocopherol form of vitamin E used in these studies actually does increase cancer risk, as well as … Continue reading THE TRUTH ABOUT PROSTATE CANCER AND VITAMIN E

FDA Finally Said That Chicken Meat Is Consisted Of Cancer-Causing Arsenic

by Elena @ Health Beauty Planet

According to the Associated Press, the FDA was able lastly to prove that the chickens..

The post FDA Finally Said That Chicken Meat Is Consisted Of Cancer-Causing Arsenic appeared first on Health Beauty Planet.

6 Invisible Deodorants That Pass the Black T-Shirt Test

6 Invisible Deodorants That Pass the Black T-Shirt Test


Health.com

These antiperspirants and deodorants actually work as advertised, with no white stripes or sticky residue in sight. 

Forum Post: RE: Advice required on best doctor/surgeon/hospital for breast cancer

by WhatHappened @ Breast cancer

Hello Dreamthief and all you lovely ladies, its nice to feel 'normal' - if there is such a thing, my brain, like others isn't letting me concentrate on what I read. I sit and read these posts, then its gone, so go back and read again. I can tell you, all this makes you think completely different, I have gone from 'I can't believe this is happening' to 'how long have I got left' to be grateful that you can have treatment... with the voice saying, I don't believe any of this, I want to wake up and go back to my usual life and its not going to happen. Thank you for the update on PixieGirl, PixieGirl has replied below, so I will reply to PixieGirl there. I'm still trying to get the hang of the forum, with my mind the way it is, it may take a few days haha or longer. "Massive Thank You for your help and advice". xx

Rigvir: Another unproven and dubious cancer therapy to be avoided

by David Gorski @ Science-Based Medicine

Recently, the Hope4Cancer Institute, a quack clinic in Mexico, has added a treatment known as Rigvir to its coffee enemas and other offerings. But what is Rigvir? It turns out that it's an import from Latvia with a mysterious history. Proponents claim that it is an oncolytic virus that targets cancer specifically and leaves normal cells alone. Unfortunately, there is a profound paucity of evidence for its efficacy against cancer. The story of Rigvir is the story of an unproven treatment that, because of its origin in a small country, has flown mostly under the radar. Until now, that is.

Acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients: challenges and solutions

Acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients: challenges and solutions


PubMed Central (PMC)

Nearly all women who receive radiotherapy (RT) for breast cancer experience some degree of radiation dermatitis. However, evidence describing the appropriate management of radiation dermatitis is often lacking or contradictory. Here, we summarize the ...

7 Harmful Ingredients in Your Deodorant

7 Harmful Ingredients in Your Deodorant


Organics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ug6HHzxbso We love to smell great, in fact,  it is estimated that 90% of Americans put on deodorant daily. That is a lot of deodorant being applied to armpits daily! However, this seemingly safe daily hygiene

How to Unleash the Power to Heal From Within: Razi Berry

How to Unleash the Power to Heal From Within: Razi Berry

by My Kid Cures Cancer @ My Kid Cures Cancer

Subscribe: iTunes | Stitcher Razi Berry stops by to remind us that above all the debate on which metabolic approach to cancer is best, what the must have supplements or must do treatments are, conflicts between natural and conventional medicine and so on,…

The post How to Unleash the Power to Heal From Within: Razi Berry appeared first on My Kid Cures Cancer.

Fact or Fiction?: Antiperspirants Do More Than Block Sweat

Fact or Fiction?: Antiperspirants Do More Than Block Sweat


Scientific American

Do antiperspirants cause dementia or breast cancer?

Hairsylist speaks out: It’s time to ban toxic Brazilian Blowout

by Stacy Malkan @ Not Just A Pretty Face

The woman getting a hair smoothing treatment may be okay with exposing herself to the sensory irritation and carcinogenicity of formaldehyde, but what about everyone else in the room? Salons are filled with clients who have cancer and going through chemotherapy, clients who are pregnant, clients with asthma...

Déodorants et sels d'aluminium: un risque de cancer du sein dans 80% des produits

Déodorants et sels d'aluminium: un risque de cancer du sein dans 80% des produits


FranceSoir

Faut-il s'inquiéter au moment de se mettre du déodorant? Oui dans 80% des cas selon une étude suisse portant sur l'impact des sels d'aluminiums contenus dans la majorité de ces produits et révélée ce lundi par Europe 1. Selon ces recherches, ces substances favoriseraient l'apparition du cancer du sein.

What Deodorant Is Safe? (September 2017)

What Deodorant Is Safe? (September 2017)


Antiperspirant

ContentsGeneral Information About What Deodorant Is SafeWhy are some deodorants deemed unsafe?Should a deodorant have a particular pH level?Are deodorants dangerous to the environment?Only The Best Safe DeodorantsIn Summary: What Deodorant Is Safe Unfortunately, not all deodorants available on the market today are safe to be used on a day to day basis. Not all …

WARNING: This Soap Causes Breast Cancer!

by Elena @ Health Beauty Planet

In one sense the marketing experts of Dove charm and skin care items struck the..

The post WARNING: This Soap Causes Breast Cancer! appeared first on Health Beauty Planet.

5 Ways Turmeric Can Change Your Life (Recipes Included!)

by Leah Segedie @ Mamavation

Visit us at Mamavation.com for more updates, healthy tips and challenges.

Turmeric is a spice native to India, used frequently in Indian cuisine and Ayurvedic medicine, as well as an ingredient in traditional Chinese medicine. It contains a very powerful antioxidant called curcumin which works to expel cancer-causing free radicals from the body. With everything in this day and age being chemically treated or artificially produced, [...]

The post 5 Ways Turmeric Can Change Your Life (Recipes Included!) appeared first on Mamavation.

Dkny Deodorant Stick Auto Aeron

by @ fi-bled FBled

It might not seem that way as you fill up on your way to work but the petroleum used to make it is gradually running out Toy Deal $20 for $40 at A NU Toy Store In Westchester County NY. Dkny Deodorant Stick Auto Aeron beauty & Personal Care: See all 389 items. 1: Laser […]

Our Unfounded Medical Optimism

Our Unfounded Medical Optimism

by Daniel Engber @ Slate Articles

The parents of Charlie Gard announced on Monday that they’d given up on treating their 11-month-old child, who suffers from a rare and deadly gene mutation affecting his mitochondrial DNA. The roller-coaster case began in February when physicians at the London hospital treating the infant said it was time to remove Charlie’s life support. They refused to let the British couple fly him to New York City for a last-ditch, experimental treatment that, according to its inventor, had a “small but significant chance” of reversing his brain damage. Over the past five months of legal battles, the hospital never wavered from its claims that every reasonable means of saving Charlie had been tried already and that he should be spared any further suffering that might come with a form of therapy that has never been tested on a patient with exactly his condition, and which isn’t part of any clinical trial.

Charlie’s parents now say that it’s too late for any intervention and that it’s time to “let him go.” But for several months now, the #CharlieGard saga has served as the focus for a broader push for patients’ rights in Washington. Conservative politicians were quick to champion Charlie’s parents’ cause—President Trump tweeted his support and the House tried to grant the couple permanent residency—in keeping with the GOP’s strong endorsement of so-called right-to-try laws. These measures—lately passed in 33 states—are meant to guarantee very sick people access to “experimental or nonconventional” medical treatments that haven’t yet passed muster with the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, that means the parents of a dying patient such as Charlie wouldn’t need to ask permission from the FDA to move ahead with therapy; they could just request it directly from the manufacturer.

Want to listen to this article out loud? Hear it on Slate Voice.

It’s hard to argue with vocal patient-advocates who say their lives were saved by gaining access to experimental treatments. The right to try sounds like common sense: It should be up to patients to decide whether the potential upside of a treatment (surviving a terminal illness) seems worth any risk of painful side effects. Why not let them give it hell and go down swinging? But stepping back from anecdotes, the spread of experimental access laws (like the calls for Charlie’s puddle-jumping medevac) suggests that critical decisions about the final months of people’s lives are often based on biased judgments of reality. Patients seem to overvalue innovation, as a rule, and assume that newer drugs have a better chance of working than any other treatment, just because they’re new. Not only does this sanguine view of scientific progress fail to fit the facts; it also leads patients to the converse, false impression that “nonconventional” treatments aren’t likely to be harmful in themselves. A more sober view suggests that the hope that often moves people to seek out these types of treatments—and the ever-present pressure to fight until the end—is not as useful as we think.

Unfounded optimism tends to be the rule in medicine. A 2015 review of several dozen studies of people’s expectations from treatment, comprising data from more than 27,000 subjects, found systematic evidence of a Pollyanna Patient problem: We overestimate the value of the care that we receive and underestimate its harm. That work is cited in an excellent article by Liz Szabo of Kaiser Health News, on the surprising ineffectiveness of cancer drugs that have been FDA approved. It’s not just that these treatments do little to prolong survival, Szabo says; according to one study, many patients never grasp this fact. In a sample of several thousand adults, 39 percent said they believe the “FDA only approves prescription drugs that are extremely effective”; 1 in 6 asserted that “drugs that have serious side effects cannot be advertised to consumers.” Neither statement is even close to being true. According to Vinay Prasad, an oncologist and expert in evidence-based medicine at Oregon Health and Sciences University, we don’t have any hard evidence of benefit—in terms of patients’ living longer lives—for the majority of cancer drugs approved in recent years.

If FDA-approved drugs often fail to offer substantive benefits, then experimental ones—those that haven’t even passed the suspect bar for agency signoff—are even less likely to be helpful. In fact, about 90 percent of experimental treatments flunk out during clinical trials, either because they aren’t shown to be any more effective than the standard treatment or because their side effects are too severe. In some cases, experimental treatments once thought to be miraculous—like the use of bone-marrow transplants as a cure for breast cancer, which started in the 1980s—have turned out to be worse than ineffective in clinical trials. In the bone marrow case, the procedure could be deadly on its own. This abysmal failure rate persists in spite of the enormous cost of running trials and researchers’ clear incentive (read: bias) to produce positive results.

Such dire stats have done little to discourage eager patients, though. When it comes to clinical trials, we seem to harbor a version of the favorite–long shot bias—the tendency of horse-track gamblers to overvalue the underdog at the expense of the odds-on favorite. In medicine, this translates to fixation on the value of experimental treatments—and the remote possibility that they might turn out to be wonder cures. Indeed, for those who are faced with imminent death, the desire to bet one’s health on long-shot drugs (and the right to do so, when all other options have been tried) is so insistent that patients even deride clinical trials as another structure blocking access to potentially life-saving treatments. The trials’ randomized treatment groups and stringent inclusion criteria mean the majority of patients never get the chance to serve as guinea pigs at all.

In certain cases—think of early AIDS drugs or Ebola vaccines—this rigidity can indeed have tragic consequences. But how much rigor should be sacrificed, and how many rules should be suspended, on behalf of patients whose expectations may be substantially inflated? In late June, that question served as the backdrop for a two-day symposium of doctors, bioethicists, patient-advocates, and public-health officials on the future of randomized controlled trials. The problems with RCTs are legion, speakers said: They’re not well-suited to emerging threats; they’re too expensive; they’re too slow.

But it seemed just as clear from the proceedings that patients should think twice before they clamor for inclusion in these trials and for greater flexibility in their administration. “The randomized trial is the single greatest medical innovation of the 20th century,” said Prasad, who was in New York City for the meeting. But he warned against the use of massive studies of experimental treatments that may have only very tiny benefits in the end. It’s unethical, he said, to put so many desperate patients on a drug unless you have good reason to believe in its effectiveness.

Even in this era of informed consent, patients may not understand exactly what they stand to gain (or lose) by entering a trial. Research going back to 1982 has found that many suffer from a “therapeutic misconception”: They assume they’ll benefit personally from being in a clinical trial, though in fact they may not get the tested treatment—and even if they did, chances are it wouldn’t help. (In fairness, some researchers now say this problem has been overstated.) “My advice is, you’re better off in the control group,” warned former FDA chief Robert Califf in his keynote lecture at the symposium, speaking to prospective patients in the audience who had been arguing for greater access to experimental drugs. “Most things don’t work or they’re dangerous.”

The fact that an experimental drug is usually a bad bet isn’t likely to dull our instinct to gamble on untested treatments, though. The idolatry of experimentation has even spawned a sinister, for-profit industry, lurking in the shadows of the FDA approval process. In a disturbing paper published last week, bioethicist Leigh Turner describes how the government website ClinicalTrials.gov—a registry established in 1997 to improve the reliability of formal research on potential treatments—is being used to market sketchy medical practices. Patients who are looking for a way to break into a clinical trial may scan the registry for opportunities to volunteer; now, instead of finding only legitimate, government-sanctioned research trials, they could land on so-called patient-funded or patient-sponsored ones. In these, they have to pay for access to a therapy that isn’t necessarily based on any peer-reviewed, preclinical data, and which may lack any evidence of safety or effectiveness. (Already there have been reports of patients suffering severe complications from their participation in these ersatz trials.)

What makes us so gung-ho for things that aren’t fully tested? It may in part be human nature, but aspects of the bias seem to be conditioned, too. Even honest science coverage tends to focus on putative medical breakthroughs that have either just occurred or may be coming soon; less scrupulous media figures hawk salves or potions with little basis whatsoever. Taken altogether this creates an intoxicating atmosphere of progress—a sense that new and better treatments are always on the verge of coming out.

Yet the excitement in the air rarely matches up to reality: Actual medical advancement tends to be incremental and excruciatingly slow. The discord this creates—between the feeling of innovation inspired by the media and the real options that we’re offered in the clinic—may distort our view of experimental treatments. It could make us think there must be some reason why our cancers haven’t yet been cured; there must be some external factors preventing us from getting access to the new and better drugs we’ve heard so much about. If only regulators weren’t so overcautious and uptight, we end up thinking, it would be possible to tap this cache of innovation.

Right-to-try laws indulge the fear that unbending bureaucrats in Washington have kept patients from medical cures with an excess of red tape. In fact, these laws have little real effect. That’s because the FDA already offers access to experimental treatments with very modest oversight—and in recent years the agency has done away with a few unnecessary rules that slowed the process down. The problem isn’t that patients (or their parents) have insufficient freedom to decide how they’d like to balance out potential risks and benefits from experimental treatments. It’s that our bias often makes them victims of false hope.

Your Body Is Acidic. Here’s What You NEED To Do (The Real Truth Behind Cancer…)

by DailyHealthPost @ Daily Health Post

Ever heard of Dr. Otto H. Warburg? Unless you or your family member has suffered from cancer and tried to ...

The post Your Body Is Acidic. Here’s What You NEED To Do (The Real Truth Behind Cancer…) appeared first on Daily Health Post.

The Sensitive Skin Deodorant

by ozone @ Ozone Layer Deodorant

Ozone Layer Deodorant is all natural and the ingredients consist of just shea butter, beeswax and oxygen. How does it work? Simply! Ozone Layer Deodorant uses a patented natural deodorant technology that kills odor causing bacteria with oxygen. It’s a … Continued

Trump Hates Regulations. What About When They Save Jobs?

Trump Hates Regulations. What About When They Save Jobs?

by Lee van der Voo @ Slate Articles

This article was written in partnership with InvestigateWest, the nonprofit newsroom for the Pacific Northwest.

President Trump likes lobster, I hear—Maine lobster was served at his inaugural lunch.

It’s a good thing, perhaps. Though his administration is already notorious for its anti-regulatory stance that takes as its premise that fewer rules will mean more jobs, it’s also going to have to decide whether a lack of regulation in the seafood industry will keep sending American jobs overseas.

The choice in question is over a rule governing seafood imports that was authorized in the waning days of the Obama administration as part of a national battle plan to fight the influx of illegally caught seafood. The rule forces importers to verify that the seafood they buy is caught legally and to trace its journey from boat to market. It’s intended to combat the immense amount of illegal seafood that’s believed to be finding its way to U.S. markets, much of it mislabeled for consumers.

If it stays, the rule will force seafood importers to follow the same rules American seafood companies have to follow to track where domestic seafood products come from and to prove that they’re legally caught, hypothetically evening the playing field. You’d think such pressure on foreign imports would have U.S. companies cheering. After all, many Americans spent the most recent election season pumping their fists in favor of a DIY nation. But a handful of American seafood companies are suing the federal government to block the rule.

These businesses are not just importers. They also buy seafood from American fishermen. But they’re fighting the rule because it would force them to disclose a practice many consumers are unaware of: that they ship U.S. seafood overseas for processing, mostly to mainland China, even though there is little oversight of the practice and it likely allows illegally caught fish to be co-mingled with our national fare.

The simple reason for overseas processing is that it’s cheaper. “There is obviously a cost savings in doing the work overseas than doing it here, and it allows for a more affordable end product,” said Gavin Gibbons, spokesman for National Fisheries Institute, the trade group for seafood businesses that, along with eight other companies, is suing the government.

Held to the rule’s new standards, the seafood companies that ship U.S. fish to fillet factories in China and elsewhere would have to account for its handling in ways that could explode their costs. Gibbons says those costs were first projected to jump by less than $250,000 a year industrywide. But the White House Office of Management and Budget recently revised that figure to roughly $6 million a year. And Gibbons and other industry experts suspect the true costs are actually much higher.

“Absolutely, it would increase their costs. And it should,” said Bubba Cook, the New Zealand–based tuna program manager from the World Wildlife Fund. Aside from the rationale that workers who process seafood should earn fair wages, he said, “That’s the cost that they need to bear so that the public can be confident that they’re not buying illegal [seafood].”

Gibbons counters that current regulations already provide enough documentation for people to know whether seafood is illegally caught and that adding this new rule is like putting a stop sign on top of another stop sign when what you really need is a traffic cop. But ask an actual seafood cop and you get a different answer. That new information that the new rule would require be added? “That helps,” said Mike Cenci, deputy chief of fish and wildlife police in Washington state. Which is why Cenci helped to author similar legislation in Washington to combat an immense amount of suspected illegal crab from Russia. And why a Seattle trade group for crabbers—who lost an estimated $550 million to illegal Russian crab over the past decade—petitioned and won standing in the federal case. “If this is a terrible law federally, then why are states enacting it on their own?” says the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers president Kale Garcia.

It’s this dynamic that creates a political challenge to President Trump’s campaign promises. If he supports corporations in this instance, and takes an anti-regulatory stance, it would severely undercut business for working crabbers and fishermen. It would also rob American workers of the possible return of seafood processing jobs, jobs that have declined by more than a third in the past 20 years. That decline came as the practice of filleting, canning, packaging, and otherwise finishing U.S. seafood overseas became more commonplace. There’s been a simultaneous general decline in domestic catch, and together this has shuttered nearly half of U.S. seafood plants in two decades.

That wasn’t the chief reason the Obama administration passed the new rule in December. That administration was mainly focused on the wider goal of limiting illegal seafood demand globally. Currently, American consumers are believed to unwittingly constitute one of the largest illegal seafood markets in the world—the U.S. imports 90 percent of the seafood consumed here. In the European Union, where a similar rule has been in place for five years, seafood mislabeling rates have dropped from an estimated 30 percent to 5 percent of products. Because the EU and America combined account for two-thirds of all seafood consumed worldwide, there’s hope that if all that seafood had to be tracked, it might exert enough pressure to reduce the worldwide appetite for illegal seafood.

This could have vast positive implications: The U.N. estimates that illegal, unregulated, and unmonitored seafood costs legitimate businesses like the crabbers up to $23 billion a year globally, in addition to imperiling fish populations worldwide and putting workers in the way of an industry that’s often tethered to slavery and human trafficking. (The nonprofit Oceana has also found that 1 in 3 fish tested were masquerading as more popular species in U.S. grocery stores and restaurants in a study in 2013. The conservation group suggests rules like the new import rule could also reduce seafood mislabeling for American consumers.)

So far, the Trump administration has been defending the rule against the businesses’ lawsuit. Government attorneys appeared in court June 7 on behalf of the United States to argue for keeping it. And staff tasked with implementing it at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are working to do so before a compliance deadline for tracking the first 15 species hits companies at the end of this year.

Yet it’s not entirely clear whether these efforts are underway because the new administration supports workers over corporate savings or wants to help end illegal seafood. Maybe Trump’s advisers are finally articulating what “making America great again” looks like now that it’s jumped the campaign T-shirts for the policy arena. Maybe the Trump administration simply hasn’t given it much thought and is allowing business to continue as usual: The people that are active in this issue are holdovers from the Obama days. At a time where political leadership and appointees have been slow to take hold, there is no new national fisheries administrator yet, or an assistant, to steward the direction of this situation. And there’s no real clarity as to whether the fight for this rule is truly an aim of the administration, or just an oversight amid all the other hubbub currently swirling around the White House.

The administration could still settle this lawsuit, and put an end to the new tracking rule. But if it does, it’s sure to get some feedback from American workers who support this regulation because it protects their livelihoods.

Killer Deodorant Flirtatious Smell Best Mask

by @ galateas galate

Find great deals on Killer Deodorant Flirtatious Smell Best Mask eBay for adidas Body Spray in Deodorants and Antiperspirants for Includes:1 x 250ml Adidas Team Five Hair & Body Shower Gel. Killer Deodorant Flirtatious Smell Best Mask 15 ml Natural Killer Deodorant Flirtatious Smell Best Mask Squeeze Tube w/Black Snap Top Set 12pk Code: P825A […]

Homemade Deodorant Baking Soda Coconut Oil Cornstarch Doesn’t Block Pores

by @ galateas galate

Zion Health Adama Minerals Clay Deodorant Citrus Blossom – 2.5 Oz. Homemade Deodorant Baking Soda brut original deodorant ingredients natural female for Coconut Oil Cornstarch Doesn’t Block Pores beard Care Products Vegan Deodorant Natural Soap ***Shipping free on $50 orders with coupon code FREESHIP50 For news sales and incessant rambling (kidding!) Homemade Deodorant Baking Soda […]

What Deodorant Is Safe For 10 Year Old Boy Seduction Blue

by @ galateas galate

I don’t care who deodorant fire tricks axe touch you are*Where you’re from*What you did*As long as you love Noa by Cacharel for Women Deodorant Spray 5.0 oz Retail: $26.00 Today’s Price Anais Anais L’original by Cacharel for Women 3 Piece Set Includes: Its formula doesn’t affect normal Indian Gay Sex Ban Prompts Protests. What […]

Mammograms increase Breast Cancer risk

by Dr Inge Wetzel @ cancer – HealthStudio.com

Here’s some food for thought: Dr. Irwin Bross was director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. In the 1970s, Dr. Bross headed a project that studied the alarming increase in rates of leukemia. It was called the Tri-State Leukemia Study. His sample used tumor registries from 16 million people from … Continue reading Mammograms increase Breast Cancer risk

Fruit, The Lymphatic System, and Cancer: What You Need to Know: Dr. Robert Morse

Fruit, The Lymphatic System, and Cancer: What You Need to Know: Dr. Robert Morse

by My Kid Cures Cancer @ My Kid Cures Cancer

Subscribe: iTunes | Stitcher Dr. Robert Morse stops by to make us rethink everything we thought we knew about disease, and consider that health may just be much simpler than we’ve been making it out to be. In This Episode: To truly understand…

The post Fruit, The Lymphatic System, and Cancer: What You Need to Know: Dr. Robert Morse appeared first on My Kid Cures Cancer.

Dove’s ‘Real’ Beauty Products Are Filled With Cancer-Causing Chemicals, Fake Dyes And Toxic Fragrance.

Dove’s ‘Real’ Beauty Products Are Filled With Cancer-Causing Chemicals, Fake Dyes And Toxic Fragrance.


Healthy Holistic Living

Nobody enjoys beauty ads. The models selling the cosmetics, face creams, or hair products always look condescendingly perfect. It doesn’t help that we know they are produced by makeup artists and animation wizards. Their flawless skin causes us to frown upon our own blemishes and wrinkles. Their slim bodies make...More

3 New Aluminum-Free Natural Deodorants That You Have To Try in 2016

by Matt I Am @ Matt's Wisdom

It has been over two years since I last posted about natural alternatives to traditional deodorants.  Luckily for you, there are many new and wonderful deodorant options–and all of these are natural and none of these include aluminum (aluminum chlorohydrate, aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex, aluminum chloride, etc…), alum (potassium alum, potassium aluminium sulfate, ammonium alum) or other similar […]

The post 3 New Aluminum-Free Natural Deodorants That You Have To Try in 2016 appeared first on Matt's Wisdom.

Nivea Deodorant Expiration Underarm Hypoallergenic Lavilin Cream

by @ galateas galate

Classic TV best deodorant for super sweaty d’hermes ingredients terre commercials and public domain classic TV commercials or PSAs to the Community Video collection and put the subject keyword classic tv commercial Estee Lauder is the world’s leading luxury line of cosmetics and fragrances. Deodorant / Antiperspirants / Dove Deodorant Roll On Go Fresh Pomegranate […]

Chris Wark’s Square One Cancer Coaching Program – SIGN UP TO WATCH FREE

by MKCC @ My Kid Cures Cancer

Dealing with a cancer diagnosis AND being interested in natural healing methods is one of the most mentally challenging ordeals one could ever go through. One day you’re living your regular life spending time with your family, maybe going to…

The post Chris Wark’s Square One Cancer Coaching Program – SIGN UP TO WATCH FREE appeared first on My Kid Cures Cancer.

This deodorant is linked to cancer and could make men grow breasts

This deodorant is linked to cancer and could make men grow breasts


The Hearty Soul

You know those deodorant ads where the women can’t seem to resist the men? That’s right, Axe. While the commercials and advertising seem to have captured the hearts of young men everywhere, the deodorant itself may pose a risk to your health. The truth is that this deodorant is loaded with endocrine disrupting chemicals. Endocrine... View Article

Dove Pink Anti-perspirant Deodorant

Dove Pink Anti-perspirant Deodorant


ProductReview.com.au

Dove Pink Anti-perspirant Deodorant: 5 customer reviews on Australia's largest opinion site ProductReview.com.au. 4.8 out of 5 stars for Dove Pink Anti-perspirant Deodorant in Deodorants & Body Sprays.

Rural Americans Already Have Poor Health Care. Trump’s Policies Will Hurt Further.

Rural Americans Already Have Poor Health Care. Trump’s Policies Will Hurt Further.

by Jalal Baig @ Slate Articles

As the months accumulated into years, Russell’s cancer was slowly becoming a footnote in his life’s larger story. All the follow-up blood tests, CT scans, and colonoscopies since his treatment finished had repeatedly confirmed that his colon cancer was in remission.

Yet in a recent clinic appointment with him, I did not find the emboldened cancer survivor I had expected. Instead, I found a man worried about the future. His trepidations were less about his cancer and more about his ability to access care.

Like many living in rural America, he had gained health insurance through Medicaid expansion in his home state under the Affordable Care Act. After he got access to regular, affordable care, a timely screening colonoscopy found a nascent colon cancer. With the cancer fortuitously discovered, doctors were able to intervene immediately and arrest it before it could become malignant.

Now, Medicaid cuts threaten to eliminate the very insurance that was aggressively surveilling his cancer to detect a recurrence. Without it, Russell will become vulnerable to the unchecked whims of cancer cells that had potentially evaded chemotherapy and could proliferate elsewhere unexpectedly.

It was the complete loss of control over his health that felt the most harrowing. It was not a possibility he had considered months before when casting a ballot for Donald Trump in the presidential election. He had been promised economic succor. His health was not a negotiable issue—he had not expected the result would take away his coverage.

Significant support from rural voters contributed to Donald Trump’s ascendance to the White House in November. Between 2008 and 2016, Republicans gained 9 percentage points in rural areas whereas Democrats lost 11. In suburban and urban areas during this same time span, Democratic support declined slightly while Republican support remained stable. Voters in America’s rural areas found hope in Donald Trump’s campaign promises, which were a balm for their concerns about the changing knowledge-based economy and fears about being left behind.

In return, Trump and his Republican comrades have feverishly pursued policies to downsize Medicaid, implemented a recently upheld immigration ban, and altered visa policies. These policies, though seemingly isolated, will synergize to make rural health care even thornier—they will reduce access and exacerbate physician shortages, which will be crippling for rural communities.

The problems encountered in providing rural health care are unlike those experienced in suburban or urban areas. People who live in rural counties are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance coverage and more likely to be older, sicker, and poorer than the population in most areas. There is thus a great dependence on federal programs like Medicaid here.

Yet it is difficult to deploy Medicaid successfully in rural areas with physicians glaringly absent. While a fifth of Americans reside in rural parts of the country, only a tenth of doctors work there. According to Julia Paradise of the Kaiser Family Foundation, access to care will suffer even with high physician participation in Medicaid, as long as the supply of doctors is paltry. And recent immigration policies ensure that the supply will diminish further.

Twenty-seven percent of physicians practicing or training in America are foreign, but this figure is much higher in rural areas. Upon completion of residency or fellowship training, many foreign physicians commit to working in clinics and hospitals of underserved or shortage areas for a specified time in exchange for temporary H-1B work visas to remain in the country. For years, this process has managed to preserve a steady stream of doctors to these locations. American physicians balk at filling vacancies in these needy communities due to a lack of cultural or educational opportunities for family, concerns about how frequently they will have to be on call, limited subspecialty support, or less pay. But for foreign doctors looking for visas, these opportunities present an option that becomes a win-win for doctors and patients.

Currently, a number of foreign physicians who have recently completed training are in limbo after the Trump administration suspended the 15-day expedited H-1B visa process in favor of greater scrutiny that can potentially last many months. The hospitals and clinics that have hired them in places like Arkansas and Montana are adjusting to their indefinite absences despite already being understaffed.

The physician pipeline to rural areas will be further constrained by Donald Trump’s immigration ban affecting six-Muslim majority countries. At the moment, there are 7,000 physicians from these nations working in the United States. Combined, these doctors see approximately 14 million patient visits yearly. Of those, 2.3 million of those visits occur in rural and underserved areas. Trump’s ban, parts of which were recently upheld by the Supreme Court, threatens this critical pipeline of doctors willing to serve rural communities.

Because physician density is lower in rural America compared with urban areas, the loss of even a single care provider can have a seismic impact. Unlike other places, replacements are not readily found within the local population. Very few people from rural communities attend medical school, and only half of the ones who do ever return home to work. Already scarce primary care physicians become responsible for providing specialty care as needed, in addition to incremental care (regular, ongoing care), which, as Atul Gawande notes, “is the greatest source of value in modern medicine.” Without this, preventive care is compromised, diagnosis and management of urgent medical conditions is delayed, chronic illnesses are poorly controlled, and life spans are shortened.

In addition, doctors are so sparse here that if an individual is forced to find a new one, he or she may need to travel 45 minutes to an hour just to get to an appointment. Similarly, if a specialist responsible for complex, serious medical conditions is lost, not only are patients at risk of receiving inadequate care but they may also have to journey hours to be seen at a large medical center.

And rural hospitals, which are especially sensitive to changes in Medicaid funding and operate on microscopic financial margins, are already closing their doors. Since January 2010, 79 hospitals have shuttered, and nearly 700 are at risk of closure. Of the 79 closings, 58 were in non–Medicaid expansion states. (These hospitals do not exist in a vacuum, and their closing means more than just lost access to medical care—entire rural economies have been left decimated from the lost jobs.)

When rural voters like Russell sought deliverance in Donald Trump in November, they weren’t expecting him to solve all their problems, they just thought he could stanch some of their suffering. Yet five months into his presidency, he is unapologetically peddling an agenda that could eviscerate Medicaid. The expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act reduced the amount of uninsured rural adults by 11 percentage points over a six-year period. And yet, in addition to limiting Medicaid, Trump is also closing the pipeline of foreign physicians, which will exacerbate the already tenuous physician shortage. If Trump’s goals are even partially realized, it will come at the expense of his rural base—and their health.

Where Is Lynx Deodorant Manufactured Causes Itching Underarm

by @ fi-bled FBled

Goodbye to Yellow Armpit Stains! The mixture I scrubbed on with the ush above was 1 tsp. Red Door by Elizabeth Arden 3.3 oz Eau De Toilette Spray for Women / Item # awred34s Indications Excessive Sweating Hyperhidrosis Excessive pure pitz deodorant ingredients personal wipes Underarm Sweating Menopausal Sweating Sweaty Teens Nervous Sweaters Athletes Presenters […]

Oils For Deodorant Voucher Dove

by @ fi-bled FBled

Deodorant Spray. Oils For Deodorant Voucher Dove women’s Degree Fresh Oxygen Body Responsive Deodorant Stick: Degree nature Effects Olive Leaf and Suave Invisible Solid Soothing Lavender Lilac Deodorant. [] g with a focus on natural skin care and holistic living. including aerosols such as hair sprays colognes deodorants and perfumes as carry-on or checked-in baggage […]

We tried 9 natural deodorants so you don't have to

We tried 9 natural deodorants so you don't have to


Metro

The results were interesting...

RE: Deodorant

by cinderella1953 @ Deodorant

[quote user="JustLittleMe"]

I had my sentinel lymph node biopsy on 23.12.16 and have not gone back to using deodorant. Do you use it or not?  There is such conflicting information I can't decide if it's right to use it or not. However with the hot weather and my hot Tamoxifen Zoladex flushes I think I need to consider it again. 

[/quote]MY ONCOLOGIST REOMMENDED SPRAY ONLY DEODERANT, hope this helps.

Safe Deodorant Guide | Gimme the Good Stuff

Safe Deodorant Guide | Gimme the Good Stuff


Gimme the Good Stuff

Good news...there are more safe, natural deodorants to choose from than ever. They come in sticks, jars, roll-ons and sprays. And, yes, many of them actually work.

The Viral Story About the Cop Who Overdosed by Touching Fentanyl Is Nonsense

The Viral Story About the Cop Who Overdosed by Touching Fentanyl Is Nonsense

by Jeremy Samuel Faust @ Slate Articles

In the middle of May, a police officer in East Liverpool, Ohio, Chris Green, was responding to a traffic call when he realized that white powder had spilled inside the car he was investigating. He put on gloves to protect himself from what he would later learn was a formulation of fentanyl, a potent prescription opioid, as he handled the situation. Later, when he got back to the station, another officer pointed out some dust on the back of Green’s shirt. Green brushed it off, no gloves, without thinking. Soon after (some accounts state it was mere minutes, others clock it at an hour), he was unconscious.

“I was in total shock,” he told the local paper after the fact. “ ‘No way I’m overdosing,’ I thought.”

He would go on to receive four doses of naloxone, an emergency drug that counteracts an opioid overdose, before waking up.

The story, a terrifying narrative that illustrates the dangers of opioids, spread like wildfire. The local press reported the situation as a fentanyl overdose, with Lisbon, Ohio’s Morning Journal headlining its report “Traffic Stop Almost Turns Deadly for ELO Officer.” From there, it was picked up by national outlets including the Washington Post. In CBS News’ coverage, reporter Jim Axelrod asked Green whether all of this could really have happened from simply touching fentanyl. Green confirmed that a touch was all it took, and the two men agreed that it was not overstating things to suggest he could have died. Then last week, Green appeared on the New York Times’ wildly popular podcast The Daily, vividly relating details of his terrifying ordeal. When he came to, he recounts, he found himself in the hospital surrounded by crying colleagues, nurses, and firefighters.

Did Green really experience a life-threatening overdose by briefly touching a small amount of fentanyl? That’s certainly what his story suggests. But neither fentanyl nor even its uber-potent cousin carfentanil (two of the most powerful opioids known to humanity) can cause clinically significant effects, let alone near-death experiences, from mere skin exposure. If Green’s story is true, it would be the first reported case of an overdose caused solely by unintentional skin contact with an opioid. There is one published case of a veterinarian who was squirted in the eye with carfentanil after trying to sedate an elk (the vet experienced drowsiness, which resolved shortly after receiving a whopping dose of the antidote naltrexone). But scrutinizing Green’s story from a medical perspective reveals an irresolvable conflict between the accounts that have been widely disseminated and the realities of medicine and toxicologic possibility.

Each of the medical and toxicology professionals I asked agreed that it’s implausible that one could overdose from brushing powder off a shirt. Skin cannot absorb even the strongest formulations of opioids efficiently or fast enough to exert such an effect. “Fentanyl, applied dry to the skin, will not be absorbed. There is a reason that the fentanyl patches took years [for pharmaceutical companies] to develop,” says my colleague Ed Boyer, M.D., Ph.D., a medical toxicologist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In fact, according to Jeanmarie Perrone, M.D., director of the division of medical toxicology in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, “the American College of Medical Toxicology has drafted a position statement about the possible routes of fentanyl exposure, debunking the likelihood that transdermal fentanyl absorption is clinically significant.” The spread of Green’s story inspired the group to accelerate the timeline for releasing its policy statement, Perrone says.

Could Green’s overdose have been the result of him accidentally inhaling the powder, instead of just touching it? It’s certainly true that actively inhaling (i.e. snorting) visible amounts of fentanyl could cause a life-threatening overdose. If a person were to snort a “line” of the substance (thinking, perhaps, it was cocaine), or sample visible quantities of powder formulations of fentanyl orally, it could certainly cause an overdose. But Green was not intentionally inhaling or swallowing the powder—he was just brushing it away from him. Perhaps when he moved to brush the substance off his shirt, some of it stuck to his fingers and he later inhaled it, or accidentally ingested it. But the amount that could have transferred from the car to the shirt to the fingers to the mouth or nose would not be a clinically significant quantity, even accounting for fentanyl’s potency. Such a chain of events would be extremely unlikely, the odds of an overdose from such a freak incident are infinitesimally small—if not strictly impossible.

This may help explain why it appeared to take so much naloxone to revive the officer after he passed out. The reports state that 16 mg of naloxone were given (four nasal doses, typically 4 mg apiece). That’s an enormous quantity—in fact it is approximately one-third of the antidote that would be used to revive someone who had received an entire “carfentanil dart,” commonly called an “elephant tranquilizer.” The proffered explanation for why such a large dose of the antidote was needed is that Green had simply encountered that extreme a quantity of opioid. But in medicine, when a medication with well-established and consistent efficacy such as naloxone does not work at its usual dose, it’s usually because we are treating the wrong illness—we’ve made a diagnostic error—not because the known treatment is flawed. For example, a common way to break a seizure is to treat someone with a benzodiazepine such as Ativan or Valium. It almost always works. When it doesn’t work, it’s often because the seizure is due to a more unusual cause—for example, a vitamin deficiency. In such cases, all the Valium on the planet wouldn’t break that seizure; only high doses of the vitamin delivered intravenously would work. Similarly, loss of consciousness that does not respond to multiple doses of naloxone is likely not to have been opioid-related at all.

I asked David Juurlink, M.D., a toxicologist at the University of Toronto, who has published dozens of articles on the dangers of opioids, about what conclusions he would draw from the circumstances of Green’s case. Juurlink said that it would be “hard to imagine someone would need multiple doses of naloxone after transient skin contact with powdered fentanyl,” and that it was more likely that naloxone had simply been deployed against the wrong problem.

To be clear, I don’t think Green, or anyone at the East Liverpool Police Department, is lying about what happened. (Green has not replied to my requests for comment.) I believe, as the paramedics believed, that he and his fellow officers honestly thought he experienced an opioid overdose that resulted from his brief contact with the powder. I understand why everyone was so rattled by the experience. I’m no apologist for opioid use, nor do I think the epidemic is an exaggeration. These police officers are the front lines of an extremely challenging fight, and it is understandable that they would be freaked out by this event. However, as a physician, I’ve also often witnessed an amazing phenomenon: Once patients believe they have a diagnosis, it is very hard to convince them otherwise, especially if the surrounding events were dramatic. People who had benign tumors removed sometimes think of themselves as cancer survivors. I can’t begin to tell you how often patients are sent home believing they had a heart attack because a physician initially expressed concern that this might be occurring, even though it was later ruled out. It’s remarkable how emotionally attached some people become to their diagnoses—they become badges of proof that what has not killed them has made them stronger.

Still, that doesn’t change the fact that this case is likely not as tidily explained as the people involved in it, and thus the media, have assumed. As Perrone put it, the immense amount of uncritical pickup of this story seems to indicate “an interesting new ‘hysteria,’ for lack of a better term,” about opioids. The hysteria is understandable. The anecdote was perfectly poised for virality: You take a known societal menace, such as the opioid epidemic, that is ravaging a segment of our nation’s otherwise healthy population, and you combine it with a frightening horror story of a cop, trying to help, getting poisoned in the process. The report also contained medical details, from the paramedics, that made it seem vetted and real. The first responders clearly thought he had overdosed, too—that’s why they gave him naloxone. But if anyone in the media had discussed the accounts with a toxicology expert, the picture would have quickly become more muddled.

What troubles me most is that the local and national media ran with this story without stopping to ask the right people the right questions. On Sunday, Julie Beck wrote about how the epidemic of “fake news” is particularly damaging and pervasive in medical reporting: “While many of the fake news stories that have gotten the most attention had to do with the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” she wrote, “fake news about health seems to be more pervasive and harder to weed out.”

Credible sourcing is what distinguishes real from fake news, whether about medicine or not. In this case, the real news got faked out. Unfortunately, this anecdote could serve to stoke more unnecessary fear in our communities around an already frightening public health crisis.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views and opinions of Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Anti-Perspirants and Breast Cancer

Anti-Perspirants and Breast Cancer


Snopes.com

Rumor: Anti-perspirants have been identified as a leading cause of breast cancer.

Are We Experimenting on Our Children With Soy Formula?

Are We Experimenting on Our Children With Soy Formula?

by Deborah Blum @ Slate Articles

This story was originally published on Undark magazine and has been republished here with permission.

I’m hesitating over this one question I want to ask the scientist on the phone, a federal researcher studying the health effects of soy formula on infants. I worry that it’s going to sound slightly Dr. Frankenstein–esque. Finally, I spill it out anyway: “Are we talking about a kind of accidental experiment in altering child development?”

The line goes briefly silent. “I’m a little worried about the word experiment,” replies Jack Taylor, a senior investigator at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a division of the National Institutes of Health. Taylor and his colleagues in North Carolina have been comparing developmental changes in babies fed soy formula, cow-milk formula, and breast milk. His group’s most recent paper, “Soy Formula and Epigenetic Modifications,” reported that soy-fed infant girls show some distinct genetic changes in vaginal cells, possibly “associated with decreased expression of an estrogen-responsive gene.”

But his first reaction is that my phrasing would, incorrectly, “make it sound like we were giving children a bad drug on purpose.” The research group, he emphasizes, is merely comparing the health of infants after their parents independently choose a preferred feeding method. No one is forcing soy formula on innocent infants.

“No, no, that’s not what I meant,” I explain with some hurry. “I wasn’t suggesting that you were experimenting on children.”

Rather, I was wondering whether we as a culture, with our fondness for all things soy, have created a kind of inadvertent national study. Soy accounts for about 12 percent of the U.S. formula market, and I’ve become increasingly curious about what this means. Because the science does seem to suggest that we are rather casually testing the effect of plant hormones on human development, most effectively by feeding infants a constant diet of a food rich in such compounds.

Research shows that soy milk and soy formula contain up to 4,500 times the level of phytoestrogens found in cow’s milk or breast milk. That’s a notable number. And it’s been associated with remarkably high levels of these compounds circulating in the bloodstreams of soy-fed infants. All of this matters when you consider that phytoestrogens are potent human endocrine disruptors, binding efficiently to the estrogen receptors found in both females and males. And consider further that a baby on a soy formula diet is being repeatedly dosed every day.

It’s no wonder then that studies far beyond Taylor’s have found indicators of off-kilter developmental changes, ranging from unusually early menstruation to mammary gland effects.

In light of all this, Taylor reconsiders my point. “Well, you are absolutely correct that these babies are getting a lot higher dose of a known estrogenic compound than they’ll ever get from BPA or an endocrine disruptor like that.” And he considers a little more. “In that sense, it could be considered a kind of experiment.

Let’s drop back for a minute. The idea that plant hormones—such as genistein, the primary phytoestrogen in soy—can interfere with mammalian development is not new. Biologists have been trying to sort out such effects for more than half a century; one of the first such studies followed the rather startling discovery that sheep grazing on fields dense with a hormone-rich clover could become temporarily sterile as a result of their diet.

Heather Patisaul, a biology professor at North Carolina State University who specializes in the study of endocrine disruptors, notes that similar effects can be seen in humans: Young women who consume a diet exceptionally high in soy also occasionally “shut off their menstrual cycles” and become temporarily infertile. “When we think about endocrine disruptors, we have to remember that they aren’t all synthetic compounds,” she emphasizes. “Soy is both a natural food and a hormonally active one.”

Cultures with a longtime reliance on soy protein apparently realized this early, Patisaul adds. For instance, the compounds in soy are known to interfere with the body’s uptake of iodine, an element necessary for healthy functioning of the hormones produced by the thyroid gland. Chinese farmers first cultivated soybeans in about 1100 B.C., so it’s not surprising, she notes, that many Asian diets gradually evolved to contain foods that contain extra high levels of iodine, such as seaweeds.

Evidence of soybean cultivation in North America dates back to colonial days, but the crop was largely considered one for animal feed. It wasn’t until the late 19th century that the first recipe for dining on soy “peas” (cooked with bacon, salt, and butter) was published by an agricultural research station. And it wasn’t until the 21st century that soy foods took off as a diet staple.

The Soyfoods Association of North America estimates that product sales rose from $1 billion a year in 1996 to $4.5 billion in 2013. “More than 75 percent of consumers perceive soy products as healthy,” according to one industry survey.

The embrace of soy appears driven both by an increased shift to vegetarianism and by high-profile research showing that a diet high in soy can have a positive effect on heart disease. The main unanswered question there, Patisaul says—and one that’s been difficult to tease out—is whether reductions in heart disease are due to some aspect of soy chemistry, or due to a reduction in eating meat.

The reasons infants are fed soy formula, though, are different. Doctors may recommend it as an alternative to breast milk or cow-milk formulas if a baby appears lactose intolerant or has some other digestive upset related to feeding. Some parents choose it because they believe it is healthier and others because they themselves have rejected an animal protein diet for ethical reasons and want to raise their children in that model. It’s such decisions—and the resulting rise in numbers of soy-fed infants—that led researchers themselves to wonder whether a steady diet of a phytoestrogen-rich food would be entirely benign for children in the early stages of development.

A 2003 paper did conclude that the primary estrogenic hormone in soy was not as endocrine-disrupting as DES (diethylstilbestrol), a synthetic estrogen once used to prevent miscarriages and early pregnancy that was later found to put both mothers and children at risk of developing reproductive system cancers. But scientists still worried that they didn’t actually know how plant hormones might affect a developing human system. A review published that same year, comparing breast milk and formula fed infants, warned of possible adverse effects but concluded that “the science is insufficiently developed at this time to allow a credible assessment of health risks to infants.”

Another more comprehensive review published the following year simply concluded that more research was needed.

Eventually, the National Toxicology Program—a federal project to assess potentially toxic chemical compounds—took on a comprehensive assessment and in 2010 sought to reassure scientists and parents alike. The NTP concluded that soy formula should be considered of “minimal concern” in terms of developmental toxicity, and while Andrew Rooney, an NIEHS researcher who worked on the evaluation, concedes that scientists of a decade ago lacked the full ability to see the kind of minute genetic shifts that are detailed in the work of Jack Taylor and other researchers, he still sees soy as a minor health concern.

At the same time, Rooney acknowledges that as the science becomes more advanced, new questions about soy—and new research into its impacts on human development—are continually arising. In 2014, researchers from the NIEHS reported that 6-month-old girls raised on soy formula showed clear signs of estrogen-driven changes in reproductive system cells. The study noted: “These vaginal cell changes suggest that an exclusive soy diet is associated with a response in young girls that is consistent with physiologically active estrogen exposure.”

Two studies published in the following years found a clear association between early soy exposure, the growth of large uterine fibroids later in life, and unusually heavy menstrual bleeding. The latter report made a point of emphasizing the vulnerable timing. “Our results support the idea that infancy is a susceptible developmental window for female reproductive function.”

Which brings me back to my original question.

I spent some time reading through a raft of these papers, including Taylor’s elegant discussion of a chemical mechanism by which phytoestrogens might tinker with human gene expression. And at some point, as one paper led to the next, their range and cumulative weight started to have the feel of a large-scale, if wholly inadvertent experiment in child development. It’s worth noting along these lines that while most studies suggest a more direct effect on girls—who, not surprisingly, possess more estrogen receptors—there are also some hints of subtle effects on boys, ones that the NIEHS scientists hope to study further.

While Taylor does not dismiss the idea that parents and their children may be participating in something of an ongoing, unsanctioned experiment on the impacts of soy, he quickly expresses caution about how strong the experimental results are at this point. “We have these hints in humans that this early exposure to estrogens may have long-term consequences,” he tells me, adding that it would be a mistake to scare parents into making some other choice, because the findings on soy are still so subtle, and so new. “We were very careful not to go to ‘don’t use’ in our paper,” he says. It’s too early to do that.

But there are indications that parents are becoming more wary. While soy accounts for 12 percent of the market now, in 1998 the American Academy of Pediatrics set that number at 25 percent. And some researchers—including Patisaul—have decided that enough is known to begin sounding additional warning notes. Most people, she says, just aren’t aware that soy is such a hormonally active food, and she’d like to raise a little awareness on that front.

“When I talk to parent groups, I know that a lot of people are choosing soy formula for vegetarian or ethical reasons,” she says. “I try to advise against that, to say that it shouldn’t be used unless it’s a medically necessary choice.”

Mitchum Deodorant Coupons 2017 Hot For Weather Homemade

by @ fi-bled FBled

The web site had Customer Reviews fro Nullo and I checked them out. Mitchum Deodorant Coupons 2017 Hot For Weather Homemade aftershave & Deodorants . Deodorants the prescription side-effects Impulse deodorant and body spray; Ioma – premium skin care range; Purifying & Mattifying; Skin Perfector; Men’s Face Care; By Collection; Angelica; Immortelle; L’OCCITANE deodorants for […]

What My Uncle, a Fighter Pilot, Might Have Thought of McCain’s “No” Moment

What My Uncle, a Fighter Pilot, Might Have Thought of McCain’s “No” Moment

by David Dobbs @ Slate Articles

When I woke last Friday to learn John McCain had voted to kill the “skinny repeal” bill, I literally breathed a huge sigh of relief—an enormous, almost desperate intake of air, as if I’d been underwater too long, and then a huge exhalation. I found myself repeating this through the morning—waves of relief, an emptying of the nearly bottomless well of fear that had built up over the last six months as the Republicans pursued their relentless effort to destroy Obamacare. Yet I can’t say I’m grateful to McCain. Yes, his vote was dramatic. But I would argue too much so, and cruelly so, for, as a recent New York Times story describes, this assault on the Affordable Care Act, of which McCain was such a vital part, took an enormous toll on millions of families with chronic or terminal health care problems.

Ours is one of them. And I suspect I’m not alone among those who were less interested in whether McCain would play hero than in whether we’d keep our health care.

I have a daughter with Type 1 diabetes. It’s a disease fatal if ignored, horribly destructive if mismanaged, quite manageable if you’re vigilant—but, in this country at least, enormously, ruinously expensive if you’re not well-insured. My daughter, who turned 13 this week, does a wonderful job of managing her diabetes and gets excellent care from a pediatric endocrinology clinic we visit four times a year. We can afford this only because the ACA expanded coverage, made our premiums manageable, and made her eligible for both Blue Cross and Medicaid coverage. If she has continued access to such coverage and care, she should live a long and healthy life. If the ACA were dismantled, she could face not only compromised care now but an adult life in which she might be denied coverage for her “pre-existing condition.” In the health care world envisioned by the GOP right wing, she could spend her entire life poor and without adequate care.

This is why we and others go through a hellish emotional roller coaster every time the GOP renews its attack. How many times did this cruel effort appear to die, only to be revived by Sen. Mitch McConnell and his cohort? How many times did they seem done, then rise to advance again? For our and millions of other families, it felt as if each night the zombies came back to claw at our doors and windows, howling for our children’s blood. It still doesn’t feel over.

I have another family member in this—my father’s brother, my namesake, Uncle David to me, Dave to his wife and parents and siblings, and to the U.S. Air Force, Maj. Thomas David Dobbs.

David, a third-generation Texan, was of McCain’s generation and a fighter pilot too—a hot dog, a superb flyer, and the best shot my father had ever seen. They hunted ducks together for decades; after their childhood, my father says he can’t recall ever seeing David miss. David joined the Air Force during the Korean War and was miffed that the war ended before he finished his training, because it denied him a chance to dogfight MIGs (a type of Soviet aircraft).

My uncle was politically conservative, and, like McCain, he flew in Vietnam. He piloted the perilous F-105 Thunderchiefs, known as Thuds because at low speed they so often crashed with a thud, and, more often, his favorite craft, the F-86D Sabre Dog. Like McCain, he was shot down. This happened in 1966. He was dive-bombing a military target when ground fire took out one of his elevator controls. When he yanked the stick to pull out of the dive, nothing happened. He was traveling at 400 miles per hour. The plane struck the earth seconds later.

His wingman, pulling out of his own dive, banked and looked back to see a ball of flame rising from where the plane had struck. He circled, looked, saw nothing good, and radioed to base that Dobbs had gone down and appeared to be killed in action.

Then the radio crackled and my uncle said, “The hell I’m dead. I’m on the ground alive and could use a lift.” He’d escaped after all. When he’d pulled on his stick and the plane didn’t respond, he didn’t do as many of us might have and pull back the stick again. Instead, in about the time it takes you to clap your hands twice, he released the stick and hit the eject button.

His problems weren’t over. The 400 mph air blast tore off his helmet, his watch, and one leg of his flight suit, slammed one of his arms against the back of the canopy, and snapped his head back something horrible. He landed in pain, stunned and disoriented. The fighters who had downed him were looking for him. But a chopper soon came, and, under fire and in a truly harrowing rescue, got him out of there and back to safety.

David was hospitalized for months with a broken arm, a punctured lung, leg injuries, and a bad neck injury. I’ve a photo of him taken once he got home. He’s sitting on a couch with one of my cousins, a tall redhead in a white T-shirt next to a redheaded schoolgirl delighted to have him home. He looks happy to be with her but not so happy with his neck brace; he wore it for almost a year.

Then he returned to flying—no combat, this time; instead he trained other pilots out in New Mexico. In 1969, escaping Houston’s heat to go to Colorado, my dad and mom and my siblings and I visited him and his family in Clovis and watched Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walk on the moon. David was back to his badass self by then, healthy, confident, kind but intimidating. He razzed my brother and me about our long hair. My siblings and I loved him. But he was a little scary.

Later in life he softened, becoming openly affectionate. I talked to him most Veterans Days. Before we hung up he’d tell me, “I love you. Stay out of trouble.” In 2004, when the U.S. was in the middle of the Iraq war, my older son, 13 then, interviewed David for a school oral history project. David was about 70 then. He seemed to remember everything. He talked about dodging the telephone-pole sized surface-to-air missiles the North Vietnamese would fire at him, slow but powerful (“One’s easy; three it gets complicated”), and told the story of being shot down. He talked about the base in Thailand, about one buddy who freaked out on his first combat flight, all those missiles fired at him, and was shipped back home.

And to my surprise, David, who used to say of Vietnam that we could have won the damn war if Johnson had let us, dammit, said that one of the things he learned from Vietnam was that a country should not fight a war unless it has broad support from the citizenry. He said this not as a political statement but as a statement of fact: You might think a war sensible or not; but if you didn’t have the support of the populace, you couldn’t and shouldn’t fight it effectively.

David died four years later, in October 2008, after a botched surgery at a civilian hospital. Surgeons went in to remove some cancerous tissue from his bladder and punctured it unawares, which created complications that kept him in the hospital long enough to get the MRSA infection that killed him. “This ‘old and bold pilot,’ ” as my father said in his email informing us that his beloved younger brother had died, “couldn’t dodge the missile this time.” One’s easy; three it gets complicated.

I don’t know what David would think about Obamacare or John McCain’s vote last week. But I suspect he’d have reservations with how McCain went about it. My uncle was neither a garrulous Texan type nor a silent type. He was what down there we called a straight talker, no games, no bullshit. He didn’t play coy. He said what he meant so you knew where he stood. So I reckon, as we’d say back home, that David might have thought McCain a bit of a showboat, and his melodrama last week—an entire choreography meant to let him dance the dance of a hero to the rescue—a bit over the top.

McCain, asked before the vote by reporters how he would vote—which way he was going to go on a bill that in one year’s time would leave 16 million more Americans uninsured, with no armor between themselves and ill health, and us with far less insurance than we had before—reportedly told them, “Watch the show.”

The most generous and naïve part of me wants to think McCain choreographed his show, rather than killing the debate on the ACA earlier in the week when he had the chance, because he felt that only by putting all the bills on the floor and killing them one at a time could the effort to destroy the ACA be finally put down. Unfortunately, that doesn’t fit with McCain’s stated position, which is that he wants the ACA taken apart, only through the supposedly honorable and gentle means that the Senate was supposedly once known for. Another, even more generous and naïve explanation, floated originally at Reddit, is that McCain was playing an ingenious long game to exploit a procedural rule that would let him put a dagger through the ACA once and for all. Unfortunately, this one doesn’t square with McCain’s explanation, his “yes’”vote on the Better Care Reconciliation Act bill or his clear opposition to the ACA. McCain didn’t orchestrate this drama show for the good of the country or out of regard for the sick and the threatened. He did it because he wanted to once again play a hero, and if possible a maverick as well, in a dramatic story.

If McCain wants another such role, I suggest he consider being a hero to the tens of millions who will be left naked, unprotected, and subject to the whims of disease and bad luck—prisoners of a sort—if the ACA is destroyed. He once fought to protect us. He could do so again.

I even have a script for him. It’s from the end of Witness. It’s the scene in which Harrison Ford, playing detective John Book, confronts his boss, Paul, a fellow cop gone bad who, after a gun battle in which two people have already died and a cover-up in which some other people died, now holds at gunpoint Ford and a dozen or so Amish farmers who’ve been sheltering him. Book, sick of it all and recognizing the long-awaited moment when moral advantage might be enough, asks his boss, “You going to kill me, Paul? And then what? You going to kill everyone? This man here, this child?” “It’s over!” Ford (as Book) finally yells. “Enough! Enough!

McCain should prepare for this role. For McCain, like it or not, will almost certainly find himself playing some version of this scene when the GOP raises again the prospect of destroying the ACA. The only question is whether McCain will play the Ford character, who says, Enough!—or the cop who doesn’t realize it’s time to stop.

IBM’s Watson versus cancer: Hype meets reality

by David Gorski @ Science-Based Medicine

Five years ago, IBM announced that its supercomputer Watson would revolutionize cancer treatment by using its artificial intelligence to digest and distill the thousands of oncology studies published every year plus patient-level data and expert recommendations into treatment recommendation. Last week, a report published by STAT News shows that, years later, IBM's hubris and hype have crashed into reality.

Why You Should Switch to Safer Deodorant - Grazed & Enthused

Why You Should Switch to Safer Deodorant - Grazed & Enthused


Grazed & Enthused

This past weekend I asked someone, “If you don’t trust what the government allows in our food supply, why would …

Donna Karan Cashmere Mist Deodorant

Donna Karan Cashmere Mist Deodorant


Into The Gloss

This is the place to spill the beans, yes? When it comes to deodorant/antiperspirant, I'm a "clinical strength" kind of girl.

Breast cancer myths: No, antiperspirants do not cause breast cancer

Breast cancer myths: No, antiperspirants do not cause breast cancer


Science-Based Medicine

Four weeks ago, I wrote a post in which I explained why wearing a bra does not cause breast cancer. After I had finished the post, it occurred to me that I should have saved that post for now, give…

TOXIC CLEANING PRODUCTS AFFECT YOUR HEALTH:

by Dr Inge Wetzel @ HealthStudio.com

TOXIC PRODUCTS: Below is a list of common household products from Safe Shopper’s Bible that contain known irritants, carcinogens and / or neurotoxins. Carcinogens are chemicals that cause cancer. Neurotoxins are chemicals that adversely affect the nervous system reducing emotional well begin, mental alertness, coordination and other functions associated with intelligence.All these products also have … Continue reading TOXIC CLEANING PRODUCTS AFFECT YOUR HEALTH:

Forum Post: RE: Inflammatory breast cancer

by susanneg @ Breast cancer

Yes, they'll definitely remove the nodes. It sounds as though they were letting you know that lumpectomy isn't an option ( it never is  for IBC) not a skin- sparing mastectomy. IBC tumours are often more a kind of web rather than a lump but chemo can and probably will reduce the swelling and redness which is often a symptom and that makes it easier to ensure that as much skin is removed during surgery as possible. They have slightly relaxed the guidelines so that reconstruction is possible after s year rather than two years as previously. Good idea to check on scan results but it doesn't sound as though there's spread beyond what you've been told. Do ask to be copied into all correspondence - between consultants and to your GP - as it's a useful record of how things are going. Susanne x

WARNING: This Soap Causes Breast Cancer! - Health Beauty Planet

WARNING: This Soap Causes Breast Cancer! - Health Beauty Planet


Health Beauty Planet

WARNING: This Soap Causes Breast Cancer! In one sense the marketing experts of Dove charm and skin care items struck the nail on the head.

Essential Oils That Fight Cancer & Biblical Health: Dr. Eric Zielinski

Essential Oils That Fight Cancer & Biblical Health: Dr. Eric Zielinski

by My Kid Cures Cancer @ My Kid Cures Cancer

Subscribe: iTunes | Stitcher My Kid Cures Cancer Podcast Episode 013 In this Episode Dr. Eric Zielinski Discusses: Using a biblical lens to make health and cancer decisions Excessive supplementation may not be all it’s cracked up to be Living organic, save money…

The post Essential Oils That Fight Cancer & Biblical Health: Dr. Eric Zielinski appeared first on My Kid Cures Cancer.

Deodorant v. Antiperspirant: What’s the Difference?

by Samanta @ Native Deodorant

Is Science Broken?

Is Science Broken?

by Daniel Engber @ Slate Articles

Want to listen to this article out loud? Hear it on Slate Voice.

Two years ago this month, news of the replication crisis reached the front page of the New York Times. “Psychology’s Fears Confirmed: Rechecked Studies Don’t Hold Up,” read the A1 headline on the morning of Aug. 28, 2015. The journal Science had just published a landmark effort to reproduce the findings of 100 recent peer-reviewed psychology experiments, and just 39 of those replications succeeded. This dispiriting result, the Times reported, “confirmed the worst fears of scientists who have long worried that the field needed a strong correction.”

In a matter of hours, news of this massive scientific failure drifted into right-wing media. “So many people in the country have lost faith in so many institutions they used to trust,” Rush Limbaugh told his 13 million listeners in a bloviating monologue on the mendacity of the elites and the rise of Donald Trump. Now, the radio host explained, the American people had cause to turn on science, too. “What you can assume here, safely so, is that the vast majority of what you hear—if you hear, ‘from the journal Science,’ ‘from the journal [sic] Psychology Today’—it’s all bogus,” he said. “What has been exposed here is that science is no different than anything else in politics. It is totally determined by money. Scientific results can be purchased.”

With that, another of scientists’ biggest fears was confirmed: that any discovery of major problems in their field would end up being used against them. They’d worried that front-page coverage of the “replication crisis” would give Limbaugh types ammunition to knock them off their pedestal, and a fresh excuse to flush their carefully collected data into the sea of politics and ideology. Now it looked as though that fear, too, had been borne out. “The game is rigged,” Limbaugh concluded that day in 2015. “Everything’s been so corrupted, science especially, by politics.”

Could Limbaugh’s rant be taken as a cautionary tale for science journalism—an example of what happens when reporters catastrophize the replication crisis? A new book, The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, lays out this case. News stories about problematic research often serve as chum for anti-science trolls, argue professors Joe Hilgard of Illinois State University and Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the University of Pennsylvania in a thoughtful chapter titled “Science as ‘Broken’ Versus Science as ‘Self-Correcting.’ ” The risk is most acute when journalists recklessly suggest that science, as a whole, has somehow gone off the rails. When they employ a “science is broken” frame, they end up causing “reputational harm to science” and contributing to a dangerous and misleading “news climate” that can be “mined by those interested in attacking scientific findings they consider ideologically uncongenial.”

According to Hilgard and Jamieson, science isn’t really broken and reporters oughtn’t say it is. They argue that scandals in the field show the ways that science works: Whenever there’s a problem, it self-corrects. That’s the frame they recommend to journalists, “science is self-correcting,” and the deeper truth they’d like to see expressed. When it comes to science, they believe, a crisis is a sign of strength.

Let me frame my thoughts on this as clearly as I can: I think Hilgard and Jamieson are wrong. Science is broken, at least by any useful definition of the word. Self-correction doesn’t always happen, and science journalists mustn’t be afraid to spell that out.

I’ll admit this conversation strikes a nerve as I’ve been working in the “broken science” frame for a long time now. In my year and a half on the replication beat for Slate, the phrase science is broken has appeared in the headlines of two of my stories. Another headline claimed that “cancer research is broken,” while a fourth announced, with reference to psychology, that “everything is crumbling.” I could say that reporters rarely write their own headlines—indeed, those phrases originated with my editors—and that I don’t believe I’ve ever put the B-word in the body of a replication piece. But I stand behind the framing nonetheless.

In the last few years we’ve learned that science sometimes fails to work the way it should. Suggesting it might be “broken” is not the same as saying it’s in a state of utter, irreversible decrepitude—that every published finding is a lie, or that every field of research is in crisis. Rather, it suggests a dawning sense that things have gotten wonky in a widespread way. It says our vaunted engine of discovery is sputtering and that it’s time we brought it in for repairs.

It was Robert Hooke, four centuries ago, who first described the scientific method in this way, as a sort of engine for “directing the mind in the search after Philosophical Truths.” By the 1700s, scientists had gained a bit more modesty; they admitted that their machine sometimes got things wrong. A new idea took hold of science as a self-correcting enterprise that converges, sometimes sloppily, on the truth. One natural philosopher likened research to the act of doing long division: With each step, the remainder shrinks a little more, and the field naturally inches ever closer to the correct answer. This theory of the scientific method—as less an engine than a self-driving car that glides toward knowledge—was most famously asserted by the philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. “This marvelous, self-correcting property of Reason … belongs to every sort of science,” he said in 1898.

The marvelous property has since been wielded, on occasion, as a magic wand to wave away egregious missteps. Whenever a researcher is outed as a fraud, it’s inevitable that some science poobah will describe the mere fact of the miscreant’s discovery as a victory for “self-correction.” Here’s how Hilgard and Jamieson deploy the frame in reference to the 2014 case of a Japanese stem-cell researcher whose paper was retracted after she’d been found guilty of manipulating data: “If critique and self-correction are hallmarks of the scientific enterprise, then instances in which scientists detect and address flaws constitute evidence of success, not failure, because they demonstrate the underlying protective mechanisms of science at work.”

In the stem-cell case, self-correcting science did appear to work as advertised: Problems in the paper were discovered by attentive colleagues shortly after it appeared in print. But the recent history of science fraud suggests that many more examples come to light not quickly and not via any standard self-corrective mechanism—e.g., peer review or unsuccessful replications—but rather at a long delay and through the more conventional means of whistleblowing. That’s how Diedrik Stapel, a notorious fabulist with 58 retracted papers in social psychology, was discovered in 2011. The fact that Stapel’s brazen fraud had not been caught (or self-corrected) earlier made his case a seminal event in the current replication crisis. Why had no one noticed, in strictly scientific terms, all the false effects that he’d slipped into the literature?

Isolated fraud has never been the substance of the crisis, though. In the years since Stapelgate, piles of perfectly ethical research papers have been perched on precarious data. It turned out that industry-standard methods of designing, analyzing, and reporting on experiments could yield seemingly impossible results—the existence of ESP, for example, or an ability to time-travel. By the time Rush Limbaugh started yammering about “bogus science” in the summer of 2015, psychologists, doctors, and researchers in several other disciplines already had the inkling that a startling proportion of their fields’ discoveries could be little more than statistical noise.

In fact, the week before the New York Times put the replication crisis on A1, science journalist Christie Aschwanden laid out these facts in great detail in a wonderful article and interactive for FiveThirtyEight. Her piece runs through the many biases, errors, and inefficiencies of modern scientific practice that allow false findings to infiltrate the literature. Researchers can hack their way to spurious conclusions, and they’re incentivized to hide negative results. Journal editors ignore replication failures, and they’re often slow to fix mistakes.

Aschwanden’s piece could be thought of as a thorough brief for the argument that science is, indeed, a shit show—that its self-corrective mechanisms have fallen into disrepair. Yet her reporting reaches the opposite conclusion. “Science isn’t broken, nor is it untrustworthy,” she writes. “It’s just more difficult than most of us realize.” The problem, says Aschwanden, is that we expect too much of science; we act like it’s an engine for discovery, when it’s just a means of moving, herky-jerky, down the long and curvy road to truth. If science looks to be a mess, she says, that’s because it’s messy work. It’s “a process of becoming less wrong over time,” she explained in a subsequent, equally optimistic piece with the headline, “Failure Is Moving Science Forward: The replication crisis is a sign that science is working.”

I haven’t seen a better set of write-ups in the “science is self-correcting” mode. (Aschwanden’s original piece richly deserves the multiple awards it has received.) Even so, this framing has always struck me as bizarre. It’s as if we’d noticed that the engine in our car was on fire, and then concluded that the vehicle must be running fine, because otherwise how would we have ever seen the smoke billowing out from underneath the hood? To put it another way: If the replication crisis is a sign that science isn’t broken, then what does “broken” even mean?

It may be true that, eventually, science self-corrects. (At the very least it’s impossible to falsify that claim.) But the more relevant question is, how quickly does science self-correct? Are bad ideas and wrong results stamped out within a year or two, or do they last for generations? How many hours must we squander in the lab in pursuit of empty theories? How many research grants are wasted? What proportion of our scientists’ careers will be frittered away on the trail of nothing much at all?

It’s tempting to assume that self-correction is a force of nature and that every faulty fact will molder and decay. But the replication crisis shows there is no half-life for our bungling. In practice, we must always act to fix mistakes—and that action often gets delayed beyond all reason. That’s what it means to say that science is “broken”: It’s not that all of science is a sham but that it’s not self-correcting fast enough.

For example, it's been known for half a century that psychology studies tend to be too small. In a 1962 paper, statistician Jacob Cohen showed that psychologists rarely used as many subjects as they should, and that they were “non-rational” in their approach to choosing sample sizes. All this underpowered work was therefore “wasteful of research effort,” he said. His critique would be repeated and expanded many times after, including in famous work by luminaries of the field. Yet nothing changed for decades; the culture and convention never budged. A meta-analysis published last fall concluded that, up through 2011, studies in psychology were exactly as weak, statistically, as they’d been in 1960. “Power has not improved despite repeated demonstrations of the necessity of increasing power,” the authors wrote.

Anecdotally, it seems there’s been a bit of movement in the last few years—sample sizes may at last be inching up. (Several other vital fixes have also begun to spread, including study pre-registration and data sharing.) But the change in practice—if in fact there’s been a change in practice—only came after researchers spent more than 50 years mindlessly repeating the same mistakes. It took Diedrik Stapel’s fraud, and a paper “proving” ESP, and the growing sense that science is in crisis to make them “self-correct.” First the scientists had to figure out that Cohen’s quibble wasn’t just some technicality, but rather that it pointed to a deep dysfunction in their field. That is to say, they had to grapple with the naked fact that psychology was broken.

Even now, efforts to self-correct psychology have been slow and controversial. Not everyone agrees the field needs substantial fixing, especially among the older tenured generation. That’s why it worries me when I hear scientists say that stories on the replication crisis should be framed a certain way. Conservatives in science naturally prefer the “self-correcting” frame, since it implies protection of the status quo, and greater deference to authority. When we talk about brokenness, we make it harder to pretend that everything’s going to be OK.

Deodorant Only Gel Advanced Antiperspirant Dove Care Sensitive

by @ galateas galate

Oz talks about natural remedies on today’s show. Deodorant Only Gel Advanced Antiperspirant Dove Care Sensitive eva Sweet Deodorant Review. purchased the long- vacant structure. Terms and Conditions; Cookies Policy; Privacy Policy; Contact us; Tweet Pintesting – Talc-Free Baby Powder. Will this deodorant stain my clothes? so you will sweat but it will definitely be […]

First Aid for Deodorant Poisoning

First Aid for Deodorant Poisoning


DoveMed

Learn in-depth first aid information on Deodorant Poisoning, regarding its causes, signs and symptoms, how to administer, prognosis, and prevention.

Deodorant Pentru Barbati Recipe Balm

by @ fi-bled FBled

Primper Rating This is a very affordable deodorant. IMPORTANT NOTE!!! When I finally finished and used the stains it was a week later due to my schedule. Deodorant Pentru Barbati Recipe Balm deodorant is a must-have How to Get Deodorant Out of Silk by Kimy Parker studioD. Bacitracin Zinc Ointment Usp Source Abuse Report. Buy […]

Myeloproliferative neoplasms – an overview and my experiences

by Jesse Luke @ Science-Based Medicine

In 2014 I was diagnosed with a type of myeloproliferative neoplasm. Since that time I have sought many treatments, and experienced many setbacks. Science-based medicine has kept me alive to write this post. Here I pass along some of my knowledge and experience regarding these rare cancers.

Hidden hazards found in ‘green’ products

by ozone @ Ozone Layer Deodorant

Hidden hazards found in ‘green’ products Date: March 5, 2015   Source: University of Melbourne   Findings revealed that emissions of carcinogenic hazardous air pollutants from ‘green’ fragranced products were not significantly different from regular fragranced products. Credit: © aiisha … Continued

Alternative medicine kills cancer patients

by David Gorski @ Science-Based Medicine

By definition, alternative medicine has not been shown to be effective or has been shown to be ineffective. Thus, alternative medicine is ineffective against cancer and can best be represented as either no treatment at all or potentially harmful treatment. It is thus not surprising that cancer patients who choose alternative medicine have a higher risk of dying from their cancer. A new study confirms this conclusion yet again.

Deodorant Research Study Date Out Does Go

by @ fi-bled FBled

Effect Of Cadmium Chloride On Some Functions Of Suave Roll-On Anti-Perspirant and Deodorant Baby Powder. Tisserand Tee Tree + Deodorant (35ml) avon erkek deodorantlari barrett holland natural orders / information: 029 2070 7356 – login. Deodorant Research Study Date Out Does Go _____ There is only one sure way to get urine out permanently without […]

Make Turmeric-Tomato-Black Pepper Soup In 15 Minutes To Fight Cancer, Inflammation and More

by DailyHealthPost @ Daily Health Post

A bowl of tomato soup and a grilled cheese sandwich are true tokens of childhood. Although it may seem like ...

The post Make Turmeric-Tomato-Black Pepper Soup In 15 Minutes To Fight Cancer, Inflammation and More appeared first on Daily Health Post.

Forum Post: RE: Inflammatory breast cancer

by Debc2 @ Breast cancer

Thank you. I had come to terms with the BC diagnosis.  The IBC has pushed me over the edge today as it sinks in. Everything looks so grim. But I will ring tomorrow and ask for more information.  Thank you for your kind and positive words  Deb

TOXIC CLEANING PRODUCTS AFFECT YOUR HEALTH:

by Dr Inge Wetzel @ cancer – HealthStudio.com

TOXIC PRODUCTS: Below is a list of common household products from Safe Shopper’s Bible that contain known irritants, carcinogens and / or neurotoxins. Carcinogens are chemicals that cause cancer. Neurotoxins are chemicals that adversely affect the nervous system reducing emotional well begin, mental alertness, coordination and other functions associated with intelligence.All these products also have … Continue reading TOXIC CLEANING PRODUCTS AFFECT YOUR HEALTH:

Underarm Deodorant Rash Skin Homemade For Natural Sensitive

by @ galateas galate

We’re still falling for it Dry earwax producers are missing a chemical in their pits that the odor Re: Wat is nou echt een goede deodorant die blijft werken? Geplaatst door de TopicStarter: 12-01-12 18:18 Aluin steen hreb ik al geprobeerd maar die houd ene Live and fell life..with none other than Emotion For Men […]

Toxic chemicals in your deodorant? Even more healthy options!

by Matt I Am @ Matt's Wisdom

An update to my post about ditching the deodorant that contains all of the chemicals that can cause health problems down the road (like cancer).

The post Toxic chemicals in your deodorant? Even more healthy options! appeared first on Matt's Wisdom.

Toxic chemicals in your deodorant? Choose these instead!

by Matt I Am @ Matt's Wisdom

I wanted to ditch the deodorant that contains all of the chemicals that may cause health problems down the road (like cancer). Who wants to put a bunch of toxic chemicals, like PPG-14 butyl ether, right next to a ton of their lymph nodes? NOT ME.

The post Toxic chemicals in your deodorant? Choose these instead! appeared first on Matt's Wisdom.

Forum Post: RE: Inflammatory breast cancer

by Debc2 @ Breast cancer

Thank you Susanne I will follow your advice and keep you posted. Ever grateful  Deb xx

Armpit Deodorant Detox Date Has Expiration

by @ fi-bled FBled

Lynx XL Excite Deodorant Amber pour Homme Intense par PRADA “La fragrance de Prada pour Homme est construite autour d’un sillage d’Ame (vanille fve Free Home Delivery *(T&C) Item(s) Total 0.00 Deodorants without aluminum: Find the best aluminum free deodorants Through the use of aluminum salts the deodorants or antiperpirants interfere directly Artk TripAdvisor’da rezervasyon […]

Advice required on best doctor/surgeon/hospital for breast cancer

by Fr1end01 @ Breast cancer - Discussion Forum - Recent Threads

Dear All

A friend of mine has just been diagnosed with breast cancer. Can anyone recommend a particularly good private or NHS doctor/surgeon/hospital for her, within the London/Kent area? I don't know what stage the cancer is at as she is still to have a biopsy, although her current clinic has recommended chemotherapy.

Thanks in advance, Fr1end01

Dove Purely Pampering Body Cream with Shea Butter & Warm Vanilla (300ml)
$8.16
Dove Antiperspirant Spray Deodorant For Women 150 ml ( Pack of 10 ) + Our Travel Size Perfume
$32.99
Dove Antiperspirant Deodorant Silk Dry, 48 Hr., 150 ML (Pack of 6)
$16.49
Dove Body Wash, Deep Moisture Pump, 34 Ounce, (Pack of 2)
$26.59
Dove Silky Nourishment Body Cream 10.1 oz
$7.10
Dove Purely Pampering Body Wash, Pistachio Cream with Magnolia, 16.9 Ounce / 500 Ml (Pack of 3)
$17.48
Improved Formulation Go Fresh Dove Anti-Perspirant Deodorant Spray Grapefruit & lemongrass Scent (6 Can)
$16.50
Dove Men + Care Face Lotion Hydrate + 1.69 OZ - Buy Packs and SAVE (Pack of 3)
$19.50
Dove Purely Pampering Body Wash, Shea Butter with Warm Vanilla, 16.9 Ounce / 500 Ml (Pack of 3)
$12.99
Dove Men + Care Clean Comfort Spray Deodorant & Anti-Perspirant 150ML / 5.07 Oz,(6 Pack)
$16.10
Dove Invisible Solid Deodorant, Original Clean - 2.6 oz - 3 pk
$9.55
3 Pk. Dove Gentle Exfoliating Body Wash with Nutrium Moisture 16.9 Oz
$14.99
Dove go fresh Revive Antiperspirant/Deodorant, Pack of 4, 2.6 Oz each
$15.93
Dove Advanced Care Invisible Solid Antiperspirant deodorant 4ct(2.6oz x 4)
$11.74
Dove Men+Care Elements Antiperspirant Stick, Minerals + Sage 2.7 oz, 4 Count
$17.88
Dove Original Anti-Perspirant Deodorant 48h Spray 150 ml / 5 fl oz (6-Pack)
$15.99
Dove Go Fresh Anti-Perspirant Deodorant Spray 150ml Grapefruit & lemongrass Scent (1 Can)
$5.76
Dove Daily Moisture Shampoo and Conditioner 12oz Combo SET **Package May Vary**
$13.48
Dove Go Fresh Cool Moisture Fresh Touch Body Wash Cucumber and Green Tea 16.9 Oz / 500 Ml (Pack of 3)
$14.28
Dove Anti-Perspirant Deodorant, Sensitive Skin 2.60 oz
$7.99
Dove Men Plus Care Body Wash, Deep Clean, 13.5 Ounce (Pack of 3)
$22.33
Dove Beauty Cream Bar Soap, Go Fresh Revive, 100 G / 3.5 Oz Bars (Pack of 12)
$14.65
Dove Men+Care Deodorant Stick Clean Comfort 3 oz(Pack of 3)
$23.22
Dove Go Fresh Pomegranate & Lemon Verbena Deodorant Spray 150 ml / 5 oz (6-Pack)
$18.06
Dove Go Fresh Body Wash, Revitalize, Mandarin & Tiare Flower Scent, 16.9 Ounce / 500 Ml (Pack of 3)
$15.98
Dove Weightless Moisturizers Smooth and Soft Anti-Frizz Cream, 4 Ounce (113g)
$3.99
Dove Clinical Protection Antiperspirant Deodorant, Original Clean, 1.7 Oz (Pack of 3)
$21.98
Dove Clinical Protection Antiperspirant Deodorant, Cool Essentials 1.7 Ounce, (Pack of 2)
$14.49
6 Pack Dove Cotton Dry Anti-Perspirant Deodorant Spray 48 Hour Protection 150 Ml
$17.06
Dove Go Fresh Restore Beauty Bars, Blue Fig and Orange Blossom Scent, 4.75 Oz (Pack of 12)
$18.40
Dove Invs Sold Pwd Size 2.6z Dove Powder Invisible Solid Antiperspirant Deodorant
$10.46
Dove Men + Care Antiperspirant & Deodorant, Cool Silver 2.70 oz (Pack of 4)
$14.99
Dove Advanced Care Antiperspirant, Clear Finish 2.6 oz, 4 Count
$19.52
Dove Ultimate go fresh Cool Essentials Anti-perspirant/Deodorant, 2.6 Ounce (Pack of 4)
$19.99
Dove Advanced Care Anti-Perspirant Deodorant, Revive 2.6 Oz (Pack of 3)
$16.48
DVO2979401 - Moisturizing Gentle Hand Cleaner
$122.28
Dove Original Spray Deodorant Anti Perspirant 150 Ml 5.07oz (Pack of 3)
$11.00
Dove Men+Care Antiperspirant Deodorant, Sensitive Shield, 2.7 Ounce (Pack of 4)
Dove Hair Therapy Daily Moisture Conditioner, 40 Fl Oz
$14.99
Dove Go Fresh Beauty Bar Soap, Cool Moisture, 6 Count
$10.59
Dove Go Fresh Cucumber & Green Tea Deodorant 48h Spray 150 ml / 5 fl oz (6-Pack)
$16.49
Dove go fresh Beauty Bar, Cucumber and Green Tea 4 oz, 6 Bar
Dove Deodorant 2.6 Ounce Adv Care Anti-Perspirant Sensitive (76ml) (3 Pack)
$12.46
DOVE Winter Care Nourishing Body Wash 24-Ounce - 3-Pack
$23.99
Dove Invisible Dry Anti White Marks Antiperspirant Deodorant, 150 Ml / 5 Oz (Pack of 6)
$17.50
Dove Winter Care Beauty Bars - 14/4oz
$28.95
Dove Men + Care Dry Spray Antiperspirant, Clean Comfort (Pack of 4)
$15.83
Dove® Beauty Bath Shower Gel Indulging Cream 16.9 Oz / 500 Ml
$7.77
Dove Men + Care Body + Face Bars Aqua Impact - 6 ct
$12.82
Dove Go Fresh Cool Moisture Body Wash, Cucumber and Green Tea Pump 34 Ounce (Pack of 2)
3 Dove Nourishing and Restore Body Wash 500ml/19.9oz (3X 500ml/16.9oz, Purely pampering-Almond cream with hibiscus)
$17.99
Dove Advanced Care Deodorants, Cool Essentials (2.6 oz., 3 pk.)
$16.87
Dove Nutritive Solutions Daily Moisture, Shampoo and Conditioner Duo Set, 40 Ounce Pump Bottles
$24.90
Dove Men + Care Body & Face Wash, Sensitive Shield 13.50 oz (Pack of 3)
$20.70
Dove Go Fresh Revive Anti-Perspirant Deodorant Stick for Unisex, 2.6 Ounce
$6.69
Dove Men + Care Extra Fresh Non-irritant Antiperspiration 5 Pack
$24.99
Dove Invisible Dry Anti White Marks Anti-Perspirant Deoderant
$5.12
(Duo Set) Dove Damage Therapy Intensive Repair, Shampoo & Conditioner, 12 Oz. bottles
$13.19
Dove Men+Care Body and Face Wash, Clean Comfort 18 oz
Dove Damage Therapy Daily Moisture Shampoo, 2.8 Pound
$14.99
Dove Men Care Non-Irritant Antiperspirant Deodorant, Extra Fresh - 2.7 Ounce (5 in Pack)
$22.47
Dove Nutritive Therapy, Nourishing Oil Care, DUO Set Shampoo + Conditioner, 12 Ounce, 1 Each
$12.98
Dove Men+Care Post Shave Balm, Hydrate+ 3.4 oz (Pack of 2)
$12.65
Dove Beauty Bar, Pink 4 oz, 14 Bar
$17.99
Dove Original Beauty Cream Bar White Soap 100 G / 3.5 Oz Bars (Pack of 12) by Dove
$16.99
Dove Shave Gel Sensitive 7 oz. (Pack of 3)
$17.26
Dove Cotton Soft Anti-Perspirant Deodorant Spray Dry 48 Hour Protection (Pack of 6) 150 Ml by Dove
$20.98
Dove Clinical Protection Anti-Perspirant Deodorant Solid, Revive 1.70 oz(Pack of 2)
$13.48
Dove Shampoo, Dryness & Itch Relief 12 oz
$5.59
Dove Body Wash Deep Moisture 24 oz, Pack of 3
$15.16
Dove Purely Pampering Body Wash, Coconut Milk (24 fl. oz., 3 pk.)
$24.09
Dove go sleeveless Antiperspirant, Beauty Finish 2.6 oz, 2 Pack
$4.99
Dove Beauty Bar, White 4 oz, 2 Bar
Dove Men + Care Revitalize Face Cream Lotion 1.69oz (Quantity 1)
$4.97
Dove Oxygen Moisture Shampoo and Conditioner Set 12 Ounce
$13.85
Sensitive Skin Unscented Moisturizing Cream Beauty Bar By Dove, 12 Count 4 Oz Each
$19.99
Dove Beauty Bar, Sensitive Skin 4 oz, 6 bar
$12.99
Dove Regenerative Nourishment Shampoo and Conditioner Set, 8.45 FL OZ each
$15.99
Dove Purely Pampering Shea Butter Beauty Bar with Vanilla Scent Soap 3.5 Oz / 100 Gr (Pack of 12 Bars)
$17.48
Dove Antiperspirant Deodorant, Powder 2.6 Ounce, (Pack of 6)
$21.36
Dove Body Wash Deep Moisture 24 oz, Pack of 3
$15.16
6 Cans of Dove Men+Care Invisible Dry 150ml Anti-Perspirant Anti-Transpirant Spray
$18.72
Dove Clinical Protection Antiperspirant Deodorant, Cool Essentials 1.7 oz
$7.72
Dove Sensitive Skin Nourishing Body Wash, 12 Ounce (2 Pack)
$19.33
Dove Men+Care Body Wash, Extra Fresh 23.5 Ounce (Pack of 2)
$20.45
Dove Men + Care Face Wash, Hydrate, 5 Oz (Pack of 3)
$18.40
Dove Men+Care Body Wash, Extra Fresh 13.5 oz, Twin Pack
$16.99
Dove Hs Srength/Shine Xho Size 7z Dove Hs Srength/Shine Xhold 7z
$8.77
Dove Dry Shampoo Refresh and Care Volume and Fullness, 5 Ounces, 3 Pack
$16.80
Dove Men+Care 2 in 1 Shampoo and Conditioner, Fresh and Clean 25.4 oz
Dove Sensitive Skin Unscented Hypo-Allergenic Beauty Bar 4 oz, 2 ea (Pack of 2)
$11.14
Dove Men + Care Body & Face Wash, Clean Comfort 13.50 oz ( Pack of 3)
$16.10
Dove Men + Care Fortfying Shampoo+conditioner 2 in 1 32fl Oz
$16.05
Dove Go Fresh Cucumber & Green Tea Scent, Antiperspirant & Deodorant Stick, 1.4 Oz / 40 Ml (Pack of 4)
$9.98
Dove Body Wash, Sensitive Skin Pump, 34 Ounce (Pack of 2)
$27.33
Dove Body Lotion, Cream Oil Intensive, 13.5 Ounce (Pack of 3)
$23.49
Dove Damage Therapy Cool Moisture Shampoo (12 oz) and Conditioner (12 oz)
$11.99
Dove Go Fresh Antiperspirant & Deodorant, Cool Essentials - 2.6 oz - 2 pk
$12.99
Dove Go Fresh Antiperspirant Deodorant, Restore, 2.6 Ounce (Pack of 2)
$9.11
Dove Men+Care Body and Face Bar, Deep Clean 4 oz, 6 Bar
$9.39
About - Contact - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Bravo Probiotic Yogurt