Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, shills of the medical profession and cosmetic industries, have at it. Let me see why this does not apply.
I would suggest you stop trolling and provide evidence instead of pandering conspiracy theories to support your vivid imagination. Your belief system carries no weight when it comes to scientific principles. Rattling off pseudoscience to make it more palatable to the ignorant is a cloaking technique trying to hide true basis of bizarre homeopathic beliefs that are more aligned with witchcraft than science.
Nothing you have said makes any sense. People with renal failure and liver failure retain fluids in dependent areas of the body like the ankles and not the breast creating cysts.
Breast cysts are conventional medical concepts based on modern imagining and microscopic findings which have nothing to do with homeopathic treatments that can't diagnose cysts nor treat such cysts. How in the hell do they know what causes breast cysts when they can't even diagnose them nor knew they existed for centuries?
Modern medicine discovered breast cysts and now all of a sudden homeopaths are experts in knowing what causes them and in treating them? Of course that's the wonders and advantages in using witchcraft.
So, OP? What are you going to do about this, besides just tell people "don't use cosmetics or any sort of product on your body or hair"? What are your plans for convincing society that women are fine just the way they are, and that their worth shouldn't be tied up in their appearance, so women don't feel the need to use these products? Feel free to be wordy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parnassia
I'd suspect what leans toward the ridiculous in your "theory" is the lengths to which you are following your favored train of thought. Why are you choosing to focus on breast cysts instead of other signs of alien hormone influence? That in itself smacks of a preconception, an agenda that you've already front-loaded. You want to concoct an explanation for breast cysts and are using women's use of cosmetics and the dastardly cosmetic industry to do so. The chain of missing dots between the two is huge. Breast cysts in themselves are not dangerous, they're an annoyance. The sheer amount of cosmetic material probably required to cause formation of cysts is probably much higher than actual amount most women ever use. Women who don't use cosmetics get breast cysts. They are extremely common. Consider the classic medical adage "when you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras." Still, you are free to believe what you want. Won't make it any more or less true.
And why breast cysts and not in other fatty areas of the body?
I don't know why anyone is fighting over this. It's commonly known that many cosmetics contain toxic ingredients. Maybe not anything that causes breast cysts, but there are entire lists of the ingredients that should be avoided. The US allows a lot of questionable ingredients that aren't allowed in other countries. Hair dye, sunscreen, lotions, lipstick--read the ingredients, because over time they can do damage. The last article quoted has a list of what is in some cosmetics and it's recommended reading as far as I am concerned.
The analysis also linked hair straightening products to a higher risk of breast cancer. These chemical products were associated with an 18% higher risk of breast cancer in women who used them in the 12 months before the study period. The more often women used straightener, the higher the risk. Women who used the products every five to eight weeks had a 31% higher risk of going on to develop breast cancer compared with nonusers. Although African American women in the study were more likely than others to use straighteners, the increase in breast cancer risk was similar for all races.
Women in the study who used permanent hair dye at least once in the 12-month period leading up to the study had a 9% higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who didn't use hair dye.
formaldehyde – found in some keratin hair treatments, body soap and nail polish – and coal tar – found in some hair dyes and shampoo – are of top concern in beauty products. So are heavy metals, like lead found in lipsticks and clay-based products, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals like parabens and phthalates, among others.
When a person uses cosmetics, their skin absorbs chemicals, which can then enter the bloodstream. People might also inhale powders or ingest some cosmetics — by using lip products, for example.
cancer
endocrine disorders, which affect the production of hormones in the body
developmental delays
neurological problems
I don't know why anyone is fighting over this. It's commonly known that many cosmetics contain toxic ingredients. Maybe not anything that causes breast cysts, but there are entire lists of the ingredients that should be avoided. The US allows a lot of questionable ingredients that aren't allowed in other countries. Hair dye, sunscreen, lotions, lipstick--read the ingredients, because over time they can do damage. The last article quoted has a list of what is in some cosmetics and it's recommended reading as far as I am concerned.
The analysis also linked hair straightening products to a higher risk of breast cancer. These chemical products were associated with an 18% higher risk of breast cancer in women who used them in the 12 months before the study period. The more often women used straightener, the higher the risk. Women who used the products every five to eight weeks had a 31% higher risk of going on to develop breast cancer compared with nonusers. Although African American women in the study were more likely than others to use straighteners, the increase in breast cancer risk was similar for all races.
Women in the study who used permanent hair dye at least once in the 12-month period leading up to the study had a 9% higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who didn't use hair dye.
formaldehyde – found in some keratin hair treatments, body soap and nail polish – and coal tar – found in some hair dyes and shampoo – are of top concern in beauty products. So are heavy metals, like lead found in lipsticks and clay-based products, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals like parabens and phthalates, among others.
When a person uses cosmetics, their skin absorbs chemicals, which can then enter the bloodstream. People might also inhale powders or ingest some cosmetics — by using lip products, for example.
cancer
endocrine disorders, which affect the production of hormones in the body
developmental delays
neurological problems
Science is precise and experiments are precise and studies try to eliminate all variables except that which is being studied. Those are controlled studies for that very reason.
The OP provided opinion rather than studies. There are no study links to provide context to his opinions. The context for the OP was skin products and the risk of breast cysts and stated the reason why he thought that.
You can't do what you have done which is change the context and use tangential examples as evidence for skin products causing cysts. It doesn't work that way. Just because some products can cause cancer in no way validates what the OP is asserting in the original post pertaining to all the statements being used to justify his hypothesis that skin products cause breast cysts.
If A then B is a statement of logic. Bringing up statement C does not validate the if A then B statement.
If a person using makeup then they will come down with breast cysts is the logical hypothesis and statement.
The OP's got a lot of great points. We need more caution in this area, and really anytime we're talking about applying products to our skin; beyond cosmetics. This applies to men too, and any products.
Our culture and society is quick to support and promote products for the skin - no questions asked - and short on pausing and thinking / researching what we're actually getting into.
The skin is the largest organ on the body. Everything that touches our skin goes into our blood stream. Some of it may cause cancer, not just breast cancer.
My father died from AML Leukemia that was caused by benzene in the products we used at our gas and service station. I've already tested positive for benzene poisoning, am being watched for cancer too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
I don't know why anyone is fighting over this. It's commonly known that many cosmetics contain toxic ingredients. Maybe not anything that causes breast cysts, but there are entire lists of the ingredients that should be avoided. The US allows a lot of questionable ingredients that aren't allowed in other countries. Hair dye, sunscreen, lotions, lipstick--read the ingredients, because over time they can do damage. The last article quoted has a list of what is in some cosmetics and it's recommended reading as far as I am concerned.
The analysis also linked hair straightening products to a higher risk of breast cancer. These chemical products were associated with an 18% higher risk of breast cancer in women who used them in the 12 months before the study period. The more often women used straightener, the higher the risk. Women who used the products every five to eight weeks had a 31% higher risk of going on to develop breast cancer compared with nonusers. Although African American women in the study were more likely than others to use straighteners, the increase in breast cancer risk was similar for all races.
Women in the study who used permanent hair dye at least once in the 12-month period leading up to the study had a 9% higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who didn't use hair dye.
formaldehyde – found in some keratin hair treatments, body soap and nail polish – and coal tar – found in some hair dyes and shampoo – are of top concern in beauty products. So are heavy metals, like lead found in lipsticks and clay-based products, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals like parabens and phthalates, among others.
When a person uses cosmetics, their skin absorbs chemicals, which can then enter the bloodstream. People might also inhale powders or ingest some cosmetics — by using lip products, for example.
cancer
endocrine disorders, which affect the production of hormones in the body
developmental delays
neurological problems
Thanks so much for posting. I saw the thread was oldish, I wondered who bumped it. Glad they did so you can add the articles and information.
I'm thankful I've never been into using lotions, make up and rarely dye my hair. I'm known to walk around with 7 inch roots before I'll dye my hair again because I know the toxic chemicals in hair dye are being absorbed by the scalp.
I had a friend who used to regularly dye their hair every other month when she had new growth, often changing the color. She fought brain cancer 3 times, the last time it took her out. I do wonder if hair dye played a part in her cancer.
The OP provided opinion rather than studies. There are no study links to provide context to his opinions. The context for the OP was skin products and the risk of breast cysts and stated the reason why he thought that.
You can't do what you have done which is change the context and use tangential examples as evidence for skin products causing cysts. It doesn't work that way. Just because some products can cause cancer in no way validates what the OP is asserting in the original post pertaining to all the statements being used to justify his hypothesis that skin products cause breast cysts.
You forget that there are many papers and articles with differing opinions, citing differing and opposing views. One side will cite papers which support their argument. the other side will cite papers which support theirs. The industries pay for scientists to write papers and rewards are sometimes greater if evidence provided is favourable to the industry. Examples of this are found in most industries although no-one will admit it. There is a great deal of corruption involved, but thats how both sides can find papers to cite to support their argument. If science was truly precise and unbiased, then there would only be one outcome
Science may be precise but experiments can be flawed whether or not they are flawed, results can be interpreted in different ways with emphasis placed on areas which point to a beneficial outcome, depending on the requirements. Do not try and tell us otherwise.
Quote:
You can't do what you have done which is change the context and use tangential examples as evidence for skin products causing cysts. It doesn't work that way.
What do you mean by this? What is stopping us changing the context and who is to say how it "works"? Certainly not you or I. This is a forum of opinions and we are ALL responsible to take or leave the information on here as we see fit. It is our own health we are concerned with.
Many health choices are driven by beliefs. Beliefs that doctors have the training and the knowledge to give us good advice, but there are nevertheless some doctors who are dangerous for whatever reason, just like there are others in society who are dangerous. How many people will go to look up academic papers when faced with a health condition? How many of those will read all the way through more than one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by K12144
And why breast cysts and not in other fatty areas of the body?
I dont know except that there are probably more hormones floating around in the breast area than in say the thigh area or in fatty belly deposits. Many women have fibroid cysts in the womb or fallopian tubes too which I seem to remember makes it more difficult to become pregnant.
I will tell you what I believe and then you can see if it makes sense to you.
Everything we put on our skin goes into our blood and gets carried around our body. You know this because doctors give us smoking patches, hormone patches, contraceptive patches, all kinds of drugs are delivered through skin patches, so it is a fact that what we put on our skin goes into our blood.
Our body has to deal with the stuff we put on our skin in the same way it deals with everything - which is to eliminate what it cannot break down and use or store it (heavy metals, excess fats, chemicals, etc.) The main organs of elimination are liver, kidney, gut and skin.
I believe that parts of medicinal creams we put on our skin will be effective locally for burns, cuts, spots, etc but it still has to be eliminated by the body and so do all the cosmetic chemicals and 'natural products' you put on your face, legs, arms, hair, etc. Anything which cannot be eliminated gets stored in breasts, and other fatty tissue areas of the body.
Could it be that the breast cysts women have might be caused by the cosmetics they place day and night on their face, arms, legs, neck, etc?
Doctors cannot tell us or even hint that cosmetics are a cause of build-up in the body because the cosmetics industry is so large and powerful. They would immediately put pressure on the medical authorities to make sure that a doctor who advocated stopping all cosmetics would not be practicing for long. This targeting of people who speak out against powerful industries has been done in the past, and will continue to be done in the future. Unfortunately, money talks and has a powerful (often negative) influence on our lives.
Of course, this is only a theory, but it is based on known ways the body works. The body DOES store substances it cannot use or cannot eliminate and where the organs of elimination are weak, then maybe the body decides to store is easier than to process and eliminate?
So, shills of the medical profession and cosmetic industries, have at it. Let me see why this does not apply.
What about other chemicals? Sometimes when a company reformulates a product, it's because an ingredient is no longer allowed or the ingredient has to be reduced to meet new regulations. More often, reformulations are to reduce costs with cheaper chemicals.
Everything we come into contact with has the potential to turn our gene expressions on or off. Repeated exposure to a certain chemical in a product may turn on a gene expression for cancer, or other health issue, in one person but not the next. Short term exposure combined with other environmental factors could turn it on too.
You forget that there are many papers and articles with differing opinions, citing differing and opposing views. One side will cite papers which support their argument. the other side will cite papers which support theirs. The industries pay for scientists to write papers and rewards are sometimes greater if evidence provided is favourable to the industry. Examples of this are found in most industries although no-one will admit it. There is a great deal of corruption involved, but thats how both sides can find papers to cite to support their argument. If science was truly precise and unbiased, then there would only be one outcome
Science may be precise but experiments can be flawed whether or not they are flawed, results can be interpreted in different ways with emphasis placed on areas which point to a beneficial outcome, depending on the requirements. Do not try and tell us otherwise.
What do you mean by this? What is stopping us changing the context and who is to say how it "works"? Certainly not you or I. This is a forum of opinions and we are ALL responsible to take or leave the information on here as we see fit. It is our own health we are concerned with.
Many health choices are driven by beliefs. Beliefs that doctors have the training and the knowledge to give us good advice, but there are nevertheless some doctors who are dangerous for whatever reason, just like there are others in society who are dangerous. How many people will go to look up academic papers when faced with a health condition? How many of those will read all the way through more than one?
I dont know except that there are probably more hormones floating around in the breast area than in say the thigh area or in fatty belly deposits. Many women have fibroid cysts in the womb or fallopian tubes too which I seem to remember makes it more difficult to become pregnant.
There are no opposing views and articles about examples with regards to makeup and breast cysts. Nothing. Industries pay scientists to do research which is what they are supposed to be doing. It happens in every industry with products coming out every year like I-phones, cars, you name it. Primary research isn't taken seriously until original papers are confirmed and or useful products are made that work.
Science is precise which is what makes it usual if it weren't then it wouldn't be useful. Studies can be flawed and thus followup studies would not be able to confirm the original findings. Only validated studies are useful all others are dead ends.
Changing the context or topics is highjacking threads and from a logical point of view non-sequential to the original argument one is talking about.
Many health choices are driven by beliefs and being replaced by evidence based medicine. Experience based medicine is not optimal compared to replacing it with validated studies showing what we have been doing is wrong and should be replaced with the evidence rather than simply doing things the way we have been doing for the sake of experience.
What does many hormones floating around in the breast mean? One seeks science to provide explanations and not conjecture.
With regards to the tangential examples of chemicals and cancer, they were studied by medical experts and scientists to provided meaningful details and taking it out of conjecture. It also showed specific cancers being generated by specific chemicals. It showed specific viruses causing specific cancers. When the US set off the bomb in Japan US medical experts and scientists were there to study the effects of radiation and found increased thyroid cancers and leukemia. Those things were monitored and we knew how to monitor them.
The scientific principle starts off by making observations first and then followed with a hypothesis as to what cause that observation. One makes an association first clinically and then one can see if it is cause or effect. One can conjecture all you want and fill in all the details with your imagination but that isn't science. That is the field of philosophy. Science is a subset of logic which is a subset of philosophy which is how one obtains a Phd.
Anyone who uses conspiracy theories as a basis for support of a theory is pretty weak.
There are no opposing views and articles about examples with regards to makeup and breast cysts. Nothing. Industries pay scientists to do research which is what they are supposed to be doing. It happens in every industry with products coming out every year like I-phones, cars, you name it. Primary research isn't taken seriously until original papers are confirmed and or useful products are made that work.
This is nothing more than meaningless generalities.
A negative cannot be proven, right? So, if an opinion or hypothesis is not the subject of scientific tests, papers, and peer reviews, then how can there BE an opposing opinion.
With reference to the bolded part above:
Please refer to the government scientists declaring COVID vaccine OK to use after a rush job in testing. The Pfizer vaccine was even a new 'improved' method and STILL it got accepted. We have no idea what the long-term results of this mass vaccination are going to be. Maybe it is going to come back and bite us, maybe it is a planned action.
Quote:
Science is precise which is what makes it usual if it weren't then it wouldn't be useful. Studies can be flawed and thus followup studies would not be able to confirm the original findings. Only validated studies are useful all others are dead ends.
Isn't this what I said above? There are often peer reviewed papers by both sides of an argument.
Quote:
Changing the context or topics is highjacking threads and from a logical point of view non-sequential to the original argument one is talking about.
I started the thread as a suggestion or an opinion or a theory, I am not the one complaining about the direction this thread has taken. Why should you be the one?
Quote:
Many health choices are driven by beliefs and being replaced by evidence based medicine. Experience based medicine is not optimal compared to replacing it with validated studies showing what we have been doing is wrong and should be replaced with the evidence rather than simply doing things the way we have been doing for the sake of experience.
This is nothing more than meaningless generalities.
Quote:
What does many hormones floating around in the breast mean? One seeks science to provide explanations and not conjecture.
This is nothing more than meaningless generalities. It is not conjecture that there are hormones in the breasts of women. Particularly when pregnant.
Quote:
With regards to the tangential examples of chemicals and cancer, they were studied by medical experts and scientists to provided meaningful details and taking it out of conjecture. It also showed specific cancers being generated by specific chemicals. It showed specific viruses causing specific cancers. When the US set off the bomb in Japan US medical experts and scientists were there to study the effects of radiation and found increased thyroid cancers and leukemia. Those things were monitored and we knew how to monitor them.
I am pretty sure orthodox science has NOT found cancer is caused by viruses. Royal Raymond Rife found prions causing cancer but the medical establishment hounded him to his grave. Shame on them all.
Quote:
The scientific principle starts off by making observations first and then followed with a hypothesis as to what cause that observation. One makes an association first clinically and then one can see if it is cause or effect. One can conjecture all you want and fill in all the details with your imagination but that isn't science. That is the field of philosophy. Science is a subset of logic which is a subset of philosophy which is how one obtains a Phd.
This is nothing more than meaningless generalities.
Quote:
Anyone who uses conspiracy theories as a basis for support of a theory is pretty weak.
??? Anyone who uses one side of opposing scientific peer-reviewed papers is ...what? A strong scientist? haha Thats a joke.
The beginning of your statement certainly did say, everything you put on your skin goes into your body and to be honest that is a bit over the top in my opinion.
Yes, patches and some other skin applied treatments are geared to enter the body; things like make up is just a light cover not meant to penetrate the skin. This has nothing to do with what causes cysts, or any other thing. The worst that can happen from putting lotions and make up on your skin is the build up if you do not remove it each day.
Cosmetics are in general full of toxic rubbish and yes they can cause damage to our bodies..more has to be regulated to stop manufacturers of cosmetics of all sorts being allowed to put in the trash that they do... as it does get into the body and organs.. and the poster isnt talking nonsense at all... have you looked at the junk in your makeup ,perfumes etc.. have a look.. at the parabens. sulphates. phthalates. formaldehyde and more.. and tell me its doing no harm.. Certain chemicals present in makeup and other cosmetic products can contain ingredients that researchers have linked to serious health concerns. Some of these health concerns include:
cancer
endocrine disorders, which affect the production of hormones in the body
developmental delays
neurological problems Phthalates
Phthalates are present in some nail polishes and hair sprays, as well as the fragrances of many cleaning and cosmetic products.
Phthalates can unbalance hormones, particularly those that work alongside estrogen, such as testosterone. According to a breast cancer charity, phthalates may have a link with breast cancer. This is because certain changes in estrogen levels can cause breast cancer to developFormaldehyde
Formaldehyde, and chemicals that release formaldehyde over a certain period of time, are present in cosmetics, lotions, shampoos, shower gels, nail polishes, and hair straightening products.
Formaldehyde can cause allergic reactions, as well as irritation to the eyes and respiratory system. Some studies in laboratory animals have also linked the chemical with cancer. This is only a few...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
