How to not wear deoderant for the rest of your life...

I'm sure we could go back and forth pretty easily. Companies have to spend many millions of dollars - make that tens to hundreds of millions to try and bring a drug to market. Their success rate is pretty low, probably around 20% get past clinical trials. That's money down the drain. They get a 17 year patent to try and recoup their costs before competitors can manufacture the drug and compete. I've seen several examples where the FDA will hold up trials, applications, etc., based upon the whim of the director for years - 10 years in one case, IIRC. Now the company only has 7 years to recoup those costs, for no good reason. The 17 year clock starts ticking at the application, not the approval.

Having witnessed some of the protocols these drugs go through, I have far more confidence in them and the companies rather than unproven "natural" or "herbal" remedies.

I think the FDA has far too much power. As always, YMMV.

Ronald Reagan in his effort to downsize government had the ingenious idea to reduce the size of the FDA. He thought that the drug companies can do their own research. Now the FDA doesn't do nearly as much research as it should. To say that they have too much power is really overboard.

Major players in the health field know this is a weakness for the security of the citizens of the US. Melamine, Zoloft, which is the drug DOC was referring to, Vioxx is another, and there recently Flosomax for osteoporosis has been proven to cause cancer. In all of these incidents except the Melamine, drug companies have been found to have tampered with research results.

If you look at many of the people in major journals like JAMA and AMA are receiving money by the pharmaceutical industry.
 
SP,

I didn't feel attacked - it was just a strong response to something I thought was okay. But I don't find it necessary to mark lawn mowers with 'Don't use on hedges' Warning stickers either. ;)

I certainly see your points about not taking herbal medicines seriously. Take a look at Ephedra - it was 'all natural' and certainly not safe when not taken responsibly.
TF
 
What I also find odd is that this forum embraces many forms of primitive things - but when I brought this up - it got a lot of flack for being dangerous, wrong, incorrect and many other things. Don't get me wrong - I am not angry - I just find it odd.
TF

I think the flack comes for a number of reasons, but for me I see that some natural remedies are pure bs or especially harmful. An older example is the many 'cures' that were sold back hundreds of years ago that ended up being narcotic and therefore damaging and addictive. As it has been mentioned, the other issue is self-medication. This does not apply to the deoderant 'solution' as much as other issues. If one uses too much or not enouhg of these homepathic remedies they can either harm themselves or have absolutely no results at all. I personally do not prescribe to the homeopathic mindset as I see it basically being a fad thing to do. Bear in mind that I live in Austin, TX, land of the hippie.
 
as my dad told me, before you take anyone's advice, be sure you know who's hand is in your pocket
 
If you look at many of the people in major journals like JAMA and AMA are receiving money by the pharmaceutical industry.

Again, I'm not making a claim that big pharma should always be trusted or that it should never be trusted, but getting a drug to market these days costs you around a billion dollars. Who do you think it going to foot the bill for that? Certainly not taxpayers, and the healthcare industry isn't going to pay out of the goodness of its heart.

Everything has to be taken with a [large] grain of salt, and in a perfect world there would be total disconnect between the industry and the practitioner. But this is why teams of professionals including a pharmacist(s), in most every institution, sit down and dissect these studies as they come about. Or put another way, this is not an issue where I don a foil hat.
 
I just want to say that I don't think every alternative treatment is perfect but neither is modern medicine. I wish that research grants were equitably distributed so we can truly evaluate alternative treatments. Some are amazing and some are BS.

One thing that must be remembered about alternative treatments, they are not a FAD. Humans have been living on this planet for anywhere from 3.6 million years to 30,000 depending how you look at it. Modern medicine is at best 200-300 years old. It has been traditional medicines that have gotten us this far. To discount it with a flip of a hat is reckless in my opinion.
 
I would say its mans ingenuity and creativity that has gotten us this far, and to disregard modern medicine is to snub the scientific process (to whatever degree it exists in drug design).

For every drug that has a problem pop up for it (which sometimes can't be foreseen with any amount of testing), there are hundreds of unsung successes.
 
Phucket, just smell bad sometimes fellas. I don't wear any deoderant and I bet most of the guys in IT don't wear any or even shower most days by the smell and the looks of them. If people are put off, too bad. I shower every morning and can make it through most days without smelling to bad. If I have a meeting, I just rinse my pits before I head over to the board room and hit myself with some cologne on my pants vs. skin. My boss wears enough cologne for three or four people.
 
Phucket, just smell bad sometimes fellas. I don't wear any deoderant and I bet most of the guys in IT don't wear any or even shower most days by the smell and the looks of them. If people are put off, too bad. I shower every morning and can make it through most days without smelling to bad. If I have a meeting, I just rinse my pits before I head over to the board room and hit myself with some cologne on my pants vs. skin. My boss wears enough cologne for three or four people.

:thumbup:

Spooky, I agree about that the Scientific process is the best thing we got with out a doubt. I am not anti-drug or anti-modern medicine. I just wish there was less bias against traditional meds and more of a holistic approach.

I am getting a degree in health science and it is hard to get a study off the ground in something alternative. The whole system is propagates itself, no professors want to take chances. If you look at anti-depressants for example, there hasn't been a completely new one that is more efficacious than the ones that came out in the 80's but the drug companies know they can make it slightly different and get a new patent. Then they can cash in and I mean CASH in.

One of the policies Obama has on the table is to set up a committee to evaluate "new" drugs and determine if they are actually better than what is already out there. This might develop more checks and balances within drug testing. Hopefully we will see better drugs out there.


Great discussion!!:D
 
One thing I love about Western Medicine is it's ability to handle accute situations. If your life is in danger - bring me to an American hospital. What I hate about Western medicine is handling Chronic problems. They will simply give you medicine to handle the symptoms and your underlying issue will never be solved.

My wife had asthma for years. She had 4 inhalers. She decided to try acupuncture and Eastern medicine, this lead her to be a massage therapist - but in the end - she takes no more inhalers.

I think in many way's the western world is like a teenager - quick to anger, quick to act - slow to wisdom. Modern science, being only 500 years old at best, has gotten us an amazing distance - but I think it has drawn lines in the sand that it need not draw. This leads to some pretty absurd conclusions at times.

Take this conundrum. Science claims that all evidence must be empirical. If you cannot see it - it cannot be believed. However, the scientific method cannot be seen. Examples of the scientific method can be seen, but not the method itself. It exists, but it cannot be seen - so science itself cannot be proven to exist by the scientific method.

Numbers are equally as queer. You cannot see a number - but scientists rely on them for their data to work. The 'zero' is even more weird. Without the zero you cannot get computers to work - but the zero, by definition, is nothing. How can nothing be a something - yet exist in a way that allows machines to work?

Okay - okay - so I am being a philosopher - I am sorry. ;)

TF
 
One thing I love about Western Medicine is it's ability to handle accute situations. If your life is in danger - bring me to an American hospital. What I hate about Western medicine is handling Chronic problems. They will simply give you medicine to handle the symptoms and your underlying issue will never be solved.

My wife had asthma for years. She had 4 inhalers. She decided to try acupuncture and Eastern medicine, this lead her to be a massage therapist - but in the end - she takes no more inhalers.

I think in many way's the western world is like a teenager - quick to anger, quick to act - slow to wisdom. Modern science, being only 500 years old at best, has gotten us an amazing distance - but I think it has drawn lines in the sand that it need not draw. This leads to some pretty absurd conclusions at times.

Take this conundrum. Science claims that all evidence must be empirical. If you cannot see it - it cannot be believed. However, the scientific method cannot be seen. Examples of the scientific method can be seen, but not the method itself. It exists, but it cannot be seen - so science itself cannot be proven to exist by the scientific method.

Numbers are equally as queer. You cannot see a number - but scientists rely on them for their data to work. The 'zero' is even more weird. Without the zero you cannot get computers to work - but the zero, by definition, is nothing. How can nothing be a something - yet exist in a way that allows machines to work?

Okay - okay - so I am being a philosopher - I am sorry. ;)

TF


You summed up western medicine well.

I do believe that empiricism is a necessary "evil" and that is why I am a post positivist or a scientific realist. I am coming to science after many years studying new agey therapies and being an artist. The environment imposes limits on an organisms potential. What I love about science is that where is that line between a natural law and human will. it is very exciting to discover evidence in either way.
 
Take this conundrum. Science claims that all evidence must be empirical. If you cannot see it - it cannot be believed. However, the scientific method cannot be seen. Examples of the scientific method can be seen, but not the method itself. It exists, but it cannot be seen - so science itself cannot be proven to exist by the scientific method.
TF
I think that there are definitional problems here. As you define "see", you would refute the existence of sound, electricity, magnetism, much of chemistry, most of physics...

Methods are not physical entities, and therefore can't be "seen". They are often so effective that they can be patented, however. A method for starting a fire in the woods(survival content!) can't be seen. Does that mean that you can't start a fire in the woods? Don't be silly.

The word science as generally used is also not well-defined. This can add to the confusion. I've seen it used to describe fields of study, a method, and use of math, among others.

The nice thing about semantics is that you can prove or disprove anything with clever words. The downside of this is that you then end up in wars over who's invisible friend is better.

Gordon
 
I don't know Gordon - let's take Mathematics - which I am sure you will concur is a science.

When a Mathematician is doing math - but just pushing around numbers - not balancing a checkbook or any thing where numbers refer to anything concrete - is he actually doing anything 'real'?

If I take 1 + 1 = 2, where I have not specified what 1 or 2 refers to, did I do something that was real? If it is not a physical entity - but science demands that things must be 'seen' - then what are you doing?

I think science is not well defined - but I think science is just as guilty of this as the outsider. I think you claim too quickly that 'non physical entities' are just as real as physical things. If you say that - you sound dangerously like my religious friends that talk about their 'invisible friends' as being real.

For instance, sub atomic theories, such as M - theory or string theory, claim that their strings, the foundation of all things physical, are so small as to never be observed. If this is true, that the foundation of all things, cannot be, seen but you can see the effects of them - it sounds dangerously like Religion. An entity that cannot be seen, never will be seen, but you can see the effects of this entity everywhere.

This seems to be true for gravity and other forces. You cannot observe them, thus when they are put into functions, they are given 'virtual particle' status. Meaning, it is not a particle - but to get it into a function we have to claim it to be a function. I don't think this is just quirky semantics nor clever wording. I think these are real questions that most people, scientist and religious person alike, refuses to answer - because they have no firm answer to these questions.

Also, in the danger of making this religious based, one can claim that wars are fought over religion, which is mostly true, but scientific advancement seems to be based on furthering the war machine. Sub atomic theory, for instance, lead to the most destructive weapon known to man. I think both sides have plenty of blood on their hands - it seems the common denominator is man.

TF
 
Good Lord, man, you're going to die anyway. So much worry about so little.

Buy some damn deodorant and stop fretting. In 100 years we'll all be dead no matter what.
 
McRob,

There can be aluminum in Alum - but there does not need to be. The company claims it to be Aluminum free. They could use Chromium or something else.

"Double sulfates with the general formula A2SO4·B2(SO4)3·24H2O, are known where A is a monovalent cation such as sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, or thallium(I), or a compound cation such as ammonium (NH4+), methylammonium (CH3NH3+), hydroxylammonium (HONH3+) or hydrazinium (N2H5+), B is a trivalent metal ion, such as aluminium, chromium, titanium, manganese, vanadium, iron (III), cobalt(III), gallium, molybdenum, indium, ruthenium, rhodium, or iridium.[1] The specific combinations of univalent cation, trivalent cation, and anion depends on the sizes of the ions. For example, unlike the other alkali metals the smallest one, lithium, does not form alums, and there is only one known sodium alum. In some cases, solid solutions of alums occur."

The Thai Chrystals that I use are made of Sodium and Potassium that are allowed to crystallize and then are shaped into a more user friendly application.

To say that 'both contain aluminum' is not correct in the sense that alum is not the same as 'up to 25% aluminum'.

Here is an explanaition of modern underarm deoderant:

"Solid antiperspirants are made with several ingredients, including wax, a liquid emollient and an active-ingredient compound. It's the active ingredient that gives antiperspirants their sweat-blocking power. All antiperspirants have an aluminum-based compound as their main ingredient. If you look at the back of an antiperspirant container, the aluminum-based compound is always the first ingredient listed. Here are a few of the common active ingredients:

* Aluminum chloride
* Aluminum zirconium tricholorohydrex glycine
* Aluminum chlorohydrate
* Aluminum hydroxybromide

The aluminum ions are taken into the cells that line the eccrine-gland ducts at the opening of the epidermis, the top layer of the skin, says dermatologist Dr. Eric Hanson of the University of North Carolina's Department of Dermatology. When the aluminum ions are drawn into the cells, water passes in with them. As more water flows in, the cells begin to swell, squeezing the ducts closed so that sweat can't get out.

Each cell can only draw in a certain amount of water, so eventually, the concentrations of water -- outside and inside the cells -- reach equilibrium. When this happens, the water inside the cell begins to pass back out of the cell through osmosis, and the cell's swelling goes down. This is why people have to re-apply antiperspirant. For those who suffer from excessive sweating, hyperhydrosis, aluminum chloride in high concentrations can prolong the swelling and may ultimately shrink the sweat gland, decreasing the amount of sweat it can produce.

An average over-the-counter antiperspirant might have an active-ingredient concentration of anywhere from 10 to 25 percent. The FDA requires that over-the-counter antiperspirants contain no more than 15 to 25 percent of the active ingredient, depending on what it is. The FDA also requires that all antiperspirants must decrease the average person's sweat by at least 20 percent. For those who have excessive underarm sweating, there are prescription products that contain concentrations higher than those of over-the-counter antiperspirants." LINK

Here is what one manufacturer says about Alum and Aluminum:

"Our deodorant stones are made of potassium alum. It is a pure product made without the addition of chemicals, fragrances, oils or alcohol. The chemical formula for potassium alum is K2SO4Al2(SO4)324H20. Potassium alum is a colorless substance that forms octahedral or cubic crystals.
Bauxite is the ore from which alum is drawn. It is formed by the rapid weathering of granitic rocks in warm, humid climates and can be purified and converted directly into alum.

Potassium alum is soluble in seven times its weight of water at room temperature and is very soluble in hot water. When crystalline potassium alum is heated, some of the water of hydration becomes chemically separated, and the partly dehydrated salt dissolves in this water, so that the alum appears to melt at about 90 degrees C (approx. 392 degrees F), potassium alum swells up, loses all water, and becomes a basic salt called burn alum. Potassium alum has a density of 1.725.
Alum's are used for a variety of uses including as a powerful astringent.

If an aluminum compound, such as aluminum chlorohydrate or aluminum zirconium, which is very soluble, is used as an antiperspirant, that compound is readily absorbed. Once in the body, the aluminum portion of the molecule ionizes, forming free or radical aluminum (Al+++). This passes freely across cell membranes, and forms a physical plug, that when dissolved is selectively absorbed by the liver, kidney, brain, cartilage and bone marrow. ... Potassium alum molecules have a negative ionic charge, making it unable to pass through the cell wall. THEY ARE NOT ABSORBED. This is why our deodorants are safe to use and will not cause high levels of ALUMINUM in your system. ALUM and ALUMINUM are two different substances, with distinct chemical signatures. They possess different chemical properties which create different chemical attributes. "

TF
Wow, very informative, what a great buch of people on this fantastic forum
 
Back
Top