FDA Allows Skin Care Manufacturers to Poison You

How The US and Australian FDA Bodies Allow Untested Chemicals To Enter Your Bloodstream

---

" How The US, British and Australian FDA Agencies
Allow Your Body To Be A Live Testing Ground
For Untested Toxins In Skin Care Products "

• Is It True The FDA Allows Skin Care and Cosmetic Makers To Illegally Hijack Your Bloodstream Through Penetration Enhancers?
  
• What Are The Official FDA Regulations Regarding Pre-Market Testing Of Cosmetic Ingredients?

---

Today's issue of the Natural Skin Care Secrets will shock you to the core! Through my thousands of hours of investigation you are about to uncover a shocking web of deception, fraud and cover-ups.

This tangled web includes the US FDA (Food & Drug Administration), Australian FDA (Therapeutic Goods Association), "British FDA", "Canadian FDA" (in fact, almost all country specific FDA equivalents) chemical corporations, skin care and cosmetic manufacturers.The most shocking thing is that this goes right to the top.

Would you believe that the US, Canadian, British and Australian FDA agencies actually allow your skin and body to be a live testing ground for unassessed chemicals? It's true.

Did you also know that the US and Australian FDA both allow skin care makers to illegally hijack your bloodstream through the use of "penetration enhancer" chemicals like Propylene Glycol and Sodium Lauryl Sulfate?

These toxins have one only purpose, that is to drive down deep through 5 layers of your skin and open a highway for other even more hazardous chemicals to enter your bloodstream.

Can you just imagine the "pandora's box" of disease this can cause your healthy body? So, just how did it come to this? Well first let's take a step back and have a look at the actual US FDA regulations regarding prescription drugs.

Here is a direct quote from the US "FDA Bible":

"Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines drugs
as those products that cure, treat, mitigate
or prevent disease or that affect the structure
or function of the human body.

While drugs are subject to an intensive review
and approval process by FDA, cosmetics are not
approved by FDA prior to sale. If a product has
drug properties, it must be approved as a drug,
only approved drugs are allowed to enter your
bloodstream."

Source: FDA, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-cos5.html

From this statement you can clearly see that ONLY prescription dugs pre-approved by the FDA are allowed to enter your bloodstream and change the structure or function of the human body.

Now let's take a closer look at exactly what "penetration enhancers" are. As I mentioned above these toxins infiltrate the skin membrane and open the door for many other chemicals to enter.

These include a laundry list of common chemicals like Propylene Glycol, Ammonium Glycolate, Lauryl Lactate and Sodium Lauryl Sulfate. I urge to check your products right now to see if they contain these chemicals. Skin care and cosmetic products containing these chemicals are all approved for use by the US, British and Australian FDA bodies, as strange as it may seem.

So just how common are these chemicals used in personal care products? A lot, in fact 57% of all skin care products use "penetration enhancers" according to my site's 60 plus skin care reviews along with EWG's 2005 research covering more than 14,000 products.

A lot of people may ask, "But don't the US, Canadian, British and Australian FDA bodies regulate ingredients used in skin care and cosmetics?" The answer is a resounding NO.

In fact the FDA even says this themselves on the official website. Here are two quotes straight from the "horse's mouth":

"The [Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] contains
no provision that requires demonstration to
FDA of the safety of ingredients of cosmetic
products...prior to marketing the product."

— FDA , September 29 2005

"With the exception of color additives and a few
prohibited ingredients, a cosmetic manufacturer
may on his own responsibility, use essentially
any raw material and market the product
without approval."

So, in a nutshell, the reason why "penetration enhancer" chemicals are illegal for use in personal care products is because this directly violates the US FDA's own regulations regarding the use of cosmetic chemicals that affect the structure or function of the human body.

The upshot of this revelation is that we can once and for all put to bed the well worn myth that and "regional FDA" - or for that matter, any other other government body around the world - regulate the skin care and cosmetic industry.

So just what are US, British and Australian FDA bodies doing about this massive loophole in the system. In a word, nothing.

Yes, in spite of the massive documented evidence of dangerous chemicals in 99% of personal care products the US FDA has not shown any signs of fixing the problem.

Here is what you need to know about the US FDA and their current power.

1) The US FDA cannot require a recall of harmful products.

2) The US FDA has not even defined what safe means or how to achieve it.

3) The Agency consistently declines to develop guidance for the cosmetic industry on what must be done to guarantee safety and what standards must be met to ensure a product is safe.

In a nutshell, the US FDA basically gives the cosmetic industry a blank check to market whatever they want even though it contradicts the FDA's own laws on drug classification.

Funny thing is that the US, British and Australian FDA and other government agencies have no problem regulating just about every other area of our lives but when it comes to the cosmetic industry all of a sudden they choose not to intervene.

Some would say that the FDA has been bought and paid for by the pharma/chemical/cosmetic cartel. I'll let you be the judge of that, but I think you know where I stand.

Whether or not it is the case really doesn't matter, the fact is you have to take decisive action if you are to protect yourself from these
chemicals.

What's the bottom line? Well, when it comes to your skin and general health in relation to personal care products you have 3 options.

Firstly, you can do what most people do, nothing.

Secondly, you can take indirect action by trying to change the system. If this is you I wish you good luck with getting even with government
and corporations who have unlimited resources and the corporate media in their back pocket.

Now, since you are a member of this community the chances are you will take the smartest option like the rest of us here. Take direct action. That's right. Educate yourself and be personally responsible for whatever it is you want to achieve whether it be skin care or general health.

This is rather simple when you become an IOC of skin care and cosmetics as you control what products or herbal remedies you use.

If this is you I have great news for you. In tomorrow's issue you will leapfrog 99% of the general public almost instantly. You will discover the "hidden" online chemical database that will shortcut your research time by thousands of hours.

Tomorrow's issue is called:


"How To Take Control Back From The
Cosmetic Cartel By Becoming An Expert
Ingredient Detective Almost Instantly, By
Accessing A "Hidden" Online Database"

Yours for Natural Skin Care,
Adam Waters

-----------------
http://www.natural-skincare-authority.com/australian-fda.html

Recycling: I Suspected as Much

Save energy: Don't recycle

Some people buy hybrid cars to save energy.

— Leland Teschler, Editor

As for me, I do my part by not recycling paper, glass, or plastic.

Well, at least not at the curbside. The occasional Boy Scout paper drive may be economically defensible. But sending around city trucks to pick up glass, paper, and plastic actually consumes more energy than it saves. And it may even pollute the air more than just pitching this stuff in the trash.

A little thought shows why. It takes as many trucks to collect perhaps four to eight pounds of recyclables that a typical household generates as it does to pickup the 40 pounds of refuse created by the same residence. This reality creates situations as have emerged in the city of Los Angeles, where officials now figure the city's fleet of garbage trucks is twice as large as it would be without recycling, 800 rather than 400 trucks. Similar economics are at work in cities everywhere.

The issue has been closely examined by the Franklin Associates Div. of the Eastern Research Group. Franklin has for years prepared the national characterization of municipal solid waste published by the U.S. EPA. It also has looked at the cost per ton of handling recyclables through curbside pickup. One of Franklin's conclusions is that curbside recycling typically costs 55% more than simple disposal because it consumes huge amounts of capital and labor per pound of recycled material. Recycling proponents sometimes claim that curbside recycling is worthwhile because it conserves space in landfills. The mayor of my own community once remarked approvingly about how his recycling program had reduced tippage fees for landfill use. What he did not mention was that the recycling program was subsidized out of tax receipts. Its true cost far exceeded any savings. But this sort of dishonesty is common among local administrators trying to justify actions they think will keep them in office.

There is another problem with conserving landfill space: We have plenty of landfill capacity and there is no reason to conserve it. Claims of a landfill shortage are based on a 1980s study that the EPA acknowledges was flawed. It counted the number of landfills, which was in fact shrinking, rather than landfill capacity, which was and is still growing. So today, the U.S. has more landfill capacity than ever before, according to the National Solid Waste Management Association.

The bad economics of curbside recycling contrast with those of industrial recycling. Private-sector material reclamation can be superefficient. Printers that produce magazines like MACHINE DESIGN, for example, bale up their scrap paper and sell it back to reprocessors, often by the boxcar load. Big users of glass, metals, and plastics all have analogous procedures in place.

Still, curbside recycling might make sense someday. You'll know that day has come when someone knocks on your door and offers to pay you for your paper and plastic.

Make Your Own Homemade Natural Deodorant

from: Baltimore Street Team

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Without doubt, anything that is natural is going to better for you and your skin when compared to something that is packed with chemicals and fillers.

Many commercial deodorants brands contain skin irritants (e.g. SLS, DEA), aluminum, synthetic fragrance, or other chemicals and can make your skin sore. Antiperspirants are even worse! Thankfully, there are natural alternatives to kill odor causing bacterias! Herbal deodorants are super effective since many of them have strong anti-bacterial properties.

Here a recipe for you to make your own natural deodorant that you can try if you have sensitive skin or if you would just prefer a natural method of deodorant. This natural deodorant will allow the release of perspiration, but will prevent odor by combating it with antiseptic essential oils, which kill odor-causing bacteria. You should be able to find these items in any health store or reputable supplies online.

You'll need:

1/2 cup cocoa butter

9 oz. beeswax

1 cup coconut oil

2 tbsp thyme essential oil

2 tbsp rosemary essential oil

1 Tbsp tea tree essential oil

2 tbsp lavender essential oil

2 tbsp castor oil

1 cup baking soda (Sift the baking soda to avoid lumps that are really hard to get out.)

Melt the coconut oil, cocoa butter and the beeswax in double boiler pan on top of stove, directly on stove top on very low heat setting or microwave it in a safe glass. Remove from heat and add the castor and essential oils and stir with a skewer stick. Pour into a new or used deodorant container and allow to solidify. This recipe will make about 12 tubes of deodorants. You may adjust the recipe to make less.

Other Oils for Deodorant Blends

Patchouli – sweet and musky, moisturizing to the skin, attracts abundance

Peppermint and Spearmint – cooling and purifying, clean-smelling

Eucalyptus – tonic to the skin, gentle and soothing, refreshing

Melaleuca – fight bacteria, astringent

Reputable Essential Oils vendor: http://www.edenbotanicals.com/

If you don’t feel like messing around with essential oils, waxes and butters, you can find natural and vegan handmade deodorants at Spa Therapy Works

Posted by Spa Therapy Works at 12:47 PM

Mercola on Cola

From mercola.com

"Let's get one thing PERFECTLY clear. I am no fan of ANY artificial sweetener. I wrote an entire book about them called Sweet Deception. Unfortunately that book is currently out of print. I am getting the copyright back and will be reprinting it soon as it is the best book I have ever written and clearly documents the challenges with ALL artificial sweeteners, especially Splenda.

I am absolutely convinced that if you HAVE to drink soda, soda with sugar, even high fructose corn syrup, is safer for you than diet soda, but if you have been reading this newsletter for awhile you know that I don't believe anyone should be drinking soda. There is simply no excuse, none at all. It is one of the easiest and most important diet changes anyone can make.

However, soda provides some benefits. In fact, they have dozens of useful purposes, such as:

• Cleaning your dirty toilet bowl
• Removing rust spots from chrome
• Getting gum out of your hair
• Getting rid of skunk odor
• Cleaning grout

According to some, you can even use it to shell hard-boiled eggs; if you soak hard boiled eggs in Coke, the shells will supposedly dissolve, eliminating the need to actually have to peel them.

If you are actually drinking soda as a beverage, you are putting your health at risk every time you do so. Drinking just one soda a day can increase your risk of being obese by an amazing 60 percent. And it will increase your risk of diabetes by 85 percent! Soda drinkers even have a higher throat cancer risk.

From a nutritional standpoint, soda has pretty much nothing to offer except bad news -- including the ridiculous new “healthy” sodas that have hit the stores recently. Some of the major components of a can of soda include:

Phosphoric Acid: This can interfere with your body's ability to use calcium, which can lead to osteoporosis or softening of your teeth and bones.

Sugar: It is a proven fact that sugar increases insulin levels, which can lead to high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, weight gain, premature aging and many more negative side effects. Most sodas include over 100 percent of the RDA of sugar, usually in the form of high fructose corn syrup, the number one source of calories in the U.S.

Caffeine: Caffeinated drinks cause jitters, insomnia, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, elevated blood cholesterol levels, vitamin and mineral depletion, breast lumps, birth defects, and possibly some forms of cancer.

If you thought diet sodas might be a better option, think again. They are filled with unnatural, artificial chemicals, and are actually even worse the regular soda. There are over 92 different health side effects associated with aspartame (Equal) alone, including brain tumors, birth defects, diabetes, emotional disorders and epilepsy/seizures. On top of all that, they won’t even help you lose weight; in fact, they will double your risk of obesity by stimulating your appetite, increasing your carbohydrate cravings, and activating your body’s fat storage mechanisms.

Nutritionally speaking, soda is one of the main reasons why many people suffer health problems. Aside from the negative effects of the soda itself, drinking a lot of soda is likely to leave you with little appetite for vegetables, protein and other food that your body needs.

If you struggle with an addiction to soda (sugar is actually more addictive than cocaine), I strongly recommend you consider Turbo Tapping, a simple yet highly effective tool that will help you stop this health-harming habit.

And remember that a glass of fresh clean water with a squeeze of lemon or lime makes a great soda alternative any day. It won’t, however, kill the rats in your kitchen. Soda is much better suited for that particular purpose."

Joy Guitar: Classical Rock Performance Award

Rarely, does something touch me in a way that brings tears to my eyes. In matters of music, one usually assumes this type of emotional reaction can only be brought on by achingly slow and melodic music...I'm here to tell you that any type of music can do this, if it manages to tap into that core of connection we all have with a creation that is brilliant, perfectly rendered, even opulent. I was taken over by joy. I had to share this experience with anyone who might be able to understand what it means to feel that way.

I was unable to discover the name of this piece, but it's at #68 of the most viewed video of all time on YouTube. I understand why, and am buoyed by the idea that so many are interested in this and find it valuable. This guy should be immediately hired by some famous, touring rock band. His technique and rendition is flawless.

Composed by Johann Pachelbel, arranged by "JerryC" and Played by "funtwo"--this piece exemplifies that state of bliss, that euphoria to be found in music and creativity.

"Disorder in American Courts"

“These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.”

ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, “Where am I, Cathy?”
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now, doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he’s twenty-one.
________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you s***tin’ me?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh…. I was gettin’ laid!
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Guess.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you like to rephrase that?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh…are you qualified to ask that question?
______________________________________
And the best for last:
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

Kathleen Madigan--New Favorite Comedian

She is my new favorite stand-up. Hysterical, smart. Laugh every few seconds. Great comedic timing and delivery, sharp wit.

Art Unique, Profound and Beautiful

This has got to be the most incredible artistic thing I've ever seen in my life....

Some people are just beyond gifted.

An Engineer's Guide to Cats