MOTHERS
PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN


WHAT You are about to READ may shock you. It may enrage you, you may wonder how is this possible? But..



I URGE YOU..

DO NOT JUST ACCEPT IT. Investigate it yourself!

DO NOT JUST IGNORE IT. For it won't go away!

DO NOT DISBELIEVE IT. Ignorance is a curse.



Find out the Truth!





BABY SHAMPOO and BUBBLE BATH contain a primary toxic ingredient Sodium Lauryl/Laureth Sulphate (SLS). The International Chemical Safety Card, from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, for SLS states, "The substance is toxic to aquatic organisms", and "Do NOT let this chemical enter the environment." The Safety Card also states that there are no guidelines for safe levels of this chemical. A typical Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on SLS states the following chronic concern, "TESTS ON LAB ANIMALS INDICATE MATERIAL MAY CAUSE MUTAGENIC EFFECTS." Mutagenic effects are defined as a heritable change in genetic material, which can be passed on to offspring. The SLS information sheet provided by the National Toxicology Program], which states that SLS is " A human skin irritant and eye irritant. And an experimental teratogen." Teratogenic effects are defined as causing damage to the foetus of a pregnant subject. SLS also contribute to urinary tract infections. The MSDS also states that SLS enters the body through the skin, and "SKIN CONTACT COULD CAUSE IRRITATION OR ALLERGIC REACTION. MODERATELY TOXIC BY INGESTION.". "No More tears" products simply add a strong Anaesthetic to mask these painful symptoms in our children.



DID YOU KNOW? In 1901 cancer was considered a rare disease. Statistics show that 1 out of 1000 developed some form of cancer. Today, according to the American Cancer Society, 1 out of 4 people develop some form of cancer requiring medical intervention.



FOR SAFE ALTERNATIVES : MADE BY GAIA - CLICK HERE

Certified Organic Cosmetics, skin care, hair care, personal care, health and home care. Unrivalled quality, a product range that your skin will love you for! (International supplier)



BABY WIPES and BABY MOISTURISER contain another toxic ingredient called Propylene Glycol. The MSDS states that Propylene Glycol is implicated in contact dermatitis, kidney damage and liver abnormalities; can inhibit cell growth in human tests and can damage membranes causing rashes, dry skin and surface damage. May be harmful by inhalation, ingestion or skin absorption. May cause eye irritation. Exposure can cause gastro-intestinal disturbances, nausea, headache and vomiting, central nervous system depression.



TALC POWDER is a very fine substance, so fine it can be used as a "dry" lubricant. Talc is a chemical similar to asbestos, a known cancer causing substance. Talc is found in many "baby and body" powders, feminine powders and many cosmetics. Talc's harmful effect on human tissues has been known for quite some time. Long ago, its dry lubricating properties were used as a glove-donning powder (easy to slide on) for surgical gloves. As early as the 1930's, talc was linked to post-operative granulomatous peritonitis and fibrous adhesions. -from Candace Sue Kasper, MD and Dr. P. J. Chandler. Talc powder used on condoms may result in fallopian tube fibrosis with resultant infertility. Question raised by Doctors Kasper and Chandler in Journal of the American Medical Association. (JAMA) 3/15/95 -from Nutrition Health Review, Summer 1995 n73p8(1)



DID YOU KNOW? Your skin is the largest breathing organ of your body, and many chemicals are absorbed through it. Your blood cells then IMMEDIATELY take these toxins to every organ in your body. The Journal of the American College of Toxicology reports that Sodium Lauryl (or Laureth) Sulfate is easily absorbed into your skin and builds up in your heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, pancreas, bladder, and brain.



TOOTHPASTE containing Fluoride is poisonous! In some countries (where Fluoride isn't banned) warning labels on Fluoride Toothpaste read. "WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek PROFESSIONAL HELP or contact a POISON CONTROL centre immediately." Sodium Fluoride is a hazardous waste product produced through the metal smelter process. Fluoride is easily absorbed directly into the bloodstream through the thin skin membranes under the tongue and has been linked to a wide range of health issues including.. Dental & skeletal fluorosis, immune deficiency, cancer, muscular weakness, chronic fatigue, excessive thirst, headaches, skin rashes, joint pains, digestive upsets, tingling in the extremities, and loss of mental acuity. Other ailments include the destruction of about 60 enzymes including cytochrome C and cholinesterase, which handle oxygen. May cause genetic change in sperm and other cells, downs syndrome increase of 250% with 70% developing cataracts, Infant mortality, spontaneous abortions and miscarriages increase, fertility rates drop, infant birth defects increase and goitre.



DID YOU KNOW? A leading Australian natural fertility clinic is having a success rate of over 80% with couple's fertility problems. Even couples who failed with IVF!! How is this possible? By removing the toxic chemicals from their diet and environment FERTILITY RATES return too normal!



Taking a bath, shower or any exposure to these toxic chemicals once a week leaves you and your children with constantly incrementing levels of Toxic Chemicals in your eyes, brain, heart and liver at all times. Retarding development and healing. Make the change today!



WHAT USED TO BE.



DDT - One of the most poisonous substances developed by man was encouraged by government and industry to be used in the home as a pesticide. Birth deformities, genetic damage, miscarriage and infertility resulted.



MERCURY - Was once placed in baby teething gels, as well as fillings at the dentist. Heavy metal poisoning, brain damage and organ failure were the result.



TOBACO - Was once marketed as "safe", non addictive, non-carcinogenic and harmless. Millions of addicts were created and millions still die each year.



ASBESTOS - Was a safe and extensively used building material. This resulted in a slow painful death for many.



START MAKING HEALTHY CHOICES TODAY.



Research undertaken by Cancer Prevention groups like the Cancer Prevention Coalition USA have prompted extensive campaigning to get these cheap toxic substances banned from non industrial use. Research clearly shows the links between a wide variety of chronic illnesses, cancer, skin disorder, mental dysfunction and more between these chemicals. In the short period of time these products have been pumped into the marketplace, the symptoms associated with them have skyrocketed.


FOR SAFE ALTERNATIVES : MADE BY GAIA - CLICK HERE

Certified Organic Cosmetics, skin care, hair care, personal care, health and home care. Unrivalled quality, a product range that your skin will love you for! (International Supplier)



__END OF FILE__



PLEASE FORWARD THIS ON TO YOUR FREINDS, FAMILY AND LOVED ONES. TAKE ACTION WITH HOW YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY.

Synthetic, Toxic Chemical Based "Firming, Cellulite Reduction Gel" COST TO MANUFACTURE $0.23cents SHELF PRICE $87 And it poisons you too!!

In article <_vevb.59$GB2.2449@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>,
Organic Living <no@spam.net> wrote:
But it's the usual set of lies about propylene glycol, SLS and SLES.
Carefully worded to make them sound just awful. I could make water
sound awful if I were as inventive as these jerks. (Which I actually
am, but it's not worth the effort.)

Yep. And if you'll do, you'll discover that the anonymous poster
(don't you love spammers who use anti-spam precautions?) is lying
his or her ass off.

That's because cancer is primarily a disease of older people. In
1901, life expectancy at birth as 47.

That's why you're not supposed to swallow it, a precaution that anyone
over the age of 7 should be able to handle just fine.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Dear Mr Wright..

Or should I say.. Mr Wrong.. Firstly, we don't use an email address for
posting, because bots pick it up and add it to various mailing list. I
think everyone knows this. Secondly if you read the whole document you
would have found contact details. And thirdly.. Your OPINION is welcome but
it is just that an Opinion and an un-informed one at that.

Again your uniformed opinion. Peoples health is worth the effort to correct
your gibberish.

Not quite.. 1. Contact details were included. And these are NOT lies.
Unless Material Safety Data sheets Lie? These are industry records not our
own make believe.. This posted was posted to appropriate groups of interest.
So you don't see it as an important issue. Well many Including myself, do.
Again your misinformed opinion..

Statistical Rubbish. You believe anything you are fed. Go look into it
yourself. Like you say, anything can be presented in a negative fashion.
Just like these statistics often touted by the Pharma/Medico industry. The
statistical error comes from the fact that pre the Surgical Revolution over
the last 100 years There was a 1in7 chance of Infant Death at Birth and
another 1 in 7 chance of the Mother dying during birth. So we had 1 in 4.5
people dying at the average age of 10yr old. A huge statistical flaw when
making claims that We all get cancer now because were all getting older.
What rubbish. How many young men, women and children are dying of this
epidemic. Go do some real research, everyone knows the party line already..
Nothing new there. Although it keeps people from asking what the biggest
killer is in the western world?

Do you know the answer Mr Wright?

Just like cigarettes, every does of this crap puts load on your immune
system. Add that to every other piece of garbage you put into your body via
skin, air and mouth, and the chemical cocktail adds up.. many of these
chemicals stay in your system for weeks on end. Everyday you apply more and
more. And what about people with chemical sensitivities.. Your ignorance
and arrogance astounds me..

THE Proof is in the results people get when they make this life style
change. Argue all you want, Ill take my knowledge from Nature and the
results I see. Its clear you didn't even read the whole thing. The
fertility issue is extremely relevant and I have seen this method save a lot
of people pain and heart ache.

You like to you are "Almost Always correct.." geez gimme a break.. have a
nice life.. It will probably be a short one.

"Organic Living" <> wrote in message > Dear Mr Wright..
EXCUSE ME?

Posting a "warning" to *MOTHERS* on an **INFERTILITY** NG is
APPROPRIATE??

(shall I bother mention the netiquette breech of using rich text?)

*sigh*

Absolutely its relevant. The post contains some vital information that
people deserve to know about. Did you miss the part about infertility?
Obviously because others didn't.. Of course any having fertility problems
would like to know what these clinics are doing that are having a 80%
success rate with Infertility problems. Even with people who failed at IVF
and were written off as Totally Infertile by the standard treatment process.
Do we all have to share our personal traumas for our opinions to be treated
with respect? I should hope not.. How about a little pro-active information
exchange instead. I might suggest you actually read the post first.. I
don't mean to sound harsh but you raise the most mundane issues over such an
important one.

Little Giraffe <littlelittlegiraffe@hotHOTmail.com> wrote in message
news:HSkvb.447438$6C4.91616@pd7tw1no...

It is always interesting to read these assholes postings to the point of the first deception. One need not go far in this one....
"Organic Living" <no@spam.net> wrote in message news:_vevb.59$GB2.2449@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...

MOTHERS
PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN


WHAT You are about to READ may shock you. It may enrage you, you may wonder how is this possible? But..



I URGE YOU..

DO NOT JUST ACCEPT IT. Investigate it yourself!

DO NOT JUST IGNORE IT. For it won't go away!

DO NOT DISBELIEVE IT. Ignorance is a curse.



Find out the Truth!





BABY SHAMPOO and BUBBLE BATH contain a primary toxic ingredient Sodium Lauryl/Laureth Sulphate (SLS).



There are TWO chemicals menioned here: sodium lauryl sulphate and sodium laureth sulphate. They are NOT the same.



Source: TA:J Am Coll Toxicol Vol:2 5(1983) pp1-34


Abstract:

Sodium laureth sulfate and ammonium laureth sulfate are used in cosmetic products as cleansing agents, emulsifiers, stabilizers, and solubilizers. The ingredients have been shown to produce eye and/or skin irritation in experimental animals and in some human test subjects; irritation may occur in some users of cosmetic formulations containing the ingredients under consideration. The irritant effects are similar to those produced by other detergents, and the severity of the irritation appears to increase directly with concentration. However, sodium and ammonium laureth sulfate have not evoked adverse resonses in any other toxicological testing. On the basis of available information, the panel concludes that sodium laureth sulfate and ammonium laureth sulfate are safe as presently used in cosmetic products.

Source: TA:J Am Coll Toxicol Vol:2 7(1983) pp127-81


Abstract:

Sodium and ammonium lauryl sulfate are surfactants used in cosmetics as cleansing agents. In absorption, metabolism, and excretion studies, sodium lauryl sulfate had a degenerative effect on the cell membranes because of its protein denaturing properties. Low levels of skin penetration may occur at high use concentration. Sodium lauryl sulfate had an LD50 of 0.8 to 1.10 g/kg in rats. A formulation containing 15% ammonium lauryl sulfate caused depression, labored breathing, diarrhea, and death in four out of 20 animals. In acute ocular tests, 10% sodium lauryl sulfate caused corneal damage to the rabbits'eyes if not irrigated, or if irrigation was delayed. A Draize test of a product containing 5.1% sodium lauryl sulfate caused mild irritation, and products containing 21% detergent were severely irritating with no rinse, and mildly irritating when rinsed. Ammonium lauryl sulfate solutions containing 1.25%-27.4% detergent showed increasing irritation with increasing concentration; rinsing decreased irritation. Acute animal skin irritation studies of 0.5%-10% sodium lauryl sulfate caused slight to moderate irritation. Applications of 10%-30% detergent caused skin corrosion and severe irritation. Solutions of 2%, 10%, and 20% ammonium lauryl sulfate were highly irritating and dangerous. One percent and 5% sodium lauryl sulfate produced a significant number of comedones when applied to the pinna of albino rabbits. A chronic oral feeding study in rats of 0.25%, 0.5%, and 1.0% sodium lauryl sulfate in the diet for two years produced no abnormalities. A 91-day percutaneous toxicity study of a shampoo containing 17.5% ammonium lauryl sulfate had no treatment-related abnormalities except for moderate to severe dermal effects. In mutagenesis studies, rats fed 1.13% and 0.56% sodium lauryl sulfate in the diet for 90 days produced no more chromosomal aberrations or clastogenic effects than did a control diet. Sodium lauryl sulfate was tested for human skin irritation in concentrations ranging from 0.1% to 10%. Open patches were less irritating than closed patches, and irritation increased directly with concentration. Similar results were obtained when formulations containing sodium and ammonium lauryl sulfate were tested. No UV light sensitization occurred from any formulation in this latter study. Both sodium and ammonium lauryl sulfate appear to be safe in formulations designed for discontinuous, brief use followed by thorough rinsing from the surface of the skin. In products intended for prolonged contact with skin, concentrations should not exceed 1%.


Clearly, one is toxic, one is not. One is used in products, one is not. Read the labels and see for yourself.

IOW, this poster is a liar.

"Little Giraffe" <littlelittlegiraffe@hotHOTmail.com> wrote in message
news:HSkvb.447438$6C4.91616@pd7tw1no...
Thanks for pointing out the utter inseinsitivity of this liar/spammer.
Having gone through infertility problems three times with my wife, I know
the pain that this twits insensitivity and lust for money caused.

Unbelievable.. Ill respond to your second post regarding your little bit of
additional research. But let me just tell you this.. You will not know true
pain until the day you have your child then loose it because of the issues
presented here. I would realy, realy love to say what I want to say to you
right now but I wont lower myself to that level... You think you are the
only person who has experienced suffering in the world? I think I will put
your false impressions about me down to a true fact about people. You see
in others, what you are within yourself.

"Organic Living" <trsi@N0SPAMozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:yTpvb.369$GB2.10276@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Was that meant to be self-referential? Yes.

I see, so you wish pain on people. Why am I not surprised? Answer: Because
your ilk have polluted newsgroups for years.

You are directionally challenged. To cure that, buy a big ladder and raise
yourself up.

Now, clueless one, where did I say that? In fact, my post was clear that I
was understanding another persons pain because I have personally
experienced it. Do you eat a lot of red herring?

I think I will put
Wrong, sweetums. Again, you are being most self-referential.

Please visit:

www.getaclue.com for help.

Re: your barmicidal post..

The info you found below may sound ok to you.. But you might want to get your head around the fact that many products now have to lists ingredients in personal care items from highest content, to lowest content. Both these ingredients are found in a range of products. You will usually find SLS in the top 3. (Both forms are still widely used.. Like you say.. yes One is "clearly" MORE Toxic than the other.. Check next time your at the supermakret and see..) Secondly.. the chemicals are the same in the fact that one is prepared from the other.. Thirdly one of the biggest issues with these surfactants is a thing called synergy.. You can, if you feel so inclined look further into it. In respect of brevity that one paragraph was enough to prompt someone to investigate for themselves. I would not be recomending that anyone continue this lab study on their children. Especially new born babies.

And lastly.. you have to be severely intellectually challenged by taking chemistry research data that has more than a 20year Old Date! You should have thrown in the Chemical report that said chemicals cannot penetrate the skin while you were at it.. Or those the early J.A.M.A. Studies that said Smoking did not cause cancer? Or that Mercury in baby teething gels was safe!

You also might want to consider the ethics of companies that have "Not Tested On Animals" labels on products that contain these cocktails of toxic chemicals that were tested on animals too. But I am sure that wouldn't bother you.. But maybe others..

So please forgive me Mr Probertios for trying to help educate people about these issues as well as providing the same solution I use for myself and my family. Solutions that have been a major part of successful infertility treatment, that the J.AMA has not even given 1 column centimetre of space to promote. Wouldn't want to jeopardise all that money that pours into the industry from IVF treatment. Expensive isn't it! Who would have thought that going on an organic diet (Free from toxic pesticides and other nasties) coupled with detoxing your body and home would have better results than the leading fertility treatments. And for litteral pennies in comparison.

Hows the saying go..?

All truth passes through 3 stages..First it is ridiculed.. Then it is violently opposed, then it is accepted as if it was known all along..


Markiosi Probertios1 <MarkProbert23@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:6ypvb.7089$N43.1645430@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.ne t...
It is always interesting to read these assholes postings to the point of the first deception. One need not go far in this one....
"Organic Living" <no@spam.net> wrote in message news:_vevb.59$GB2.2449@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...

MOTHERS
PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN


WHAT You are about to READ may shock you. It may enrage you, you may wonder how is this possible? But..



I URGE YOU..

DO NOT JUST ACCEPT IT. Investigate it yourself!

DO NOT JUST IGNORE IT. For it won't go away!

DO NOT DISBELIEVE IT. Ignorance is a curse.



Find out the Truth!





BABY SHAMPOO and BUBBLE BATH contain a primary toxic ingredient Sodium Lauryl/Laureth Sulphate (SLS).



There are TWO chemicals menioned here: sodium lauryl sulphate and sodium laureth sulphate. They are NOT the same.



Source: TA:J Am Coll Toxicol Vol:2 5(1983) pp1-34


Abstract:

Sodium laureth sulfate and ammonium laureth sulfate are used in cosmetic products as cleansing agents, emulsifiers, stabilizers, and solubilizers. The ingredients have been shown to produce eye and/or skin irritation in experimental animals and in some human test subjects; irritation may occur in some users of cosmetic formulations containing the ingredients under consideration. The irritant effects are similar to those produced by other detergents, and the severity of the irritation appears to increase directly with concentration. However, sodium and ammonium laureth sulfate have not evoked adverse resonses in any other toxicological testing. On the basis of available information, the panel concludes that sodium laureth sulfate and ammonium laureth sulfate are safe as presently used in cosmetic products.

Source: TA:J Am Coll Toxicol Vol:2 7(1983) pp127-81


Abstract:

Sodium and ammonium lauryl sulfate are surfactants used in cosmetics as cleansing agents. In absorption, metabolism, and excretion studies, sodium lauryl sulfate had a degenerative effect on the cell membranes because of its protein denaturing properties. Low levels of skin penetration may occur at high use concentration. Sodium lauryl sulfate had an LD50 of 0.8 to 1.10 g/kg in rats. A formulation containing 15% ammonium lauryl sulfate caused depression, labored breathing, diarrhea, and death in four out of 20 animals. In acute ocular tests, 10% sodium lauryl sulfate caused corneal damage to the rabbits'eyes if not irrigated, or if irrigation was delayed. A Draize test of a product containing 5.1% sodium lauryl sulfate caused mild irritation, and products containing 21% detergent were severely irritating with no rinse, and mildly irritating when rinsed. Ammonium lauryl sulfate solutions containing 1.25%-27.4% detergent showed increasing irritation with increasing concentration; rinsing decreased irritation. Acute animal skin irritation studies of 0.5%-10% sodium lauryl sulfate caused slight to moderate irritation. Applications of 10%-30% detergent caused skin corrosion and severe irritation. Solutions of 2%, 10%, and 20% ammonium lauryl sulfate were highly irritating and dangerous. One percent and 5% sodium lauryl sulfate produced a significant number of comedones when applied to the pinna of albino rabbits. A chronic oral feeding study in rats of 0.25%, 0.5%, and 1.0% sodium lauryl sulfate in the diet for two years produced no abnormalities. A 91-day percutaneous toxicity study of a shampoo containing 17.5% ammonium lauryl sulfate had no treatment-related abnormalities except for moderate to severe dermal effects. In mutagenesis studies, rats fed 1.13% and 0.56% sodium lauryl sulfate in the diet for 90 days produced no more chromosomal aberrations or clastogenic effects than did a control diet. Sodium lauryl sulfate was tested for human skin irritation in concentrations ranging from 0.1% to 10%. Open patches were less irritating than closed patches, and irritation increased directly with concentration. Similar results were obtained when formulations containing sodium and ammonium lauryl sulfate were tested. No UV light sensitization occurred from any formulation in this latter study. Both sodium and ammonium lauryl sulfate appear to be safe in formulations designed for discontinuous, brief use followed by thorough rinsing from the surface of the skin. In products intended for prolonged contact with skin, concentrations should not exceed 1%.


Clearly, one is toxic, one is not. One is used in products, one is not. Read the labels and see for yourself.

IOW, this poster is a liar.

"Organic Living" <trsi@N0SPAMozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:7lqvb.372$GB2.9924@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Re: your barmicidal post..

The info you found below may sound ok to you.. But you might want to get your head around the fact that many products now have to lists ingredients in personal care items from highest content, to lowest content. Both these ingredients are found in a range of products. You will usually find SLS in the top 3. (Both forms are still widely used..

First, stop posting in HTML.

Second, prove that both are used, that the amount used is of a doseage which can be toxic.


Like you say.. yes One is "clearly" MORE Toxic than the other.. Check next time your at the supermakret and see..) Secondly.. the chemicals are the same in the fact that one is prepared from the other..

No, that is NOT true, as the studies I posted clearly show. they are NOT chemically the same. The only thing that is similar is the names, and, that is what lying spammers, like yourself, are relying on to shill for their lying companies.

What you are doing is propagating an urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/toxins/shampoo.htm


Thirdly one of the biggest issues with these surfactants is a thing called synergy.. You can, if you feel so inclined look further into it. In respect of brevity that one paragraph was enough to prompt someone to investigate for themselves. I would not be recomending that anyone continue this lab study on their children. Especially new born babies.

Talk about scaremongering.

And lastly.. you have to be severely intellectually challenged by taking chemistry research data that has more than a 20year Old Date! You should have thrown in the Chemical report that said chemicals cannot penetrate the skin while you were at it.. Or those the early J.A.M.A. Studies that said Smoking did not cause cancer? Or that Mercury in baby teething gels was safe!

Can you point out where it has changed? I took the data from the NIH ToxNET website. It is the premier source for toxicology information.

You also might want to consider the ethics of companies that have "Not Tested On Animals" labels on products that contain these cocktails of toxic chemicals that were tested on animals too. But I am sure that wouldn't bother you.. But maybe others..

G-d put animals on earth so man could use them.

So please forgive me Mr Probertios for trying to help educate people about these issues as well as providing the same solution I use for myself and my family.

I never forgive lying MLM scammers.

Solutions that have been a major part of successful infertility treatment, that the J.AMA has not even given 1 column centimetre of space to promote.

JAMA does not promote anything that does not past rigorous testing. Obviously, yours flunked.

Wouldn't want to jeopardise all that money that pours into the industry from IVF treatment. Expensive isn't it! Who would have thought that going on an organic diet (Free from toxic pesticides and other nasties) coupled with detoxing your body and home would have better results than the leading fertility treatments. And for litteral pennies in comparison.

Another detoxer! I just love you detoxers.

Hows the saying go..?

All truth passes through 3 stages..First it is ridiculed.. Then it is violently opposed, then it is accepted as if it was known all along..

I am sorry to see you at stage 1.

If I were you, I would be more worried about DiHydrogen Monoxide. It is a proven dangerous substance, and is found worldwide. The fact that it is all natural is no protectant. In fact, the discoverer of the danger of this chemical substance won a science fair!

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide:


a.. is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
b.. contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
c.. may cause severe burns.
d.. contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
e.. accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
f.. may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
g.. has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:


a.. as an industrial solvent and coolant.
b.. in nuclear power plants.
c.. in the production of styrofoam.
d.. as a fire retardant.
e.. in many forms of cruel animal research.
f.. in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
g.. as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

"Organic Living" <trsi@N0SPAMozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<Jjpvb.334$GB2.10090@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
Listen you idiot - I'm not going to be nice, since you don't seem to
GET IT.

QUIT CROSS-POSTING to the INFERTILITY NEWSGROUPS!

Addressing a bunch of INFERTILE women as "MOTHERS" is RUDE,
INCONSIDERATE and HURTFUL.

Not only is it against the FAQ, you are potentially harming women who
have deep emotional pain. Not that I expect you to care.

-L.

"Organic Living" <trsi@N0SPAMozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<Jjpvb.334$GB2.10090@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
Oh, and BTW, HERE are the FAQs -

http://www.fertilityplus.org/faq/infertility.html

Since you evidently cannot find them on your own...

-L.

"-L." <k3_e81@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7b085a.0311211031.7c3eab5a@posting.google.co m...
If she cannot find a clue, how can you expect that she can find anything?

I wish you all well in your group. We were lucky.

"Organic Living" <trsi@N0SPAMozemail.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:7lqvb.372$GB2.9924@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
Re: your barmicidal post..

in
the top 3. (Both
Secondly.. the
synergy.. You can,
would not be


You say "the chemicals are the same in the fact that one is prepared from
the other". Sodium dodecyl sulfate (this is a synonymous term to SLS, I'll
refer to SLES as SLES for clarity) is a different chemical from SLES. This
is a simple fact. You'll probably know that sodiumchloride is made from two
extremely toxic chemicals, sodium (Na) and chlorine (Cl2). However, the fact
that these two chemicals combine to form NaCl changes its properties
dramatically. So, even if SDS and SLES are made from eachother, which I
actually doubt, it tells you nothing about the properties of the resulting
compound.



--

Robert Bronsing

But that's okay, see the children bleed
It'll look great on the TV

Maybe since I am such an Idiot you would like to point how the post
violated any of the rules presented in the FAQ.. I repeat, this is of
relevance to people suffering infertility problems. If certain people choose
to be offended by it then so be it. I can not determine how this
information will effect everyone. People react differently. What you see
as rude doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of others. I see you as
extremely rude and judgemental.. You might be a nice person face to face..
We can't all present information in the method most pleasing to every
person.

This post violates none of the FAQ guidelines.. In fact it meets them in
presenting a valid issue.. Including the topic..
-Discussion on low-tech methods of improving the odds of pregnancy.
-Alternative medical methods (acupuncture, herbs, visualization . . .)

You think I would bother trying to correct your arrogant stand, and defend
your abuse for what? What don't YOU GET?

Every person on this group has a common Goal. TO BECOME A MOTHER OR A
FATHER! This issue effects all of us.. I am sorry you are such an arse
about it. If I changed the Topic Header would it change the content?

-L. <k3_e81@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7b085a.0311211028.76e05f4b@posting.google.co m...

Whats wrong with HTML? Even you use it below.. It makes things more readable, and there is no difference in size to a small web page. Few Newsgroups even forbid its use now. This is a legacy concept back in the early days of the Web when many News browsers only supported text. Are you still using a Old DOS/Aplle IIE System along with your 20 Year Old Chem Research?

I don't need to prove anything. You can prove it for yourself. Like I said Go the supermarket. And Look on the back of the Shampoo Bottle and Baby Shampoos.. See for yourself.. Is that enough proof?


Like you say.. yes One is "clearly" MORE Toxic than the other.. Check next time your at the supermakret and see..) Secondly.. the chemicals are the same in the fact that one is prepared from the other..

Of course they are Not chemically the same, or they would be the same chemical. They have similar effects and are closely related. Thus they were combined into the one group. I meant "They are the same in the fact that one is prepared from the other.." Just a different process is used. Which creates two different compounds i.e. two different chemicals, thus two different chemical names.. This relationship is WHY they have the similar effects and molecular structure.

An urban legend for some, a true fact for others.. Like I said, this information is part of fertility treatment that gets better results than IVF.. But you don't seem the least bit interested in that..

Thirdly one of the biggest issues with these surfactants is a thing called synergy.. You can, if you feel so inclined look further into it. In respect of brevity that one paragraph was enough to prompt someone to investigate for themselves. I would not be recomending that anyone continue this lab study on their children. Especially new born babies.

Yes be afraid. Fear is a natural emotion designed to keep us from harm.

And lastly.. you have to be severely intellectually challenged by taking chemistry research data that has more than a 20year Old Date! You should have thrown in the Chemical report that said chemicals cannot penetrate the skin while you were at it.. Or those the early J.A.M.A. Studies that said Smoking did not cause cancer? Or that Mercury in baby teething gels was safe!

Premier source by who's standards? 20 year old Chemical research data is far from premier.

You also might want to consider the ethics of companies that have "Not Tested On Animals" labels on products that contain these cocktails of toxic chemicals that were tested on animals too. But I am sure that wouldn't bother you.. But maybe others..

I didn't think this would bother you.. There is a difference between "USE" and "Dominion Over".. A Big difference.. We have choice in our relationship with Nature. Some people choose to USE and ABUSE it.. Other prefer to work with it and cherish it. I see where you fit in.

So please forgive me Mr Probertios for trying to help educate people about these issues as well as providing the same solution I use for myself and my family.

yeh whatever.. I think someone also said "Forgive and you will be forgiven.." So I forgive you for your arorgance and ignorance. Its just a shame Ignorance isn't painful.

Solutions that have been a major part of successful infertility treatment, that the J.AMA has not even given 1 column centimetre of space to promote.

Not quite.. You have no clue..

Wouldn't want to jeopardise all that money that pours into the industry from IVF treatment. Expensive isn't it! Who would have thought that going on an organic diet (Free from toxic pesticides and other nasties) coupled with detoxing your body and home would have better results than the leading fertility treatments. And for litteral pennies in comparison.

Hows the saying go..?

All truth passes through 3 stages..First it is ridiculed.. Then it is violently opposed, then it is accepted as if it was known all along..

Yes shows you know nothing about medical/pharma politics or what is going on right now in the world, to violent opposition occuring against alternate health and the Pharma Monopolies trying desperately to reclaim back the 60% market share they have lost over the last decade to Alt treatments that actualy get results. This 60% market share has been distributed to many more small businesses and individul practitioners rather than a select few corporate giants who worship the bottom dollar, for more so than they are interested in your health and well being.

Crawl back under your bridge troll, your a tool and am I not even going to bother with any further communication.. You have no real interest what soever in the issues presented.. For someone who claims to have been effected by them, you seem remarkably intolerant of anothers point of view who is also speaking from personal experience.


You are a total fool. Maybe we could be so lucky and you would believe the crap below.. Maybe you should do the world a favour and stop taking/using "Dihydrogen monoxide" yourself. Then we could all happily bury you in 3 days time.

"He was a Man of Pride and Arrogance.."
"Stubborn and Unrelenting.."
"Rude and obnoxious.."
"Supported animal cruelty for the benefit of his ilk.."
"But at least he died practicing what he preached.."
"Everyone has a good point.. He actually believed his own garbage.."
"May He RIP.."

--- OMG MORE HTML Above and Below.. Run for the hills.. ---

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide:


a.. is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
b.. contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
c.. may cause severe burns.
d.. contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
e.. accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
f.. may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
g.. has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:


a.. as an industrial solvent and coolant.
b.. in nuclear power plants.
c.. in the production of styrofoam.
d.. as a fire retardant.
e.. in many forms of cruel animal research.
f.. in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
g.. as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

"Markiosi Probertios1" <MarkProbert23@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:<pUqvb.7431$N43.1926875@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et>...
No, not even that. Lauryl sulfate is prepared by
sulfonating/sulfating lauryl alcohol.

Lauryl ether sulfate (laureth sulfate) is prepared by sulfating lauryl
oligo(ethyl ether) alcohol.

What is true is that lauryl oligo(ethyl ether) alcohol is prepared by
ethoxylating lauryl alcohol.

However, the biochemical activity of even sodium lauryl sulfate (known
to biochemists as SDS, sodium dodecyl sulfate) could not be too great,
because it is used in many biochemical experiments, and if it had
profound effects in low conentrations, the results would be invalid.

Typically SDS is used at high concentration as a denaturant in
biochemical systems. If further work is to be done with the materials
in a native state, the SDS is dialyzed away. However, scientists are
not too concerned about trace amounts of SDS that may remain, as long
as the concentrations are low enough not to affect the biologic system
being studied.

BTW, I have a patent on a bubble bath formula whose preferred versions
use neither SLS (SDS) nor SLES. But it's not because of ridiculous
claims of toxicity that I left them out!

You may read more at http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.html

BTW, I didn't test on animals because it wouldn't've done me any good.
However, I have in the past used animals in research where
appropriate.

But at least now you know how I can write authoritatively on this
subject.

Robert

sodium laureth sulfate also known as soap.

kills marine organisms true
kills germs also

no safety guidelines
why, because it is non-toxic.

hyperbole and exaggeration.

j

organic living is preternaturally paranoid.

"Say not the Struggle nought Availeth" <> wrote in message
Yah, so they can SELL more products!